Bad Apple Bullies
Tips For Queensland teachers: How to deal with workplace bullies.

2421 File C document 82: scribbled notes.

These notes are on a loose scrap of paper between the History of the Situation and the last nineteen pages of my grievance.

The notes are difficult to read, but they seem to say:

1. get back to her - what does she really want and what are her expected outcomes?

Process?

People?

2. Systemic approach - good and bad things about DWP process.

3.Investigating cl ... - role of school ops??

awareness

expectations of ADG (School ops)

4. District Performanc measurement officers.

5. District level

6. Statement re ... of DWP - ... complaint.

7. Senior officers and union people - what are problems with DWP.

8. Ch protects right of ees.

9. Hold Principal and DOS accountable for Grievances - people must get natural justice.

These scribbled notes suggest that somebody senior to the District Office, possibly someone in the Human Resource Services Branch, did, in fact, investigate my grievance and begin to write a response.

Could this be the investigation by John Ryan, Katrina Jefferson and Kathryn Mahoney described by the CMC in their letter to me dated 3 September 2003?

These scribbled notes suggest that a senior departmental officer has known for several years that I was not given Natural Justice.

And that he or she began to plan how to deal with the situation.

But for some reason this officer then did nothing. He simply allowed the systemic abuse to continue to the present day.

2421 File C documents 63-81

My 31 August 2001 stage 1 grievance to the Director-General has been falsified again in that this is only the last 18 pages of my grievance.

Logic suggests that the first half of this document was left at the Human Resource Services Branch ( FOI 2421 B documents 6-15).

This seems to have been merely a careless error, but, once again, were decisions concerning me based on this truncated version of my stage 2 grievance?

• By the time that you do find out that this is what is "going on", the Premier and senior Queensland public servants may have signed an agreement that nobody is going to (read or) respond to your letters telling them that your grievance has been falsified and a mass of falsified "records" have been secretly placed in your Departmental files.

2421 File C document 35

This is the first page of my 20 November 2000 letter to the Behaviour Management Committee at (my) State School.

Acting principal G.R. had advised me to discuss the problem of the roaming groups of unsupervised Grade 7 children at a staff meeting.

She had put it on the agenda for the 10 November 2000 staff meeting.

She had moved it to the top of the agenda.

But she spoke before me.

She announced to the staff that "there was a person on the staff who is humiliating children".

She talked at length about this "person".

The next day another teacher warned me, "You know that person she was talking about, the one who's been humiliating children? That's you! Apparently you told (student) S - - - -  to put her nose against the wall!".

I was astounded.

I kept saying, "I didn't do it! It can't be true!"

I had never known any school principal to behave in such an irrational and unprofessional manner towards a teacher.

I rang acting principal G.R. She confirmed that I was "the person" that she had been talking about to the staff.

The shock of G.R.'s seemingly irrational, and deeply unprofessional behaviour behaviour made me ill.

I presumed that student S. must have lied to G. R.

And that G.R. had impulsively made her announcement to the staff concerning me without bothering to check the facts.

This was not the first time that G.R. had behaved in a seemingly irrational, impulsive and aggressive manner towards me.

I was very afraid of what G.R. might do next. She seemed to be capable of anything.

I became very ill.

I was continually crying. I felt "jittery" and unable to think clearly.

I was afraid that I might really do something wrong if I went to work, because I could not think properly.

My heart was thumping and banging. I had pains on both sides of my heart.

I had a loud roaring sound in my right ear (tinnitus).

I was on sick leave for the next week.

The local QTU officer was not available so on Monday 13 November 2000 I rang Lesley McFarlane at the QTU office in Brisbane.

I told her that when teachers followed the School Behaviour Management Program and filled in "Yellow Slips" (after giving students three warnings for poor behaviour) and sent the children to the acting principal or the acting deputy, the children were being being allowed to complain about the teacher.

The children's complaints / lies were simply accepted as fact.

So teachers who followed the school behaviour management program were being defamed, and the children were "getting away with" poor behaviour.

