Archive for October, 2012

CSIRO Misleads the Senate.2.

Posted on October 30, 2012. Filed under: Uncategorized |

Deputy CEO Craig Roy falsely testifies that CSIRO has never referred a complaint back to the person complained about

During the 15 February 2012 Senate Estimates, CSIRO executive were asked by Senator Bushby whether they had ever referred a grievance complaint about someone back to that person? The Deputy CEO of CSIRO, Mr Craig Roy, told Senator Bushby in the presence of the CEO of CSIRO, Dr Megan Clark, that this has never happened in CSIRO. His exact words were:

“…we would not have a circumstance in which a complaint was made against a particular officer and it was referred back to that officer to solve.”

That, however, was a false statement. Moreover, in our opinion, it was knowingly untruthful and nothing less than a deliberate attempt to deceive and mislead the Senate.

The reason we take this view is that Dr Clark, who was sitting next to Mr Roy at the time he made the above statement, appears to have been personally involved in exactly such a situation just 18 months earlier.

We provide below, the full text of an email string sent by Dr Sylwester Chyb to Dr Clark, in which he complained about his manager, Dr Mark Lonsdale, Chief of CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences. Chyb had lodged a formal grievance against Lonsdale with Dr Clark four months earlier. In his email, Chyb asked Clark whether his grievance had been actioned yet and if he could be managed by another manager while it was being looked into?

One would think that this would be a perfectly reasonable request to make of the CSIRO Chief Executive four months after a formal grievance had been lodged with her against a senior manager.

One would think that a CEO like Megan Clark, whose claim to the job was her supposed experience and dedication to a safe workplace, would have some skerrick of sympathy for such a request.

But, one would, apparently, be wrong in such an expectation.

Chyb’s email to Clark was sent at 1:03 pm on 11 August 2010. At 6:33 pm on the same day, 11 August 2010, Chyb received an email from none other than Dr Lonsdale himself, which contained his earlier email to Dr Clark. Lonsdale stated in his email:

“Dear Sylwek, Your e-mail below has been referred to me for response.”

Lonsdale thereafter instructed Chyb to attend a meeting with him on the following day, 12 August 2010. In that meeting, Lonsdale told Chyb that his position at CSIRO was redundant and he would henceforth be retrenched. Chyb was terminated by CSIRO on January 4, 2011.

Thus,none other than Dr Clark herself referred a complaint about Dr Lonsdale back to Dr Lonsdale for response. Dr Lonsdale responded by terminating the complainant.

Note that Lonsdale’s superior, senior executive Dr Joanne Daly, was also copied on all of the correspondence below. Dr Daly, along with Dr Clark, Mr Roy, and Dr Lonsdale, could, apparently, also find nothing wrong with this sequence of events.

May we remind the CSIRO executive of the “CSIRO values” that they created and which they list on the front cover of the CSIRO annual report 2010-2011:

a. “working ethically and with integrity in everything we do”,

b. “building trust and respect each day with our communities, partners, and colleagues”,and

c. “constantly delivering on our commitments – Do what we say we will do”.

The CSIRO executive insist that every employee of CSIRO abide by these values. However, it appears that they dont feel the need to abide by them. Either that, or they dont actually recognise unethical conduct that is lacking in integrity. In our opinion, the CSIRO executive has a downright strange and aberrant way of “working ethically and with integrity”,not to even mention “building trust and respect”.

We ask again: if this is the disdain with which they treat the Senate, how will they treat their staff?

Email from Dr Mark Lonsdale to Dr Sylwester Chyb:

To: “Chyb, Sylwek (CES, BlackMountain)” <Sylwester.Chyb@csiro.au>

I have received the attached direction from Dr Lonsdale. He has initially requested that I attend identical meeting on Monday 9 August. Given that I was instructed by Dr Lonsdale to be seen by an independent medical advisor on August 10 I suggested that we wait for doctor’s recommendation. I am still of an opinion that it would be reasonable to wait for Dr [name deleted] report.

You may recall that I have made a formal grievance complaint with you against Dr Lonsdale. Has this been actioned? Is there another, reasonable manager who could take over Dr Lonsdale’s responsibilities vis my management?

Thank you,

Sylwek

 

From: Lonsdale, Mark (CES, Black Mountain)

Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 01:24 PM

To: Chyb, Sylwek (CES, Black Mountain)

Subject: Meeting 12th August

<<Chyb -Direction to attend meeting on 12 August.pdf>>

Letter attached. Regards

Dr W.M. Lonsdale

Chief, CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences,

GPO Box 1700, Canberra, Australia 2601.

ph: (+61) 02 6246 4025

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

CSIRO Misleads the Senate. 1.

Posted on October 28, 2012. Filed under: Uncategorized |

CSIRO CEO Clark falsely testifies that “we immediately put out a note” after receiving a Comcare improvement notification

In the Senate Estimates of 17 October 2012, CSIRO CEO Megan Clark spoke at length to explain how she accepted a recent Comcare report that found CSIRO to have breached the Occupational Health and Safety Act. She said that, as soon as CSIRO received a formal improvement notification from Comcare on 29 June 2012, CSIRO emailed all staff in the relevant division. Her exact words to Senator Colbeck were:

“ I was on leave but actually worked with Dr Johnson while I was on leave to make sure that we immediately put out a notice”.

However, the email message below shows that CSIRO were issued the Notice of Improvement on 8 June 2012, and spent the following three weeks refusing to post it. No action was taken on Comcare’s directions for three weeks. This directly contradicts Dr Clark’s assertions to Senator Colbeck.

E-mail from Comcare to Dr Sylwester Chyb, the subject of the Comcare Improvement Notification to CSIRO:

On 29/06/2012, at 12:49 PM, “Andrew Morgan” [redacted] wrote:

“Good afternoon Mr Chyb

As you are aware, Comcare issued an improvement notice to CSIRO on 8 June 2012 for the purposes of rectifying breaches of health and safety laws identified by Nigel Docker in his investigation. The notice contains some background information regarding the alleged breaches and a series of directions regarding the action CSIRO must now take.

As Mr Docker is currently on leave, I am assisting following up the improvement notice.

The Work Health and Safety Act(2011) requires that such notices be displayed in the workplace. CSIRO has thus far declined to display the notice and has cited concerns regarding privacy. No individuals are named in the notice. In order to compel CSIRO to display the notice, we would be grateful if you would consent to have the notice displayed in its entirety.

I have attached the notice for you to review for this purpose. Please note, this document is not to be not to be disclosed to third parties.

Can you please advise me if you are willing to consent to this notice in its entirety being displayed in the CSIRO workplace?

If you would like to discuss the matter before providing you consent, or have any questions, please email me or call me on the number below.

Regards

Andrew Morgan

Workplace Relationship Resolution Team | Regulatory Services Group

Inspector Appointed under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011

P 02 8218 [redacted]

F 02 6274 8842

GPO Box 9905 Canberra ACT 2601

1300 336 979 | www.comcare.gov.au”

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

More Complainants come forward…

Posted on October 27, 2012. Filed under: Uncategorized |

Victims of CSIRO has recently  drafted another communication to Comcare detailing a further 5 complaints or serious bullying, harassment and victimisation within the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).

Victims of CSIRO have also been made aware of a number of other complaints lodged with Comcare directly citing bullying within the organisation.

How many more people need to come forward before CSIRO takes decisive action on these complaints as many of its employees accused of acts of bullying or turning a blind eye to such activity still hold senior positions within the organisation.

How can any employee be confident that the CSIRO’s new policies are going to be effective in any future case when it refuses to take direction action in relation to the complaints it is already aware of.

The CSIRO Executive are still sending mixed messages on their commitment to this issue as anyone who has been following Senate Estimates and the related media will be aware that Dr Clark has admitted (on public record) before a senate committee to a problem of bullying within the CSIRO, and subsequently appeared on National Radio (ABC AM Program) the very next day denying that such a problem exists.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH CSIRO! Stop spending millions of dollars of TAX PAYER’S money defending those who should be sacked or gaoled for serious or even criminal misconduct and cease vilifying the victims who are simply seeking  legitimate natural justice!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

Senate Estimates Transcript 17th October 2012

Posted on October 27, 2012. Filed under: Uncategorized |

Below are the parts of the latest Senate Estimates Transcripts from the 17th of October 2012 of interest to the Victims of CSIRO

Senator COLBECK: Minister, I would like to come to you first in relation to the oversight on questions on notice as part of estimates. The general process, as I understand it—not necessarily for this portfolio but across all—is that questions on notice asked as part of estimates are provided by each individual agency and then cleared by the ministers.

