 | CPSU had failed to acknowledge that the letter was an official union
publication. Mr. Mufatti was present at the hearing and could have given
evidence.(This supports the
proposition that the CPSU was covertly sabotaging the defence)
"He did not do so and the board was not surprised, given the content of
the newsletter, its inaccuracy and the emotive and inflammatory language
used."(This was a unanimous
statement including the CPSU nominee) (These 3 allegations are made
constantly but there is not one example given and in fact there were none)
(it would appear that literary style was to be an element and used to
suppress free speech0 |
| "The newsletter was in conflict with the agreement that the unions
and Telstra would put aside their hostilities and consult."
( The Lorne Agreement was not intended to suppress free speech. The word
"consult" was open to conflicting interpretation, and considered
by many as a weasel word as there was no mention of outcomes ) |
| Indeed much of the content was expressed in such a manner that it would
be difficult to see how it could be said to be printed in order to promote
the views and interests of the CPSU" (That
a Telstra manager should presume to make such a judgment on behalf of the
CPSU is curious, but the shocker was the CPSU representative ) |
| The board was satisfied the appellant was not directed to cease
publication of the newsletter because of his position as a CPSU delegate |
| The appellant used the newsletter to express his personal views in
respect to the management. Often in conflict with his duties as an
employee.(Not one example given)
The material was often inaccurate and misleading. The direction
given was reasonable |
| Notwithstanding the direction to cease distribution of the newsletter in
the workplace he continued to distribute in the workplace. He handed it
out at union meetings and to members of staff who requested it.(That
a Union representative should join with management in such a statement,
which accepts a position where a londlord or an employer should be able to
control what is communicated in a union meeting is incredible. The CPSU rep
would have difficulty claiming naiveté as she was a candidate for a higher
degree in Industrial Relations at a University) It was
distributed by MV on Telstra premises |
| The board was satisfied MV willfully disobeyed the direction. MV was an
intelligent and experienced worker who desired to publish and distribute
his newsletter. The board was satisfied that MV was determined to
distribute the newsletter to his members and other members of staff who
asked for it. (And this is
considered a crime?} He even criticized the management’s attempt to stop the
distribution in the workplace Newsletter 27 |
Charge 4
The board found charge 4 proven
 | The board was satisfied that MV had influenced the views of other
employees (That anyone should make
such a statement as if it were a crime would be remarkable in other than
a dictatorship of fascist state. In any normal society we all influence
others, regardless of relative age) and that he was aware of his capacity to do so. MV acknowledged
that he influenced some of the younger employees and that he was an educator (It
is a crime to be an educator? ) |
| The issues dealt with by MV concerned political and private matters and
preferences. The matters were not always dealt with accurately and often the
language used was emotive and inflammatory (how
would the Board define political, private and inflammatory ?) (The Board ignored
completely the question of implied constitutional rights) |
| The newsletter was designed to influence the private views held by
employees in respect of the CEO and Management (a
legitimate function of any unionist, and views which had been endorsed in mass
meetings. This action is protected under the Industrial Relations and The
Workplace Relations Acts ) and designed to undermine
trust and faith in the management
(Mass meetings had called for open inquiries into the management) |
| The Newsletter was not a Union publication The distribution of such
material was not in the interests of employees, especially those easily
influenced and upset by MV The content exceeded what was acceptable and fair
criticism of Telstra by an employee |
| By distributing the newsletter MV created a conflict of interest. In
addition MV used the newsletter to influence private and political views
held by other employees and attempted to do so by publishing inaccurate
(NO inaccuracy was or has since been demonstrated) articles
and using inflammatory and emotive language. In these circumstances MV
breached Telstra’s Code of Conduct ( the Code was never signed or agreed to
by me, though it was signed by all managers) when he distributed the Newsletter |
Charge 5
Having considered all of the evidence presented the board found charge 5 not
proven. The board was not satisfied the content of the newsletter "incited
fear and insecurity"
The content may well have contributed to the fear and insecurity suffered by Ms
Muldoon
( she had been pressured by
management to the extent that she had left the stand crying, the pressuring was
heard by others in the anteroom) and Ms Watson and certainly influenced the personal views held by Ms
Muldoon, Ms Watson and Ms Acreman. The evidence fell short.
Penalty
The decision to dismiss should be confirmed. The misconduct was extremely
serious and by its nature called for MV’s dismissal.
To require Telstra to retain MV would be unreasonable and inappropriate.
( Clearly the AIRC disagreed) MV
wilfully breached a lawful direction and displayed an absolute disregard for the
interests of his employer.
| MV improperly and inappropriately attempted to manipulate the
private views held by employees by inaccurately reporting matters and using
emotive language designed to undermine the management of Telstra. MV failed
to consider the interests of employees such as Ms Muldoon & Ms Watson
both of whom suffered emotionally as a result of the content of the
Newsletter |
| In addition MV created a conflict of interest by improperly criticizing
his employer in a manner designed to undermine staff faith and trust in
Management. His criticism went well beyond what could be considered to be
fair and proper criticism of an employer by an employee |
Conclusion
For the reasons stated the unanimous decision of the board was as
follows
Charge 5 is found not proven
Charge 1 and Charge 4 found proven
The decision to dismiss the Appellant is confirmed
Over the signatures of J.A Bretherton, B.McLeod and CPSU Nominee R. Barton
It should be noted that there was a
remarkable change in the attitude of the Chair. At a late stage in the hearings
the Chair called in the lawyers and indicated that in her opinion there should
be an agreement.
Such an agreement was reached by the
lawyers. The agreement was that MV would be reinstated and work in another
centre which was much closer to his residence.
High level Telstra management then
reneged on the agreement.
In view of this the judgment raises
many further questions.
On the 28th August MV wrote to Robertt Holland suggesting that he
review his decision and requesting reconsideration in order to remove the need
to take further action, without result