I told Lesley that I had tried repeatedly to discuss this problem with the acting principal and the acting deputy, with no success.

Lesley suggested that I write a memo to the Behaviour Management Committee at the school and ask them to convene a meeting of the Committee at which I could discuss my concerns about the Behaviour Management Program at the school.

I also discussed with Lesley my concern that acting principal G.R. might be collecting defamatory statements concerning me from the children.

That G.R. might, in fact, be encouraging the children to make such statements.

Lesley told me that a file of this type on me should not exist.

As soon as I arrived at school on Monday 20 November 2000 I put  2421 File C document 35 (a copy of my letter to the School Behaviour Management Committee) on acting principal G.R. and acting deputy principal A.L.'s desks.

I also put a copy in the lockers of Grade 7 teacher E.R. and one other teacher who was on the School Behaviour Management Committee.

2421 File C document 35 has been falsified in the sense that only the first page of my letter to the School Behaviour Management Committee has been recorded.

I accept that this may simply be a careless error.

The missing page reads -

'The situation was not discussed with me. I could have clarified the situation in a moment.

Instead an announcement was made to the staff and a rumor was started.

In my opinion the manner in which "yellow slips" are processed teachers children to manipulate the truth in order to mislead the administration and to avoid the proper consequences of their behaviour.

They learn that telling lies is a fun activity and very smart.'

I had followed the School Behaviour Management Program and sent children to the office for poor behaviour and then watched the children walking proudly back to their class again, calling out to their friends, "Nothing much!" and laughing.

'I believe that children who lie their way out of the consequences of disruptive behaviour are regarded by their peers as heroes and role models.

I believe that the system teaches them that they can tell lies with impunity because the teachers have no way of finding out.

In my opinion this situation has serious long term implications for both individual teachers and for the Education Department.'

The Staff Welfare officer had advised me to make this point.

'I am fortunate that I have found out about this particular misunderstanding at a time when it will be reasonably easy to demonstrate that I am telling the truth.

It would have been a great deal harder in five year' time.

The children would hear the story repeated and would very soon agree that it was true.

Even twelve-year-old children rapidly believe in the truth of a lie, once it has been told by one of their friends.

The teachers would have heard the rumour and would suppose it to be true.

The principal would believe it to be true.

Who would believe that it had never actually happened?'

I had been able to disprove this first allegation but -

• When you disprove the first allegation, new allegations are made against you.

• To prevent you from disproving these allegations as well, these new allegations may be called "secret".

• They may be hidden from you so that you cannot respond.

• These new "secret" allegations may be concealed from you for more than seven years.

• The Education Queensland allegation process does not allow you to prove yourself innocent.

• You cannot really call the process an investigation process because Education Queensland senior officers are so reluctant to investigate anything.

"Further Points -

1. I am not alone in my concerns about the behaviour of this child.

Other specialists have asked for support in the management of the behaviour of the Grade 7 classes and this child in particular.

One other specialist described at the last meeting how she felt, after taking the grade 7 classes, like going home, getting into bed and pulling the covers over her head.

2. The "Buddy System" in which a teacher sends children who repeatedly misbehave to another class, does not work very well for the LOTE (specialist) teacher.

By the time that you have been through the process of giving three warnings, the thirty minutes that you have for the LOTE lesson are almost over and the class has been really disrupted.

There seems to be little point in sending a child to another teacher for five minutes.

The "Buddy Teacher" is often on non-contact time.

You cannot be sure that the child will go where he / she has been told to go.

At the end of the lesson you have to go and collect the child and retiren them to their class.

This takes time."

(And there was no time betwen lessons because the next teacher was waiting for you to arrive at his or her classroom.)

• If you ask a QTU officer or the staff welfare officer how to deal with the seemingly irrational behaviour of your school principal, they will both advise you to request a mediated meeting to try to resolve the situation. 

• If you follow this advice and ask for a mediated meeting to try to resolve the situation, the irrational administrator may "pay you back" for asking for mediation.