Senator Chris Evans: That is right. Basically, the agency goes away and answers the question. They then send those answers to our office and the adviser has a look at them. If they do not have any problems they come through to me for approval. If there is an issue or they think the information is not complete or whatever, then the adviser might raise it with the agency or I might. But, basically, in 99 per cent of cases the minister signs off on the advice provided by the agency on the basis that they have got the information, as they usually hold the information that senators are seeking.

Senator COLBECK: So it is effectively a response to the committee from the minister that has been prepared by the agency. So you are vouching for the answer when you sign off on it, effectively?

Senator Chris Evans: We are the ones who are accountable to the parliament on behalf of the agency. If you are asking me whether I have knowledge of the answer in a factual sense, you have to rely on the advice from the agency as you do in other matters.

Senator COLBECK: But you would expect that you are able to stand by the answer based on the information that is provided to you? That is what you would expect as a member of the committee.

Senator Chris Evans: Sure.

Senator COLBECK: And that is what you expect as minister signing off.

Senator Chris Evans: I would expect the agency to provide accurate information to the Senate. I guess I am just making the point that if CSIRO say they have got 332 employees, I do not go back and count to see whether they have added them up right; I have to rely on the advice of Dr Clark.

Senator COLBECK: So you rely on the information that is provided to you by the agency in that context?

Senator Chris Evans: Yes, unless I have some concern or someone in my office has some concern that maybe there is not sufficient information or there is some issue that rings a bell that may need to be followed up. But, effectively, the agency provides the information to the minister’s office.

Senator COLBECK: Following on from that, what obligations do you see that you or the agency and officials have to correct the record when it is clear that an answer that has been provided is incorrect?

Senator Chris Evans: I expect the agency to correct the record if in fact any information is incorrect. As you know, we do that at estimates. If someone gives evidence and it proves on checking not to be correct, they come and correct the record in the normal course of events, like ministers do in the chamber.

Senator COLBECK: So what responsibility do you as a minister have or do officials have in that context? Where does the responsibility lie to correct the record when it is quite clear that answers are not correct?

Senator Chris Evans: If you or anyone else raised with me concern about the answer, obviously I would take up that issue.

Senator COLBECK: But I have also seen instances where an official has come back to the table to correct the record without necessarily having that issue raised by a member of the committee or me as someone answering the question. Does it necessarily have to be something that is raised by a member of the committee?

Senator Chris Evans: No, it does not. As I understand it—and Dr Clark can advise you of CSIRO’s particular process—most departments run through the Hansard and have a look at the evidence and, if there are any concerns, they seek to correct the record. Most agencies would advise me if they are correcting the record or would advise my office. If we are at estimates hearings and someone says something that is not absolutely correct, they often come back, as you know, later in the hearing and seek to correct it. If you are asking me whether I review all the evidence et cetera, generally I would only get engaged if someone like yourself raised concern about the evidence given.

Senator COLBECK: I can understand, Minister, that you might not be aware of the intimate details of all of those sorts of issues. As I said, if an official becomes aware of something that is incorrect, particularly during a hearing but even between hearings, and something is found to be not correct, why wouldn’t there be some responsibility to actually notify the committee that some information that has been provided to them was incorrect?
Senator Chris Evans: Senator, I would expect officials, if they knew that information they gave was incorrect, to seek to correct the record. There is an obligation to do so. If there is some evidence they gave which is incorrect and they are aware of that, they would be expected to seek to correct the record, of course.

Senator COLBECK: Dr Clark, you would see that as a responsibility as well?

Dr Clark: Yes, I would. It is our responsibility to correct the record when we become aware if information that has been provided has been incorrect or inaccurate. We are also obliged to correct any incorrect testimony. For example, if I were to provide here an incorrect number or an incorrect fact that is as well corrected.

Senator COLBECK: So, what specific accountability sits around those matters, Minister? The committee has actions it can take through the parliament, and I am aware of those. What accountability and responsibility do you see in respect of that process?

Senator Chris Evans: If someone is of the belief that incorrect information has been given in an estimates committee, if it is a senator, they ought to raise that with the committee secretariat and the secretariat ought to write to me or to the agency, raising the issue. My obligation then is to investigate it and, if there has been information incorrectly given, to then correct the record. But, in the normal course of events, the committee secretariat would raise any concern that a senator had, as I understand it, about any of these matters.

Senator COLBECK: Dr Clark and Mr Roy, you told us at the last estimates that you did not think CSIRO had a problem with its workplace culture. Bearing that in mind, is it true that there has been more than a $3 million or over 250 per cent increase in the organisations Comcare premium for 2012-13, a $900,000 drop in the bonus or penalty in just this one year, and a $1.3 million reversal in the bonus or penalty in the space of the last two years? If those numbers are correct—which I think they are, based on the table that I have—how do you explain those significant changes in the premiums, given that the premiums have been fairly steady at about $1.4 million to $1.9 million over the previous three years?

Dr Clark: You are correct in that our premium has risen by 0.2 per cent from 0.47 per cent of payroll to 0.67 per cent of payroll. This is against a backdrop of a rise of all agencies combined—a rise of 0.36 per cent in payroll from an average of 1.41 per cent to 1.77 per cent. Whilst, as you pointed out, we have had a significant rise, it has been less in percentage terms than the average. The reasons indicated for that is the number of claims from 2011, around 84.4 per cent, the average lifetime cost per claim increasing from $14K in 2008 to $33K for 2011, and a sense of experiencing an increasing potential for claims, particularly based on that increased average amount.
Senator COLBECK: You are effectively saying that this is as a result of everybody’s Comcare claims going up?

Dr Clark: Everyone’s Comcare claims have gone up, as I mentioned. All agencies have seen a 0.36 per cent rise. Our rise was a 0.2 per cent rise.

Senator COLBECK: A 0.2 per cent rise?

Dr Clark: That is right. Our rise has been from 0.47 per cent of payroll to 0.67 per cent of payroll. The average of all agencies was from 1.41 per cent of payroll to 1.77 per cent of payroll. The reason that our percentage of payroll is less than the average is simply a reflection of our performance.

Senator COLBECK: How does a 0.2 per cent—

Senator Chris Evans: Can I interrupt? I think even I know enough about maths to say one cannot represent it as a 0.2 per cent increase.

Senator COLBECK: 0.2 per cent does not work out to 250. I cannot see how you go from $1.9 million premium to $4.9 million premium and say that is a 0.2 per cent increase.

Dr Clark: 0.47 per cent of payroll has moved to 0.67 per cent of payroll.

Mr Roy: I might be to help with this and we would be very comfortable to table the explanatory letter that came from Comcare to support the case. There are effectively four factors that Comcare take into account in terms of calculating the premium for the 2012-13 year for us. I read from their document. They take the base rate that the organisation had for the current year, 2011-12. Our base rate was 0.47 per cent of payroll. The all agencies combined average was 1.41 per cent of payroll. They updated for trends in the number and cost of the agency claims, so CSIRO has some control over that. That is the cost of our individual claims and the number of our individual claims. There are also trends we have no control over in the number and cost of claims for all agencies combined. The final one we have no control over is the total amount Comcare needs to collect from all agencies combined to make sure that they remain viable. If we are to do a comparison, as Dr Clark led into, between where we are comparative to the all agencies, our claim frequency per million dollars of payroll over the last four years, and I read from the Comcare report to us, was successively from 2008 onwards 0.15 per cent frequency of claims per million dollars of payroll, 0.16 in the successive year, then 0.13 and then 0.14. So you can see it is fairly steady over that period of time. In terms of average lifetime cost of claims, they have gone up over that period of time from 14,000 to 33,000 to 40,000 and back to 33,000. If I am to compare those with all agencies combined, there have been 74,000 in the most recent year, so whilst CSIRO is 33,000 and the trend is not going the way we want neither is it for all agencies. They are 74,000. We look at what we can control and what we cannot control. We can only control our number of incidents and the cost of each incident. If hypothetically CSIRO was sitting at the average for all agencies at 1.77 per cent, our premium would be $10.85 million, not the current $4.1 million, which would be $6.7 million higher than where we are at the moment. Clearly not only from our health and safety perspective and also from a financial perspective we look at this very closely.

