|
Bad Apple Bullies
|
Senior officers of the Queensland Department of Education seem to open Discipline Files on teachers who make complaints about workplace bullying.
And the Queensland Teachers' Union (QTU) seem to know that this is "going on" -
A retired teacher describes her own experience -
In June 22 2005 I attended the Queensland Teacher's Union (QTU) Annual General Meeting in Brisbane.
I spoke to a QTU Officer about the workplace bullying that I had experienced.
The QTU officer suddenly turned to me, as if she was exasperated, and said in a very unpleasant and "meaningful" manner, something to the effect of,
"Did you ever consider that she might have made a complaint about you? Did you ever consider that?"
(I identified this officer in my letter to John Battams dated 21 February, 2007)
I can only presume that this QTU officer made this comment to me because she knew for a fact that I had been "paid back" for making a Stage 2 Grievance about the systemic abuse of the Diminished Workplace Performance Policy (now called the Managing Unsatisfactory Performance Policy) and the Grievance Policy to bully and abuse Queensland teachers.
How did this QTU officer know that acting principal G.R. had "paid me back" for making a Stage 2 Grievance?
Acting school principal G.R. had threatened me five times during a meeting on 5 February 2001.
This was a meeting to discuss (the usual) principal E.L.'s Stage 1 Grievance investigation report.
G.R. threatened five times during this meeting to "take action" against me if I continued to complain.
I presumed at the time that G.R. meant that this action would be taken if I made a Stage 2 Grievance.
So I was afraid to make a Stage 2 Grievance about the bullying for several months.
But on 31 August 2001 I made a Stage 2 Grievance to the Director-General that there was systemic abuse of the Queensland Department of Education Dimininished Workplace Performance Policy and Grievance Policy to bully and intimidate Queensland teachers.
I believe that this Stage 2 Grievance was a Public Interest Disclosure.
This might explain why all but three pages of my grievance were immediately "lost" by Queensland Department of Education Head Office staff -
31 August 2001
I mailed a 2 page letter and 27 page complaint, together with a History of the Situation and several support documents.
19 October 2001 - only six weeks later -
all of this documentation had been falsified down to 3 pages - my two page letter to the Director-General and the first page of my Stage 2 Grievance.
Ref: FOI 2421 C 197 Fax Message from Peter Milton to District Office Employee G.N. dated 19 October 2001 -
Hi (G.N.),
Letters attached are what Michelle obtained from Legal and Exec Services.
There was a blue folder of documents which has gone missing & may need to be re submitted if possible. I can explain this mix up if you give me a call. Regards
Peter.
Peter Milton faxed a total of 14 documents, only three of which seem to have been written by me.
6 November 2001 - three weeks later -
Two Department of Education Head Office Discipline Files seem to have been secretly opened on me - presumably to "pay me back" for complaining about the systemic abuse of the Diminished Workplace Performance Program -
Documents 1-5
Document 2733 S 1 is a cover sheet.
It contains a copy of 2469 File M.
Application 2469
(My Name)
File M
Human Resource Services Branch
But this 2733 file is not exactly the same as the 2469 File M.
Document 2733 S 2 is a Discipline file cover sheet.
The fact that 2469 File M was a discipline file was concealed from me on July 12 2004, when the 2469 File M documents were first released to me.
Beside the numbers is written:
TJ 250/10(67)
Human Resource Management
Discipline
(My name)
Op 6/11/01
The Discipline file seems to have been opened eight days after I contacted Katherine Mahoney, the Education Queensland CJC (this was what the CMC was called at that time) Liaison Officer.
C/& Arch 17/4/02
And the file seems to have been closed on 17 April 2002.
Inside this Discipline file there are only three documents -
Document 2733 Document S 3
is a true copy of my 29 October 2001 letter (to the investigator appointed by an officer in the District Office to investigate my 31 August 2001 stage 2 grievance to the Director-General).
Document 2733 Document S 4-5
is a true copy of my 29 October 2001 letter to Katherine Mahoney, confirming that I had requested that all documentation relating to my grievance to be handed to her.
I explained that I had tried to contact her on the morning of 13 December 2000 but that there had been no response to my email.
And that I had been repeatedly threatened that "action would be taken against me" if I continued to complain, and so I was too afraid to try to contact her again.
I had asked the investigator appointed by the District Office if my grievance was a Public Interest Disclosure.
He told me that most of my documents had been lost, so he was unable to express an opinion.
In the circumstances I felt that it would be best to ask for all of the documents to be located and handed to you so that I can seek your advice on whether this is a Public Interest Disclosure.
Eight days after I wrote to Katherine Mahoney, the Department of Education Administrative Law Services Branch seem to have opened a Discipline file on me.
This Discipline file seems to have been concealed from the Queensland Department of Education "Internal Reviewer" because he demonstrated no knowledge of the contents of my letters.
But
28 February 2003 I flew to Brisbane to try to raise awareness of the fact that something very odd was "going on" at the District Office.
I had been twice assured on July 9 2002 - the day that I retired - that the bullying was under control.
I had accepted these assurances.
But it now appeared that the bully had actually been promoted a few days later.
I made an appointment to speak with John Ryan, Director of Human Resources, Queensland Department of Education.
I was so stressed by the situation that the nerves on the right side of my face were twitching uncontrollably.