• A administrator may respond to your request for a mediated meeting by refusing to attend a mediated meeting - but demand that you attend a meeting for the purpose of putting you on Managing Unsatisfatory Performance.

and

• The "official record" of the documentary evidence to support your complaint may be falsified if the second page of a document is not recorded.

• You may not find out for several years that this is what has happened.

• Careless errors of this nature significantly disadvantage you in making your complaint.

2421 File C document 34

This is a true copy of school administrator G.R.'s letter to me dated Monday 20 November 2000.

It was put in my mailbox after morning tea on Tuesday 21 November 2000.

But it is a falsified record of what was "going on".

In this letter G.R. refuses to meet me for a mediated meeting.

She seems to "pay me back" for asking for this meeting by changing the mediated meeting into one to discuss her sudden concerns about my difficulty with behaviour management.

G.R. makes no mention of my request to her on November 3 2000 for support in saying that too many groups of children were being allowed to roam unsupervised about the school during my specialist lessons.

Or of her own suggestion that I discuss the situation with the teachers at a staff meeting.

Or that she put the topic on the agenda for discussion at the November 10 2000 staff meeting.

Or that she later moved it to the top of the agenda.

Or that she met the Grade 7 teachers without me before the staff meeting and agreed to allow groups of children to continue to be taken out of my lessons.

And agreed that the Grade 7 teachers would not attend the staff meeting.

And G.R. does not mention the long, long speech that she made at the staff meeting about "the person" on the staff who was humiliating children.

Or that at least one other teacher at that staff meeting knew that "the person" she was talking about was me.

Or that the shock of her own seemingly irrational and unprofessional behaviour had made me very, very ill.

I have never been so ill in my life before or since.

I was in no condition to go to work for the next week.

G.R. does not mention in her letter to me that I could claim WorkCover for the week that I was ill.

G.R. does not mention in her letter the fact that, as soon as I arrived back at school from sick leave on Monday 20 November, I had asked the school QTU rep. if she would attend a mediated meeting with G.R.

And that the school QTU rep had offered to go to G.R. and make the arrangements for the mediated meeting.

All of this has been edited out of G.R.'s letter.

G.R.’s letter to me demonstrates her refusal to allow me to meet the school Behaviour Management Committee.

G.R. states -

'I understand that you are currently feeling unwell ...'

But G.R. does not make clear that it was the shock of her own irrational and unprofessional behaviour that had made me sick.

In her letter to me, G.R. refuses to allow me to meet the School Behaviour Management Committee.

I had asked Lesley McFarlane of the QTU, the Staff Welfare Officer and two Specialist Advisory Teachers how to deal with G.R's seemingly irrational and unprofessional behaviour.

They had advised me to ask for a meeting of the School Behaviour Management Committee to discuss the management of behaviour problems at the school.

And to ask the school QTU representative to organise a mediated meeting with G.R. to discuss the breakdown of our professional relationship.

In this letter G.R. makes no mention of the allegations made against me in the "notes to L---- from D-----" that she claims, in document 2421 F 40, triggered her attack on me at the staff meeting.

In this letter G.R. makes three new allegations -

'... slamming the phone in my ear ...'

On Saturday 11 November 2000 a fellow teacher warned me that I should be very careful and document everything because "She's got it in for you!".

I asked my friend what she meant.

My friend told me, "You know that person that she was talking about, the one who's been humiliating children? That's you! Apparently you told S---- to put her nose to the wall!"

Apparently G.R. had said that she was going to put me on Diminished Workplace performance "if it continued".

I was astounded. I kept repeating, "I didn't do it! It can't be true!"

I rang G.R. at school.

I said that I had just had a very disturbing phone call from a friend who said that I was the person that G.R. had been talking to the staff about. Was it true?

G.R. said that it was.

I said, "And you did it because you believe that I told S---- to put her nose to the wall?"

G.R. replied, "That and other things, (my name)". She spoke to me in a very harsh voice.