You also mentioned in your opening question penalties and bonuses. The way I understand that operates, it is not too dissimilar from our taxation system. You get taxed throughout the course of the year and the end of the year, depending on certain parameters, adjustments will be made. They are called in the act, as you mentioned, penalties or bonuses. As I understand it, as I am sure Comcare could give you more information, the actuarial comparison of what you paid vis-a-vis what at the end of the year Comcare deemed you should have paid based on how your claims actually played out. Some years you will get a return, as with taxation, and in some years you will need to pay because you have underpaid throughout the course of the year.

Dr Clark: Does that answer your question?

Senator COLBECK: Without having the core numbers to collate that to it makes it a bit difficult—

Dr Clark: We are happy to provide, as Mr Roy has outlined, the letter from Comcare.

Senator COLBECK: I need to perhaps do a little bit of work backwards to work through the numbers. As Senator Evans said, I struggle to see how 0.2 per cent change relates specifically to a $3 million change. But we will go back and do some numbers around that.

Senator Chris Evans: That is expressed as percentage of payroll, which is a different percentage if you look at the dollars.

Senator COLBECK: I understand that. I will go back and look at the numbers.

Dr Clark: I think the way to understand it is that if you look at all agencies, all agencies have had a rise of 0.36, if you like 36 basis points, on their percentage payroll. We have a rise of 0.2, 20 basis points, on our payroll. I think that provides you with the context.

Senator COLBECK: Maybe we need to go back to Comcare because there seems to be a bigger issue somewhere else than necessarily where we are here at the moment when you look at those numbers. We will work on that. Dr Clark, you wrote an email to all staff this week regarding a fairly damning range of findings that Comcare had made about the handling of a recent case and had instructed you to make a series of changes to your workplace practices as a result. We have been asking about some of these issues for a period of time. Why is it that we are now only getting to the stage where you are owning up to the fact that there are some issues, when we have not really had any questions or answers? I think we go to something like 14 separate occasions over more than year where we are admitting that there are some issues in the way that things are being handled? Why are we only at this stage right now? I understand there has been a flurry of activity in recent weeks around some of these matters.

Dr M Clark: I would not describe it as such. We received a report from Comcare which found CSIRO wanting in two particular areas and provided us with a notice for correction. As soon as that notice was received my office put out a note to the staff affected as to what those findings were. Where the improvement notice had identified areas for improvement in what we were doing at that time, my office undertook to update staff within a quarter as to what we were doing. I am simply meeting that obligation to update staff and I have made a further commitment that we will further update staff in the new year. I think it is very important when you have a corrective notice that staff are aware (1) of the issues and (2) what you are doing. In this case, I thought that some of the aspects of the improvement notice would be considered by many people in CSIRO and other parts and they would be interested in what the management response was. First of all, you look to understand the issues and then put in place the appropriate management response.

Senator COLBECK: So you are still not conceding that anything is wrong with the current system that you have in place?

Dr M Clark: Not at all. The improvement notice from Comcare found CSIRO wanting in two particular areas. First of all, one of the findings was that CSIRO was aware that an employee had mental health issues, we were aware that it was a difficult discussion on an issue of the code of conduct and we failed to undertake a proper risk assessment. There was a number of corrective actions that related to: (1) our misconduct policy, (2) our risk assessments including assessments of psychological risk, (3) amending our policy and (4) training the policy. I can provide you with further detail.
The second finding from Comcare was that, whilst in this particular case contact with the line manager had been restricted for some aspects, we continued to use the line manager for return-to-work and compensation claim areas. Comcare found that we had breached section 16(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act in that such actions could have increased the risk of exacerbating an employee’s psychological condition and that CSIRO did not take all reasonably practical steps to protect the employee from that risk.
Whilst there was nothing specific in terms of those corrective actions, there were a number of additional corrective actions: that medical assessment and fitness for work was to include psychological assessment; that we supported workers with psychological injury and distress; that in complex case management—that is, 30 per cent of our cases in staff grievances, certainly for current and former employees, often include an issue of mental ill health—we needed to make sure that recording and storing of all documents was appropriate; that, as when you have complex case management often there is a number of people involved, we were making sure that we were managing the communication around that; that we undertake regular assessment of workplaces, not just for risks of physical injury or issues of chemicals or occupational hazards but also for issues of workplace stress; that we consult the unions and staff on these changes; that we make sure that our notifiable incidents include complex issues of mental health; and that training was undertaken by the division in question. They were the findings. We stand by those findings of Comcare. It was as comprehensive and well-led investigation.

Senator COLBECK: They are fairly serious recommendations: reviewing and amending the CSIRO misconduct policy; providing training to all staff responsible for implementation of the CSIRO misconduct policy; reviewing and amending HR and HSE policies to ensure that where medical assessment is required for fitness for duty it considers all workplace matters and circumstances which the individual might be expected to encounter; reviewing and amending HR and HSE policies and procedures to ensure employees exhibiting psychological distress or injury are appropriately supported and managed, including referral for medical assessment and advice; and developing and implementing policy and procedures for effective governance and recording of information relating to complex case management. They are fairly serious matters.

Dr M Clark: Yes, and I take them very seriously.

Senator COLBECK: As I indicated, we have been asking particular questions around some cases that go to these particular points over a period of time, and therefore our concern around where this situation exists as well.

Senator Chris Evans: Can I just say that I take these issues very seriously, and Dr Clark has briefed me regularly on them and I raise them with her. I think it is fair to say that the Comcare report has a large focus on dealing with mental health issues in the workforce. I think the reality is that all organisations are struggling to adapt policies and practices to better cope with what we better diagnose now. Also, quite frankly, there has been growth, as you know, of mental health issues in the broader community. I think Dr Clark has been very honest with you that they accept that in handling those issues they could have done better and they have responded to that. But I do not think CSIRO is the only organisation struggling with dealing with staff issues where mental health issues might be involved. I think what you seen in the email et cetera is a very serious response to the concerns raised.

Senator COLBECK: Thank you, Minister. I suppose my point is that we have been talking about some of these issues for a period of time, expressing our concerns about them as well and just trying to get some answers and responses.

Senator Chris Evans: Sure. I appreciate that.

Senator COLBECK: I appreciate the fact that Dr Clark is putting these things on the table for us today, so I will continue to run through—

Senator Chris Evans: I just make the point that I think many of the issues that have been raised before have been to do with bullying rather than necessarily mental health issues and the focus of that report. But I take your point, and it is a perfectly appropriate thing to do.

Senator COLBECK: In that context, Minister, it is how the person who is on the receiving end actually perceives them. They may perceive them in that context. You might have a view on something and I might have a different view, and the fact that we have two different views does not mean something is not happening.

Senator Chris Evans: No.

Senator COLBECK: Your perception of what is happening is your reality in this context, and I think that is part of the overall—

Dr M Clark: I completely agree that not all bullying and harassment would be assessed by an independent person or even assessed legally as meeting that threshold, but that does not mean that the effects of perceived bullying are not destructive, not just for the individual but for those involved. So I agree with you, Senator.

Senator COLBECK: Dr Clark, on what date did you form the conclusion that there were problems and errors in the way that the CSIRO had handled a specific case that we have been talking about over a period of time. There is a time frame around this, and I think you are aware of the case that we are talking about.

Dr M Clark: If you are referring to the case that was investigated by Comcare, which I have just outlined, I received the final report from Comcare, I read all 109 pages on the date that it was received and we have undertaken a number of activities. These are not just in response to the improvement notice. I put a team in place to oversee the actions in response to that improvement notice. We are on track to complete all those necessary changes by 31 December, but I do not think that is all that we need to do. We are in early discussions with Comcare to initiate a joint project to develop best practice approaches to the prevention, the early intervention and the management of bullying and harassment complaints—including those that involve psychological wellbeing.
We have worked and asked a number of questions of other organisations around the country and asked, ‘Who is benchmark in this? Who is actually leading Australia in these efforts?’ It has been interesting, the response that actually we think we need to develop that strategy with Comcare and I would say at the moment that many other organisations are needing to do so. We are absolutely happy to work with Comcare now to develop that best practice.
In addition to that, I have asked Comcare executives to join our executive team, and we have met with them, so that our leaders can understand such issues and understand the broader issues not just of safety, not just of occupational health but of health and wellbeing issues more generally and the issues of mental ill health—in which many of us need to have additional training. I have also made sure our business unit and functional leaders continue to consider actions to be taken in response to our Working in CSIRO survey—

Senator COLBECK: Dr Clark, I have only got 25 minutes left. I need to finish this and do something else.