I had to hold the right side of my face still so that I could speak to John Ryan.
I asked him how the bully could possibly have been promoted just days after I had been given assurances that the bullying was under control?
Who could have given the bully a reference?
During our conversation John Ryan told me that, if ever I applied for work with the Queensland Department of Education again, there would be a note on my file at the District Office, directing them to contact the Department of Education Head Office, because there was a file on me at Head Office.
I now presume that John Ryan was referring to the Discipline files described here.
I knew that, by telling me this, John Ryan intended to kindly reassure me that there was nothing detrimental to me on my file in the District Office.
But I was astonished.
I had complained about the systemic abuse of the Diminished Workplace Performance Process and the Grievance Process to abuse Queensland teachers.
The District Director had personally assured me - twice - that the bullying was under control.
But the bully had actually been promoted a couple of days later.
And file was being kept on me at Education Queensland Head Office!
And if ever I applied to work with Education Queensland again, the staff of the District Office would be alerted to contact Head Office!
I could make no sense of the situation.
The existence of this Discipline File on me was concealed from me till after 27 October 2005.
This was ten days after Ken Smith, the Director-General, had written to me to advise me that-
The Department has commissioned a private company called Verifact Commercial Investigation to investigate your claims of falsified records being placed on you (sic) file.
I have never been provided with any documentation that explains either the decision to open or the decision to close this Discipline file on me.
Surely decisions of this nature must be documented?
If you complain about workplace bullying, you will be assured that the bullying is under control.
But a few days later the bully will be promoted.
And if you ask the Department of Education CMC Liaison Offficer for her advice on the situation, a discipline file may be secretly opened on you - not on the bully, on you.
TRIM Corporate File 620/2/17
This seems to be another Discipline File that was secretly opened on me.
This is the file described by Kathleen Isles in an email to Pia Higson sent on Thursday 11 November 2004 11:09 AM.
Hey Pia,
there are items relating to Ms - - - - - - on the file 620/2/17 which is a TRIM corporate file ( buff coloured) in the compactus in the section with the disciplinary files closest to the photocopier.
The file is labelled. :)
Kat
This email from Pia to Kat is FOI 2606 File D Human Resource Services Branch Document 17 (number at top right hand corner).
And FOI 2733 File W Administrative Law Services Branch Document 2 (number at bottom of page).
I presume that the 16 documents attached to this email were in this file.
As the file is with the disciplinary files , I presume that 620/2/17 is also a disciplinary file.
But the cover of the file is missing, so there is no information concerning the date that this disciplinary file was opened and the date that this disciplinary file was closed.
Nor any documentation of the process by which the decision was made to open / close this Disciplinary file on me.
I have organised the documents in this file in time-order to try to understand why this Discipline File was opened on me -
25 June 2002 - Documents 4-9
16 June 2002 11:52 AM I had emailed PMR.Feedback@qed.gov.au
I asked what was the "due procedure" for putting somebody on the DWP.
On 21 June 2002 10:07 AM Peter Milton responded.
He copied the email to Phillip Whitehouse.
Peter Milton passed my email on to Russell Egan.
Russell had written the new Managing Unsatisfactory Performance Policy, the process that would replace the DWP.
I asked Russell if I could read the policy.
He emailed a copy of the policy to me.
Documents 4-9 were my response to the policy.
July 1 2002 - Document 10
Russell Egan's response to my response to his new MUP policy.
This may be a generic letter because
Russell Egan's letter seems to be unrelated to my comments on the new MUP policy.
January 1 2003 - Documents 12-14
My January 1 2003 letter to Anna Bligh asking her what was "going on".
I had been assured by the Disrict Director that the bullying was under control - but the bully seems to have been promoted a couple of days later!
February 13 2003 - Documents 15-16
Ken Smith's letter to me dated 13/02/2003.
Yes, the bully had been promoted.
December 1 2003 - Documents 1-2
My 1st December 2003 disclosure to John Ryan -
Mr Ryan, there was a conflict of interest in the (name) District office.
My Grievance should never have been handled by that office.
I have made a full disclosure of this situation to the Ombudsman and the CMC.
I urged Mr Ryan to ring District Office employees C.H.R. and G. N. that day.
They would be able to confirm that what I was saying was true.
December 17 2003 - Document 3
Document 3 is a letter from John Ryan to me.
It is undated but response posted 12/12/03 is written by hand at the bottom.
I received the letter on 17 December 2003.
Mr Ryan stated that I had previously been advised by Mr Murray Watt, Senior Policy Advisor to the Minister and Ms Jenny Cranston, Deputy Director-General, Office of State Schooling, that the matter was closed.
He considered the matter closed.
No further correspondence would be entered into.
December 18 2003 - Document 11
My email to Ken Smith dated 18 December 2003 9:26 PM.
The email was copied to Keith Hynes, Director of Ethical Conduct, EXECLEGL, Correspondence and HUMANRES, Human Resources.
In this letter I clearly described the conflict of interest in the District office.
It would be really good if you were able to deal with this yourselves.
Please ring the (name) District office TODAY and advise (name of District Director), District Office Employee C.H.R. and District office Employee G.N. on how to deal with this ethical situation.
At the bottom of this email somebody has written by hand To Kathleen Isles NRR (I presume NRR means "no recommended response")
and this handwritten note is signed J?
Let's deal with the bad apples!