I asked her if she really believed that I would tell a child to put her nose to the wall.

She said, "Well, you told her to turn to the wall".

I said, "Thank you for confirming that, G.R." and hung up. I was very shocked.

I did not slam the phone in G.R.'s ear, I spoke courteously and then put the phone down in an entirely normal manner.

But G.R. can beat an allegation out of something as simple as putting the phone down.

This is an example of G.R.'s lack of insight into the efect of her own behaviour on other people.

G.R. had defamed me in front of the staff of my school. I had never known any school principal behave in such an appallingly unprofessional manner. I was deeply shocked by G.R.'s seemingly irrational behaviour. I put the phone down because I was so shocked.

'... leaving the staff room when I sit near you. ...'

G.R. and I often sat at a table together and chatted at lunchtimes.

At lunchtime on my first day back at work from sick leave G.R. walked into the staff room and sat next to me.

I had just had a week off work because of the stress of G.R.'s seemingly irrational and unprofessional behaviour.

I felt like an animal being stalked by a dingo. I didn't want to sit next to G.R.

I did not feel safe sitting next to her.

I did not feel safe talking to her.

I felt that G.R. was stalking me and wanted to harm me.

I quietly, calmly got up and moved over to the sign-in book and then moved out of the room.

G.R. has "beaten this up" into an allegation against me.

G.R. had no insight into the effect of her irrational and unprofessional behaviour on other people.

(Similarly, when I left the school, the staff organised a farewell afternoon tea.

They told me that they had to organise it secretly because, if they had put the date and the time of the afternoon tea in the staff sign-in book, G.R. was so insensitive that she might have come along.

G.R. did not understand how her irrational behaviour made other people feel.)

'... playing tape recorded messages to me ...'

This is another example of G.R.'s lack of insight into the effect of her irrational behaviour on other people.

Friday 10 November 2000 G.R. had announced to the staff that there was "a person" on the staff who was humiliating children.

Saturday 11 November 2000 I had been warned by another teacher that I was "the person" that G.R. had been talking about to the staff.

G.R. had confirmed that this was true.

Sunday 12 November 2000 I cried all day.

By the next morning I was unable to function. I was feeling very "jittery". I was unable to think clearly, forgetting things and thinking very slowly. I was afraid to go to school in case I really did something wrong.

I knew that I had to ring G.R. to tell her that I would be away sick. The only way that I could deal with the situation was to record a message and play it to whoever answered the phone.

And G.R. beat that up into another allegation against me.

G.R.'s own words demonstrate her inability to understand how her irrational and deeply unprofessional behaviour affected other people.

In writing this letter, G.R. abused her powers to refuse to participate in a mediated meeting.

G.R. seems to "pay me back" for asking for the mediated meeting by changing the mediated meeting into a meeting to discuss the sudden concerns that she claims to have about my

"... difficulty with behaviour managment. ..."

G.R. was supposed to be my supervisor but she had not come into my classroom once during the previous twelve months.

G.R.'s sudden "concerns" seem to be a fabrication, invented to avoid discussing the problems caused by her own irrational behaviour at the staff meeting on 10 November 2000.

The unsigned notes 2421 F 40 and 41 dated 10/11 (2000) explain G.R.'s first (or perhaps second ?) version of the reason why she had announced to the staff on November 10 2000 that there was a person on the staff who was humiliating children.

In this document G.R. claimed that she made the announcement to the staff because of allegations made concerning me in "notes to (Grade 7 teacher N.T.) from D-----".

These "notes" now seem to have vanished.

I have spoken to D----- -------, a teacher working at my school at that time.

( I described this conversation in detail in a letter to Tom Barton, Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations, dated 10 April 2006.

I asked Tom Barton to pass my letter to the Minister of Education for his attention because the Minister would not respond to my letters.)

D-----'s comments to me suggest that these "notes" may actually have concerned the behaviour of a scripture teacher, a casual teacher or an incident that took place in 2003. D----- was never in or near the Grade 7 classes when I was teaching Indonesian during 2000.