Dr Clark: I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of the management response to what is a serious issue, because that was your question.

Senator COLBECK: Yes, and I appreciate that. Can you tell me what date the report was received?

Senator Chris Evans: Just for Hansard’s records, this is referring to a specific case. If you are looking at the record, no-one will know which case. We are not wanting to name the person—

Senator COLBECK: We are referring to the case that the Comcare report refers to.

Senator Chris Evans: Maybe we ought to refer to it as Mr X, if it is a Mr—

Dr Clark: I have not referred to an individual—

Senator COLBECK: And I have not referred to it either—

Senator Chris Evans: For the rest of the world, you two agreeing about a report that is not described or named—

Senator COLBECK: So we can agree that context is important.

Dr Clark: The corrected notice is on the public record as well, Senator. In answer to your question, the final report was received on 24 August this year.

Senator COLBECK: That is when you came to the view that there had been some issues with the way that the CSIRO had handled this case?

Dr Clark: I always wait until there is a final report from the investigation. That is a very important step, and you need to await the findings of the independent investigator—in this case, Comcare.

Senator COLBECK: So your conclusion, that there were problems and errors in the way that CSIRO had handled this, was when you received the report on 24 August.

Dr Clark: I accept the report of Comcare. We asked Comcare to help us investigate these matters. I fully stand by the report. It was comprehensive, it was thorough, and I accept the findings of the report and I accept the areas where CSIRO was found wanting, Senator.

Senator COLBECK: How does that align with an email sent by Dr Andrew Johnson to all CSIRO staff on 29 June that included the following statement: ‘CSIRO did not take all reasonably practical steps to protect the health and safety of the former staff member that we appointed and the CSIRO manager to act as the staff member’s point of contact despite the fact that allegations had been made against the CSIRO staff manager by the staff member.’ That was on 29 June.

Dr Clark: Yes. We had received the improvement notice, which was received ahead of the final report. I was on leave but actually worked with Dr Johnson while I was on leave to make sure that we immediately put out a notice—not to all staff but to the division in which this matter was raised—to be clear to staff on what were all of the areas outlined in the improvement notice. Comcare asked us to post that improvement notice but we felt it was serious enough to make sure there was an ‘all staff’ going from my office, and that was provided. That was making sure that staff had clarity on, first of all, the contents of the improvement notice, but also what we were immediately doing about it. In that particular email of June, Dr Johnson outlined that I would further update staff, as I have done this week. I was meeting that commitment as well. I have made a further commitment to update staff in the new year.

Senator COLBECK: You were on leave on 29 June?

Dr Clark: I was. Dr Johnson was acting for me, but in this particular issue we were in communication. I was working with Dr Johnson on making sure that we had this particular issue reported thoroughly to staff.

Senator COLBECK: When did you come back from leave?

Dr Clark: I cannot tell you the date. I would have to look that up. I do remember that the day you come back, you feel like you have not been on leave at all. I would provide you –

Senator Chris Evans: Don’t we all.

Dr Clark: For this particular issue, I was in communication with Dr Johnson. We were working together.

Senator COLBECK: Given that you were in communication and you were working together on that—even though you were on leave and that helps us all understand why you did not feel like you were on leave—how do you then align the two dates? You have received a corrective notice that makes a particular statement—

Dr Clark: I was very clear. We received the improvement notice and hence put out an immediate notification to staff of the division relating to the improvement notice. We posted the improvement notice. I think posting an improvement notice on a noticeboard does not necessarily mean that you have communicated, so we felt we needed to have a further staff email. Then we received the final report on 24 August. My email to staff would have gone out irrespective of that, because we would make a commitment based on the improvement notice. They are entirely consistent.

Senator COLBECK: I am still trying to understand how you align the time that you came up with a conclusion that there were problems. Surely, the improvement notice would have been a signal—

Dr Clark: I understand your question. My apologies. You are absolutely right. From the moment of the improvement notice, those areas where CSIRO was found deficient were very clear. You are absolutely right that, in fact, I was aware of that from the moment that we had the improvement notice. My apologies. I misunderstood your questioning on the broader issues and the broader report.

Senator COLBECK: I think we have now got our dates lined up around the time of the improvement notice, and particularly 24 August when you received the final report. From the perspective of the information that we have received in the context of matters that I raised at estimates—and Senator Bushby has also mentioned the involvement of the line officer –

Dr Clark: Yes.

Senator COLBECK: and the manager. Nobody has actually said anything publically about that until now. It goes to the context of the questions I was asking before. I think Mr Roy said to me in February that would not have happened and yet it is quite obvious now that that is a significant issue. It has been raised with you by Comcare, it is a feature of the report, you are now in a process of corrective action of your systems.

Dr Clark: Absolutely. I think the Comcare finding is quite clear that while CSIRO restricted that –

Senator COLBECK: Sorry, my point is that it is not clear to us because we are only just finding out about this now. It goes to the point that I was making with you and the minister earlier about when you become aware of information that you have given to this committee as not being correct, and yet we are having to actually drill into it instead of being given advice of that process. That is the point I am getting to.

Dr Clark: I understand that. Certainly, making sure that we have the corrective actions, making sure that we have the final report, these are important—

Senator Chris Evans: Could I interrupt you, Senator. There is quite a difference between alleging incorrect information, and information that is impacted later by an independent inquiry. I think you ought to be fair to the officers and not confuse the two. If your suggestion is that CSIRO should have corrected the record after receiving the Comcare report with information they provided before it, I do not accept that at all. They have to report on and explain responses to a Comcare report, but if they received it on 24 August that in no way calls into question testimony they gave prior to that.

Senator COLBECK: The Hansard record is quite clear. In response to a question from Senator Bushby at February estimates, Mr Roy said:
But we would not have a circumstance in which a complaint was made against a particular officer and it was referred back to that officer to solve.

Dr Clark: I think Mr Roy said he would be disappointed if that were the case.

Mr Roy: ‘Surprised and disappointed’ were the words, I think, if you read on. It was not a categorical statement; I said—

Senator COLBECK: Unless there is a problem with Hansard, and I am reading from the Hansard. I think we are talking about a conversation you might have had with me, Mr Roy. In fact, this is the Hansard of 15 February, pages 23 and 24.

Senator Bushby asked you a question and I think that refers back to a question from me previously. Senator Bushby’s question was:

Senator BUSHBY: The question specifically refers to the answer, though, and the answer says: ‘There have been cases where the manager to whom the case was initially referred has become the subject of further complaint.’ The answer on notice deals with this issue, and I was just clarifying—
So you were responding to a question on notice to me. We talked about having the answer. The last line of your answer at the time was:
But we would not have a circumstance in which a complaint was made against a particular officer and it was referred back to that officer to solve.
We clearly have a particular representation made to the—

Dr Clark: And I think it is really clear from Comcare that CSIRO is found wanting in that aspect, as I have outlined. The Comcare finding here is that, while CSIRO did restrict some access, we failed to restrict all access and that could have had an impact of increasing the risk or exacerbating the employee’s psychological condition. That finding by Comcare is very clear and straightforward and we were found wanting in that aspect.

Senator COLBECK: And my point is that, as far as we are concerned, the last answer that we got was that that would not have happened.

Mr Roy: Can I refer you further down the page, please, to almost the bottom of page 26. You made a statement there which starts:
Circumstance does not align very well with your comment from 15 February on Hansard:
But we would not have a circumstance in which a complaint was made against a particular officer and was referred back to that officer to solve.

My response was:

Mr Roy: I would be surprised and disappointed if that had happened. As I said, I am not aware that it has happened—
and that was a correct statement at the time—
but I will take it on notice and I will look very closely at that matter for you.
Then we provided a response to question on notice BI6 , which was one of the questions on notice to come out of the last estimates hearings. It was a statement saying, ‘At the time we were not aware and would be surprised and disappointed if that was the case,’ which we are.

Senator COLBECK: I have that answer. They are contextualised as being other matters rather than specific to the case. Is that a fair representation of the answer to the question on notice?

Dr Clark: Sorry, your question is not clear.

Senator COLBECK: I am not trying to be obtuse or anything of that nature. The answer talks about the fact that there remains contact between the two people involved, but the contact is in the context of other issues, not necessarily issues relating to the case. That is where the Comcare report has found it wanting.

Dr Clark: Exactly. So Comcare recognise that we had restricted aspects that related to the investigation et cetera, but we had not restricted access in the issues of return to work and compensation claims.

Senator COLBECK: I still make the point that it would have been nice to get some advice to the committee around this. As we are demonstrating, it is an issue we have had some interest in, and it would have been appreciated if we had received some advice around this matter. What was the full cost to CSIRO of the report into this matter?

Dr Clark: When you say ‘reporting’ do you mean the full investigation?

Senator COLBECK: What was the full cost to the CSIRO of the report into this matter by the Comcare investigator, Mr Docker?

Dr Clark: I am not quite sure. Do you want the cost of the Comcare investigation and report?

Senator COLBECK: Yes.

Mr Roy: My understanding is that we have no direct costs. Whether it flows through our premiums or not I cannot answer. I will have to take that on notice. We do not write a cheque to Comcare, to the best of my knowledge, to conduct this report. Clearly, a number of CSIRO officers have been witnesses and have contributed to the report and we have not costed their time to do that piece of work. I cannot be more definitive than that here today, but we do not write a cheque to Comcare for it, to the best of my knowledge.

Senator COLBECK: After the last exchange that we had in estimates you read a section out of the draft Comcare report. You received a letter from Mr Kibble, who was concerned that you had put some of that information on the public record. Your response was, effectively, that we can do it when we feel we need to. That is a very short summary of the letter you were given in response to that. Are you comfortable with the situation you have around that particular matter?

Dr Clark: The matter was in response to questions. We have obligations to this committee to answer the questions that are put to us. Comcare raised the issue that the report had been provided in confidence, that it was a draft and that the comment had been taken out of context. But, just as you have outlined, there had been a series of questions by this committee on the issue of whether it was a systematic issue in the organisation. We are obliged to answer questions that are put to us by this committee. We have addressed those issues directly with Comcare, the statements we made were correct and factual, and we have tabled the correspondence between us and Comcare. They accept our response and they have indicated that they do not wish to take the matter any further.

Senator COLBECK: I turn to the termination of IMT division staff. You gave us an answer to question BI-8. Are you completely comfortable with that particular answer?

Dr Clark: Actually, we sent a letter to Senator Mark Bishop because, in reviewing our response to that question on notice from the May 2012 budget estimate hearings it came to our attention that the answer to BI-8 included an incorrect date. We apologise, it was a typographical error. We have written and corrected that in response to this question. The answer states:
Staff identified as potentially redundant were formally notified on 23 June 2011.
The correct date on which staff were notified was 23 June 2010. That correction was provided to the chair.

CHAIR: And circulated.

Senator COLBECK: So the advice to staff of anticipated changes was 17 May, and the actual date of notification was 23 June 2010—that is, the following month?

Dr Clark: Yes.

Senator COLBECK: I want to go to your answer to question on notice B-145. You say in that statement that the employment of one of the relevant whistleblowers ceased on 4 September 2011. The information I have is that the termination date was actually 4 January 2011.

Dr Clark: If you have information, we would be happy to look into that.

Senator COLBECK: My information is that the actual date is 4 January 2011, and the date of 4 September in fact only refers to the date of the final settlement—a very elongated termination payout.

Dr Clark: We would be happy to look into that, if you have further information.

Senator COLBECK: If you look at that particular answer, we are dealing a series of events, particularly with respect to whistleblowers—would it be right to read the answer to B-145 as confirming it is the case that over the past five years each whistleblower who has formally raised suggestions of criminal and/or civil breaches of the law, and identified themselves in the process, has had their employment terminated by the CSIRO?

Dr Clark: You are right in that in the last five years, five complaints have been lodged. Two of those complaints have been anonymous and remain anonymous.

Senator COLBECK: Yet every single respondent to one of those complaints remains with CSIRO?

Dr Clark: In terms of the whistleblower complaints that are raised, I am not privy to those complaints.

Senator COLBECK: Is it the case that none of the senior executives in whose areas these incidents have occurred has ever been formally disciplined in relation to these matters? Is it the case that they have actually all received their performance bonuses in every one of those years?

Dr Clark: I am not privy to the nature of those complaints. I do know that only one of those complaints has been accepted by the whistleblower committee and the board and independently investigated, and no evidence was found to support the investigation. The other complaints made were not found to meet the whistleblower criteria.

Senator COLBECK: I only have a couple of minutes left so I want to move now onto—

CHAIR: In fact you have about 30 seconds.

Senator COLBECK: I appreciate the committee’s time. I need to go back to the issue about the termination of the staff in 2010. There was advice given to the IMT staff on 17 May that anticipated the loss of around 30 positions?

Mr Roy: I understand that is accurate. That is what we have said in response to a question.

Senator COLBECK: No, I do not think we are disputing that. I just want to confirm it. At that point the CSIRO had a clear obligation under section 530 of the Fair Work Act to inform the CEO of Centrelink of that proposed action?

Mr Roy: That is correct, and I think where you are probably going is we—

Senator COLBECK: Just before you go there—I have got to be quick—those terminations included library staff?

Mr Roy: There were some library staff included in that.

Senator COLBECK: You are right, I am going there, because the notice of termination did not go to Centrelink until 14 February 2011?

Mr Roy: That is correct.

Senator COLBECK: There effectively was a breach of the Fair Work Act in that circumstance?

Mr Roy: There were obligations under the act. We missed the time line to send it in. We have been transparent about that. We have corrected it subsequently in terms of our policies, but we did miss that—not guideline—obligation under the act to advise the Chief Executive of Centrelink as soon as practicable.

Senator COLBECK: This is not even actually addressed to anybody, it is just a fax to Centrelink. I suppose that is neither here nor there.

Mr Roy: But I understand we submitted the advice, albeit late, in the appropriate form once it had been submitted. I understand that is how they do go to Centrelink, but we can clarify that if that is your desire.

Senator COLBECK: Effectively we are saying this is a breach of the Fair Work Act?

Dr Megan Clark: No formal breach has been found.

Senator COLBECK: No formal breaches?

Mr Roy: No.

CHAIR: The time has now come for—

Senator COLBECK: Can I just ask one final question quickly, Senator? You will take this on notice, I am sure, Dr Clark. You have put a team in place to oversee the actions recommended by Comcare in the improvement notice. Can you let us know who the members of the team are, please?

Senator COLBECK: I appreciate the committee’s time. I need to go back to the issue about the termination of the staff in 2010. There was advice given to the IMT staff on 17 May that anticipated the loss of around 30 positions?

Mr Roy: I understand that is accurate. That is what we have said in response to a question.

Senator COLBECK: No, I do not think we are disputing that. I just want to confirm it. At that point the CSIRO had a clear obligation under section 530 of the Fair Work Act to inform the CEO of Centrelink of that proposed action?
Mr Roy: That is correct, and I think where you are probably going is we—

Senator COLBECK: Just before you go there—I have got to be quick—those terminations included library staff?

Mr Roy: There were some library staff included in that.

Senator COLBECK: You are right, I am going there, because the notice of termination did not go to Centrelink until 14 February 2011?

Mr Roy: That is correct.

Senator COLBECK: There effectively was a breach of the Fair Work Act in that circumstance?

Mr Roy: There were obligations under the act. We missed the time line to send it in. We have been transparent about that. We have corrected it subsequently in terms of our policies, but we did miss that—not guideline—obligation under the act to advise the Chief Executive of Centrelink as soon as practicable.

Senator COLBECK: This is not even actually addressed to anybody, it is just a fax to Centrelink. I suppose that is neither here nor there.

Mr Roy: But I understand we submitted the advice, albeit late, in the appropriate form once it had been submitted. I understand that is how they do go to Centrelink, but we can clarify that if that is your desire.

Senator COLBECK: Effectively we are saying this is a breach of the Fair Work Act?

Dr Megan Clark: No formal breach has been found.

Senator COLBECK: No formal breaches?

Mr Roy: No.

CHAIR: The time has now come for—

Senator COLBECK: Can I just ask one final question quickly, Senator? You will take this on notice, I am sure, Dr Clark. You have put a team in place to oversee the actions recommended by Comcare in the improvement notice. Can you let us know who the members of the team are, please?