I can only presume that G.R. realised during the week that I was on sick leave that she had made a mistake concerning the allegations in the 'notes to (Grade 7 teacher N.T.) from D -----' and that her impusive and unprofessional behaviour at the staff meetin on Friday 10 November 2000 had made me ill.

I can only presume that G.R. did not want to attend a meeting with the Behaviour Management Committee or to attend a mediated meeting because she did not want to admit that she had made a mistake and to apologise.

And that she was anxious that I might make a WorkCover claim that her impulsive and unprofessional behaviour had made me ill.

So G.R. seems to have abused her powers to fabricate backdated "concerns" about me -

• partly to "pay me back",

• partly as a distration from the meetings that I had requested,

• and partly to prevent me from claiming WorkCover.

2421 File C 31

This document is a true copy of G.R's’s letter to me dated 23 November 2000.

But it is a falsified record.

In this document G.R. states -

"I have concerns regarding your performance … it is important that you are aware that the meeting on Monday is to discuss these concerns."

2421 File C 30

This is a true copy of G.R.'s letter to me dated 29 November 2000.

But it is a falsified "record".

"... Our meeting on Monday afternoon regarding the implementation of a Diminished Work Performance Program ..."

G.R. has "spun" the official record of the two mediated meetings that I had requested into a meeting for the purpose of  putting me on a Diminished Work Performance program!

"Mr E.L. ... will be overseeing the process, beginning with a 20 day informal supervision period.

(I have spoken to him about the matter and he is in agreement that the process is warranted)."

G.R. makes no mention in this letter of the fact that the usual principal E.L. had not discussed the situation with me before reaching his decision.

E.L.'s decision concerning me seems to have been based entirely on G.R.'s gossip.

And this letter demonstrates that G.R. and E.L. clearly know so little about the DWP process that they do not realise that E. L.'s behaviour was in breach of Natural Justice and the DWP process.

The letter is also evidence that both G.R. nor E.L. made their decision that the DWP process was warranted before they had discussed the "notes to (Grade 7 teacher N.T.) from D-----" with me (if the notes even existed at that time).

And before they had shown me the "lot of allegations .. and the ... lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened" and allowed me to respond to these "lots of pieces of paper".

This was another breach of Natural Justice, the Departmental Code of Conduct and the DWP process.

E.L. had often praised my work during 1999 and had often told me that I had "raised the profile of Indonesian at the school".

But I had become very worried by G.R.'s increasing aggression.

I had taken sick leave during Term 4 1999 because of G.R.'s aggression towards me. When I returned to work I gave E.L. a list of problems with the Grade 6 Indonesian workbooks.

(The first set of books had been printed on paper with holes in it and the pages of several books had been stapled together in the wrong order. I asked the aides to use good quality paper for the workbooks and make the books up carefully. G.R. had behaved very aggressively towards me, told me that the teachers' aides were "very upset" and that this was "a big issue". When I tried to explain G.R. had held her hand in front of my face and shouted me down.)

At the end of the list of problems with the workbooks I had written -

"I did not complain about this work.

I do not complain about this work.

I wanted to discreetly, calmly, clearly encourage the aides to do better next time.

Who was responsible for beating this up into a 'big issue'?"

When I returned to school I noticed that the aides did not seem to be upset with me at all.

The whole incident seemed to me to be a "beat up" by G.R.

I was trying to prompt E.L. to reflect on G.R.'s irrational aggression.

At this time I also wrote LOTE (Indonesian) Review 1999 (FOI 2421 document 54) in which I asked -

"Who is responsible for beating (the printing of my Indonesian books) up into a 'big issue'?"

And I was also worried by the many hours of the Grade 7 teachers' complaints about their 1999 Indonesian teacher that I had listened to at lunchtimes during 1999.

In the LOTE (Indonesian) Review 1999 I had also written:

"Has a slightly "Get the LOTE teacher" attitude developed at (the school) over the years? Can we move on from this?"