Dr Megan Clark: I will.

CHAIR: Thank you, Dr Clark. Thank you and your officers for your attendance and assistance here this morning.

Dr Megan Clark: Thank you very much, Chair.I will.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

CSIRO Allegedly Misleads the Senate – An Open Letter to Senators

Posted on October 27, 2012. Filed under: Uncategorized |

28 October 2012

 

Senator Mark Bishop, Chair

Senate Standing Committee on Economics,

Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education portfolio

PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Dear Senators

Re: Responses of CSIRO to Senate Estimates Questions on Notice

1.    I am writing to you on behalf of an advocacy group comprising of a number of former CSIRO employees who all shared common experiences of bullying, harassment and/or coercive behavior whilst working at the CSIRO. Our group has a website at http://victimsofcsiro.com.

2.    Following the Senate Estimates hearings of 28 May 2012 at which several senators raised questions regarding CSIRO, CSIRO has provided formal answers to the questions on notice. These have been published on the Parliamentary website at:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=economics_ctte/estimates/bud_1213/DIISRTE/index.htm

3.    A number of our members have noted significant factual errors, as well as text that may be deceptive and misleading in several of CSIROs responses to the written questions on notice. Moreover, some of CSIRO’s answers are alarming and of concern in themselves.

4.    We are writing to you to inform you of the above irregularities and draw your attention to some of the more disquieting statements.

5.    We believe that CSIRO should be asked to clarify the responses discussed below.

6.    Our members report and allege the following:

Question BI-6

7.    In its response to question BI-6, CSIRO denied that its CEO acted improperly in referring a complaint of workplace bullying to the person who had been complained about, Dr Lonsdale, Chief of the CSIRO Division of Entomology. CSIRO further denied that Dr Lonsdale acted improperly in terminating, within 24 hours thereafter, the indefinite appointment of the complainant.

8.    Much of the justification offered appears, however, to be incorrect and potentially misleading and deceptive.  This appears to be confirmed by the fact that on 29 June 2012, before lodging the answers to the questions on notice, senior CSIRO executive Andrew Johnson emailed an official statement to staff which made the following acknowledgement in respect of the above employee (and I quote):

“CSIRO did not take all reasonably practicable steps to protect the health and safety of the former staff member in that we appointed a CSIRO manager to act as the staff member’s point of contact despite the fact that allegations had been made against the CSIRO manager by the staff member.”

9.    It therefore appears to us that CSIRO formally declared a denial of impropriety to the Senate in this matter, whereas less than a month earlier it declared the very opposite – an acknowledgement of impropriety – to its staff.

10. Moreover, in the Senates Estimates of 17 October 2012, CSIRO CEO Dr Clark acknowledged (on public record) to a problem of bullying in CSIRO.  She said that she accepted CSIRO had acted improperly in the above case and was implementing remedial measures.  However, the very next day on National Radio (ABC AM Program) she denied that CSIRO has a problem with workplace bullying.

11.  The CSIRO Executive are still sending mixed messages regarding this issue.  CSIRO should clarify whether it did or did not act improperly in this matter and whether it has a problem with workplace bullying.

Question BI-7

12. In its response to question BI-7, CSIRO denied being aware of staff who had been placed on suicide watch as a result on their work experiences at CSIRO.

13. However one of our members reports that CSIRO privately hired three different psychiatrists to treat him in 2010 when he was suicidal as a result of his work environment. The member alleges that the psychiatrists were hired with the aim of avoiding the legal requirement to report psychological injuries to ComCare, the Commonwealth insurer and regulator of occupational health and safety.

14. Our members further report that another suicidal employee with obvious and significant scarring on her wrists was also pressured not to lodge a Comcare claim by CSIRO and forced to take time off out of her leave entitlements. The senior CSIRO HR manager tasked with her case made enquiries about her mental health and was explicitly told that she was suicidal.

15. CSIRO should clarify its statement.

Question BI-8

16. In its response to question BI-8, CSIRO formally denied acting in breach of the law in its termination of 38 staff at its Division of Information Management in 2010-11.

17.However, CSIRO’s official notification of the mass retrenchment which was faxed to Centrelink on 14 February 2011 (obtained under FOI) acknowledges that CSIRO had already made 38 staff redundant at the time of the notification. (Redundancies commenced in October/November 2010). The letter states:

“Thirty IT staff and eight library staff have now been made redundant”

18. This is in direct opposition to the Fair Work Act which states in Section 530 that:

“notice must be given: … (b) before dismissing an employee …, and (4) The employer must not dismiss an employee in accordance with the decision unless the employer has complied with this section.”

19. As noted in the Senates Estimates of 17 October 2012, the data CSIRO has provided in its answer in respect of this matter is incorrect. Staff identified as potentially redundant were formally notified in mid-2010, not mid-2011 as stated by CSIRO. We note that this error created the impression that CSIRO adhered to the requirements of the Fair Work Act, when, in fact, it did not.  Moreover, the CSIRO executive acknowledged that CSIRO had not adhered to the requirements of the Fair Work Act, but declined to state that they had breached the Act.  Dr Clark said: “No formal breach [of the Fair Work Act] has been found”.

20.  The CSIRO Executive are sending mixed messages regarding this issue as well.  CSIRO should clarify its position.  Did it, or did it not breach the Fair Work Act?

Question BI-10

21. In its response to question BI-10, CSIRO acknowledges that it generated 500 pages of confidential internal emails about a particular employee in the first 8 years of their employment, but 12,000 pages in the following 3 years leading up to their retrenchment. No cogent explanation has been provided by CSIRO.

22. In fact, the last 3 years of the above employee’s time at CSIRO were characterised by their raising formal allegations of serious criminal and commercial breaches of the law. CSIRO refused to investigate or report the allegations and terminated the employee shortly thereafter. The large volume of internal emails is alleged by the employee to relate to a cover-up that was carried out by CSIRO management to suppress and conceal the allegations.

23. Moreover, according to our group submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry on Workplace Bullying which has been published on the Parliamentary website, a second scientist who had also reported alleged criminal / civil illegalities which CSIRO had also refused to investigate and thereafter terminated him, has also discovered significant volumes (>3000 pages) of “behind-the-scenes” internal email traffic relating to his case. (See submission 169 at http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=ee/bullying/subs.htm ).

24. In each of the above cases, CSIRO staff appear to have generated an average of 11 pages of confidential internal emails about these employees each day, every day, including weekends and public holidays, for extended periods (9-30 months) corresponding to the time that they made their complaints up through the various levels of managements within CSIRO.

25. We would have thought that CSIRO would have proffered an explanation for these, frankly, remarkable statistics in light of this question being asked. However, they have not.

26. CSIRO should clarify the origin of these large volumes of internal emails.

Question BI-138

27. In question BI-138, CSIRO denies that its legal officers and employees have ever been involved in internal scrutiny of other CSIRO employees.

28. However, our members report and can document at least two occasions where CSIRO lawyers have been explicitly involved in internal matters relating to the apparent suppression of allegations of serious misconduct by other CSIRO staff.

29. The above-mentioned generation of large volumes of confidential, internal emails about staff who have laid complaints about breaches of the law also appear to fit this category (although CSIRO has not explained their origin).

30. CSIRO should clarify its assertions.

Question BI-140

31. In question BI-140, CSIRO acknowledges that, over the last 4½ years, 13 employees have written directly to the CEO with complaints of workplace bullying. Thus, by CSIROs own admission, an average of 3 employees per year have found the existing mechanisms within CSIRO for dealing with workplace bullying complaints so inadequate that they have felt the need to directly contact the CEO. The issue of bullying has been raised with the CEO and other senior CSIRO management staff on many occasions in a variety of forums including the previous three (3) Enterprise Bargaining processes, consultative council meetings and through submissions to CSIRO’s Psychological Health and Wellbeing Committee which was formed in June 2008.

32. This response appears to directly contradict Senate testimony in the 28 March Estimates Hearings by CEO Megan Clark and Deputy CEO Craig Roy that CSIRO “does not have a problem with workplace bullying”.

33. CSIRO should clarify these remarks.

Question BI-141

34. All three of the persons referred to in CSIROs answer to Question BI-141 (Employees 1-3) are members of our grouping. Taking into account information provided by these members, CSIRO’s answer to question BI-141 effectively confirms that in every case where an employee has claimed victimisation after laying complaints of breaches of the law, CSIRO has failed to properly investigate the victimisation and retrenched the complainants. The reasons for this are as follows:

(a) Employee 1 was formally made redundant before CSIRO had even completed its response to his initial complaint. Since formal grievances halt upon termination, his allegations were never investigated.

(b) Employee 2 was sent from one person to another for a period of 2 years after his initial complaint in an unsuccessful attempt to have his victimization allegations investigated. Thereafter, he was terminated. Most recently, in early 2012, he wrote to the Deputy Head of CSIRO requesting investigation, but this request was dismissed.

(c) Employee 3 was formally made redundant within 2½ months of the completion of the investigation of his initial complaint. His outstanding complaints of victimization were never investigated by CSIRO because he had been terminated.

35. CSIRO states in its answer to question BI-141:

“All three lodged formal grievances that were formally investigated”

36. This is, quite simply, an incorrect statement. In our opinion it can only have been intended to deceive and mislead.

37. We also note that CSIRO has not answered question BI-141 (iv)(b) which asked about the time gap between CSIRO’s formal response to the above complainants initial complaint and CSIROs retrenching of them.

38. In light of the above, it appears clear why that question was not answered – it would highlight the implausible nature of CSIROs conduct.

39. In our opinion, this omission could only have been deliberate and intended to deceive.

40. We submit that CSIROs answer to this question provides evidence of an undeclared policy by senior management of terminating complainants who raise allegations of breaches of the law and subsequent victimisation.

Question BI-142

41. In regard to CSIRO’s answer to question BI-142, a member of our grouping has provided written evidence that the Chief of CSIROs Division of Molecular and Health Technology, Dr Graeme Woodrow, reacted to a complaint alleging breaches of the law by assigning one of the accused to coordinate CSIROs initial response.

42. Dr Woodrow and his subordinates later abolished the complainant’s indefinite position at CSIRO after he had lodged a whistleblower report accusing them of criminal and commercial breaches of the law. Dr Woodrow and his subordinates had been left in full control of the complainant’s professional future at CSIRO despite the serious allegations leveled against them.

43. Moreover, our member has provided written evidence that CSIRO formally refused to consider damning evidence of Dr Woodrow’s conduct in the above matters.

44. CSIRO’s answers to question BI-142 therefore appear to be incorrect.

Question BI-143

45. In question BI-143, CSIRO denies failing to investigate allegations of fabricated, retributive complaints aimed at employees making bullying allegations.

46. CSIROs states in its answer to BI-143 in respect of such complaints:

“If the claim was supported with adequate evidence CSIRO would take steps to investigate it. No investigations of this nature have been commenced since 1 December 2007.”

47. However, at least one of our members report being subjected to fabricated complaints in the above period after lodging a bullying grievance. To this day, CSIRO has never investigated the fabricated complaints despite numerous written requests to do so. The most recent such request was sent by email to Deputy CEO Craig Roy several months ago. Mr Roy declined to consider it.

48. CSIRO should clarify their response.

Question BI-144

49. The answer to question BI-144 indicates that CSIRO terminated 3 of the 4 employees who complained of bullying and / or illegal conduct to the CSIRO board of directors since 1 Dec 2007. The 4^th employee appears to have simply notified the board of his / her complaint.

50. In no cases did the Board take action in respect of the complaints.

51. Only one of our members was involved in these matters (“Employee B” in question BI-144). However it appears that CSIRO has misrepresented the contents of his letter to the board of directors. His letter did not “express concern as to the progress of the investigation” as stated by CSIRO in the answer to BI-144. It alleged commercial and criminal breaches of the law on the part of CSIRO and a failure by management to investigate or report them. The letter contained a legal assessment of the evidence carried out by a reputable Melbourne law firm. That assessment stated:

“The evidence presented by [the CSIRO employee] in his complaint is detailed and extensive. A court would need to test the evidence and hear evidence from all relevant parties, however I am satisfied that prima facie, there is a case for the allegations, which would, in my opinion, be made out in the absence of contradictory evidence”.

52. The board of directors of CSIRO nevertheless refused to take action.

53. The above employee was retrenched within months of sending the board that letter. The reason given by CSIRO in their answer to BI-144 is that: “CSIRO no longer required the job to be performed because of changes in operational requirements.” However, CSIRO, in fact, simultaneously hired the employee’s temporary replacement to continue his role at CSIRO.

54. Thus, the reason given by CSIRO for terminating the employee appears to have been incorrect. The letter to the CSIRO board of directors has also been misrepresented. We submit that the only possible explanation is an intention on the part of CSIRO to deceive and mislead.

55. We further note that Commonwealth agencies and authorities like CSIRO, are formally obliged to report suspected criminal conduct to the relevant authorities. CSIRO does not appear to have done so in this case.

Question BI-145

56. The answer to question BI-145 indicates that, since 1 Dec 2007, CSIRO terminated 2 of 3 employees who lodged whistleblower reports alleging criminal / civil breaches of the law. The 3^rd complainant did not identify themselves, thereby apparently avoiding termination.

57. Moreover, according to the answer, every single respondent to complaints of criminal / civil breaches of the law remains employed by CSIRO.

58. Only one of our members was involved in these matters – namely, the employee who lodged a whistleblower report on 23 February 2010 and was said by CSIRO to have been terminated on 4 September 2011.

59. The data CSIRO has provided in respect of this employee is incorrect. He was terminated on 4 January 2011, not 4 September 2011. This is 11 months after he first lodged his whistleblower report, not 19 months as CSIRO would have us believe. In being retrenched, the employee selected the option whereby his termination payout was made over several months, ending on 4 September 2011. However, his termination date was 4 January 2011, not 4 September 2011.

60. A second of our members (“Employee B” in question BI-144) lodged a whistleblower report alleging criminal / civil breaches of the law on 27 June 2007, several months before the 1 Dec 2007 cut-off to question BI-145. That member was also summarily terminated by CSIRO without his allegations being investigated.

61. Thus, since June 2007, there have been at least 4 whistleblowers who complained of criminal and civil breaches of the law at CSIRO. CSIRO terminated 3 of these whistleblowers in short order. The 4^th did not identify him / herself.

62. In the last 5 years, every single whistleblower who reported criminal / civil breaches of the law and identified themselves in doing so, was therefore terminated by CSIRO.

63. By contrast, every single respondent to every one of those complaints remains employed by CSIRO.

64. It is, frankly, not reasonable or viable to argue that every one of the above-mentioned whistleblowers was vexatious in lodging complaints of illegal activities.

65. The only reasonable conclusion is that CSIRO has an undeclared and secret internal policy of officially refusing to investigate, then victimising and terminating whistleblowers who raise allegations of criminal / civil breaches of the law.

66.  Given that it is generally a criminal offense to supress and conceal allegations of serious illegalities, these conclusions potentially implicate the most senior management of CSIRO in possible criminal conduct.

67. CSIRO should explain its response.

Question BI-146

68. In question BI-146, CSIRO denies that it made a commitment to a new mental health plan.

69. However, our members report that CSIRO released a strategy document in respect of mental health in 2009 which could reasonably be considered a plan. It has yet to act upon that strategy.

70. CSIRO should clarify their statement in question BI-146.

Summary

71. CSIRO appears to have tailored many of its responses to the above questions on notice to mislead and create a false impression. There are also several factual inaccuracies whose effect is, in all cases, to place CSIRO in an undeservedly positive light.

72. Some of CSIROs responses are deeply concerning and point to a very serious breakdown of governance in the organisation, including officially-sanctioned victimisation of bullying complainants. There also appears to have been an official intention to circumvent legal requirements relating to reporting injuries to Comcare and a failure to adhere to the Fair Work Act.

73. Some of CSIRO’s responses moreover point to officially-sanctioned, conspiratorial suppression of allegations relating to serious breaches of the law. Such efforts appear to have involved coordinated “behind-the-scenes” activities as evidenced by large volumes of internal email traffic which CSIRO has chosen not to explain. Without exception, every employee who has raised whistleblower allegations of serious unlawful activity and identified themselves in doing so, has been terminated by CSIRO. Without exception, every respondent to every allegation of breaches of the law remains employed by CSIRO.

74. While Commonwealth agencies and authorities like CSIRO, are formally obliged to report suspected illegal conduct to the relevant authorities, CSIRO appears to have failed to do so in numerous cases.