I had told the principal of my "base school" that I did not want to go the (E.L. and G.R.'s) school full time in 2000. I did not want to behave unprofessionally , so I did not discuss G.R.'s increasing aggression towards me, etc. I simply said that there were problems at the school and that I would prefer to apply for a transfer to Brisbane.

The principal of my base school arranged for me to go to the District Office and talk to the staffing officer about the possiblity of getting a transfer to Brisbane to work as an English as a Second Language teacher (which was my real area of specialisation). 

2469 A 268 (number at the top right hand side of the page) and 2733 G document 51 (number at the bottom of the page) record my request for a transfer in 2000 to -

"E.S.L. (English as a Second Language) this is the area in which I am best qualified. I would like to move back into ESL."

And you will see that the staffing officer advised me that there was not much hope of an ESL job and she wrote below -

"LOTE- Indonesian"

E.L. spoke to me twice at this time, trying to persuade me to go to the school full-time and take the grade 7 classes. He assured me that he would deal with the problems at the school.

For this reason I consider that E.L., in agreeing that G.R. should put me on DWP before he had discussed the situation with me, not only abused Natural justice, the Departmental Code of conduct and the DWP process, he failed in his duty of care to me.

E.L. knew G.R. was inexperienced but he did nothing to protect me from her irrational and unprofessional conduct.

In 1980 I had been inspected for a day in NSW and I had been placed on the First Primary Promotion List.

I had studied through the nights for five years part time to get my first degree with the college medal in 1983.

I studied for three more in the evenings to get my Master's Degree from Sydney University in 1987.

When I was appointed to (the) region I was told that my application was outstanding.

When I was asked to become an Indonesian teacher I spent many months of my holidays studying in in Java and collecting "realia" in Bali.

My Indonesian work was often in the local newspaper.

Parents were very appreciative of my work at (the) school in 1999.

One parent, M-- R-----, had  been so impressed with my work that she had asked me if she could write an article about my work for the local paper. 

The article was published on June 21 2000, just a few months before acting principal G.R. attacked me.

(A copy of the article can be seen at FOI 2421 C 53, number at the top right-hand-side of the document, and also FOI 2733 document 156, number at the bottom of the document.)

My professional record meant a lot to me.

G.R.'s letter was very damaging to me professionally.

Education Queensland has a responsibility to protect employees from this type of abusive behaviour by inexperienced and impulsive "acting" administrators.

G.R. already knew that her behaviour was making me ill.

I had just returned from a week of sick leave caused by her seemingly irrational and deeply unprofessional announcements to the staff concerning me.

I can only presume that G.R. and E.L. maliciously agreed to put this letter on my file two weeks before the Christmas holidays in the hope and expectation that the stress of their abuse would cause me to suicide or have a mental or physical breakdown during the holidays.

This document demonstrates clearly that G.R. and E.L. were conducting themselves in an unprofessional and abusive manner.

• You may respect and trust your "wonderful" school principal absolutely. But, if you are bullied by another administrator,  your "wonderful" school principal will passively "go along with" the bullying.

• Education Queensland neglects to protect Queensland teachers from workplace abuse by inexperienced administrators.

2421 File C 28-29

These documents 2421 File C 28 and 29 have not been released to me to this date, 11 February 2008.

These documents must have existed when my file was photocopied, because they were given numbers.

But by the time that Stephannie Kalas wrote her "decision" on 23 March 2004, presumably only a few days after my documents were photocopied, these two documents had "vanished".

Document 2875 J 221 is a record of  what appears to have been a telephone conversation between EQ Head Office Employee  M.N and EQ District Office Employee C.H.R. on 27 January 2006:

"- (District Office Employee C.H.R.) - What are Verifact investigating?

Need to look - at report."

I presume that the findings of this "lost" District Office Report were based on the "evidence" contained in the mass of falsified "records" concerning me that

had been secretly placed in this file.