Conclusion

75. We draw these matters to your attention as the questioners of CSIRO in the Budget Estimates 2012-13 (May 2012), Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education portfolio.

76. On behalf of our members, we request that you seek urgent clarifications from CSIRO on the above matters.

77. A copy of this letter has been published on our website http:victimsofcsiro.com.

 

Faithfully,

Victims of CSIRO

 

cc. Senator Evans, Minister of Science

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Internal Letter to CSIRO Staff from Dr Clark

Posted on October 18, 2012. Filed under: Uncategorized |

Below is a copy of an email sent by CSIRO CEO, Dr Megan Clark to all CSIRO Staff in relation to recent directions by Federal Safety Agency, Comcare after an investigation by the agency determined CSIRO to have breached its workplace health and safety obligations to its employees.  While we feel it is a step in the right direction in advising employees of the responsibilities in relation to workplace safety issues, it falls far short in addressing the ongoing suffering of the large number of current and former employees who have been injured as a result of CSIRO’s poor workplace health and safety management practices and its attempts to cover up significant incidents of workplace bullying.
We call upon Dr Clark to assist the victims of CSIRO’s poor workplace culture, many of whom have suffered financial hardship, relationship and familial breakdowns, life-long psychological injuries and some of whom will never be capable of engaging in any further meaningful employment.

We also call upon Dr Clark to demonstrate her commitment to cleaning up the poor workplace culture within the CSIRO by taking appropriate action against those who have perpetrated such behaviour as well as those in a position of authority who have turned a blind eye to such behaviour.  Many of these individuals still hold senior positions within the CSIRO, despite some of their victims struggling to survive from day to day.

It would also not be amiss for the head of an organisation which has so grievously injured its employees to provide a full and unqualified public apology to those have been harmed as a result of their employment with the CSIRO.

 

Dear Colleagues,

I wanted to take this opportunity to update you on recent actions that have been taken to further improve the wellbeing of our staff as we strive for a working environment that is safe and free from  bullying and harassment.

Some staff will be aware that Comcare conducted an investigation earlier this year into allegations made against CSIRO by a former employee concerning aspects CSIRO’s treatment of them.   As part of this investigation, Comcare issued an Improvement Notice which outlined a number of actions that CSIRO must take by 31 December 2012, including:

 

• Reviewing and amending the CSIRO Misconduct Policy to ensure it provides adequate and consistent advice to CSIRO staff managing misconduct allegations with respect to the manner in which employees are made aware of allegations against them.
• Reviewing and amending the CSIRO Misconduct Policy to ensure formal risk assessments are conducted in particular circumstances.
• Providing training to all staff responsible for implementation of CSIRO Misconduct Policy to ensure that management of misconduct allegations do not create or increase a risk to health and safety.
• Reviewing and amending HR and HSE policies to ensure that where a medical assessment is required for fitness for duty it considers all workplace matters and circumstances which the individual might be expected to encounter.
• Reviewing and amending HR and HSE policies and procedures to ensure employees exhibiting psychological distress or injury are appropriately supported and managed including being referred for medical assessment and advice.
• Developing and implementing policy and procedures for effective governance and recording of information relating to “complex case” management.

 

My office has already advised staff from the Division at the time the Improvement Notice was issued about our response. However given the nature of the actions being taken, I considered that many of you from other parts of CSIRO might also be interested in what we are doing.  In summary:

 

• A team has been put in place to oversee our actions in response to the Improvement Notice. We are on track to make the necessary changes by 31 December 2012;
• We are in early discussions with Comcare to initiate a joint project to develop best practice approaches to the prevention, early intervention and management of bullying and harassment complaints, including those involving psychological wellbeing;
• Comcare Executives have joined a CSIRO Executive Team meeting, to discuss staff health and wellbeing issues;
• Business Unit and Functional Leaders are continuing to consider actions to be taken in response to the ‘Working in CSIRO’ survey including creating the right environment where issues can be raised.
• An e-learning module on the prevention of workplace bullying and harassment is being developed;
• Human Resources staff continue to consider ways of educating and raising awareness of our managers and staff about the organisational procedures available to raise concerns and grievances and to investigate and address such concerns.

 

Workplace bullying and harassment and psychological health and wellbeing are, quite rightly, an area of community and public interest.   They are issues that affect all of us.  Research shared at the recent Comcare conference on this issue indicates one in five of Australians will experience mental ill-health at some stage in their career.  The research also showed that each of us are likely to observe, or experience, inappropriate work-place behaviour at some stage.

We are all  responsible for our behaviour.  I would ask each of you to strive to build trust and respect with our colleagues and work towards building both  a workplace where we go home safely at night but also a workplace where we go home with a sense of pride and satisfaction.

I know that how we treat our work colleagues and partners will often be remembered for a lot longer than what we do together.

I look forward to working with you  and others as part of our continuous improvement  and commit to providing you with a further update on our progress in the new year.

If you have any questions concerning this matter please do not hesitate to contact your Divisional Chief or Corporate General Manager. Our Employee Assistance Provider, Human Resources and Health, Safety & Environment staff are also available, if additional support is required.

 

 

Dr Megan Clark
Chief Executive
CSIRO

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

CSIRO denies bullying problem amid accusations of a cover-up

Posted on October 18, 2012. Filed under: Uncategorized |

Transcript from ABC AM Program

TONY EASTLEY: The Federal Opposition has accused the CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) of trying to cover up management failures linked to allegations of bullying.

The CSIRO says it’s taking action to address a series of problems with its policies which have been identified by the Federal Government’s workplace safety agency, Comcare.

The Opposition’s science spokeswoman Sophie Mirabella says the CSIRO has a cultural problem – a claim denied by the head of the CSIRO.

Simon Lauder reports.

SIMON LAUDER: The Federal Opposition’s industry spokeswoman Sophie Mirabella says bullying is undermining one of Australia’s most respected public institutions.

SOPHIE MIRABELLA: This is damaging CSIRO’s reputation both domestically and internationally.

SIMON LAUDER: Earlier this week the chief executive of the CSIRO Dr Megan Clark sent an email to staff outlining a list of problems which have been identified by the Government’s workplace safety agency, Comcare.

Comcare has ordered the CSIRO to change its misconduct policy and make sure the management of allegations doesn’t create more risks to health and safety.

The CSIRO is also accused of failing to protect a former employee who complained about a manager only to have that manager appointed as the staff member’s point of contact.

Those details were revealed to a Senate Estimate’s hearing yesterday. Sophie Mirabella accuses the CSIRO of providing incorrect and conflicting answers to questions about bullying.

SOPHIE MIRABELLA: There have been dozens of complaints and the fact that there has been this cover-up, this misinformation given to the Senate through the Senate Estimates process does point the finger at a cover-up of persistent failures in dealing with this issue.

SIMON LAUDER: The chief executive of the CSIRO, Dr Megan Clark.

MEGAN CLARK: Look, we place a very high importance on providing accurate information to the Parliament and if there is any further information that was provided to the chair of the Senate Estimates Committee or to us, we would address it.

SIMON LAUDER: Dr Clark says she takes bullying very seriously and is implementing all of the changes recommended by Comcare.

MEGAN CLARK: We know that we’ve had three to four incidents in terms of these issues of bullying and harassment reported.

SIMON LAUDER: Is bullying a big problem at the CSIRO?

MEGAN CLARK: (long pause) No.

TONY EASTLEY: The chief executive of the CSIRO, Dr Megan Clark, speaking to Simon Lauder.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

CSIRO admits workplace breaches

Posted on October 18, 2012. Filed under: Uncategorized |

17/10/12

After at least a dozen allegations of endemic failure within their ranks, CSIRO have finally admitted, after a year of denials, their failure to adopt and follow effective workplace policies and procedures.

Under questioning from Liberal Senator Richard Colbeck in Senate Estimates today, it was confirmed that CSIRO:

• – Have given incorrect information during the Senate Estimates process on at least 14 occasions;

• – Have provided a range of conflicting and inaccurate responses to questions regarding workplace bullying;

• – Are yet to correct Hansard regarding the many aforementioned matters of inconsistency;

• – Have clearly breached the OH&S Act and are now belatedly introducing new procedures; and

• – Have failed to fulfil their obligations to at least 38 of their employees under the Fair Work Act.

“CSIRO’s attempt to whitewash these persistent failures through the adoption of new procedures does not solve the cultural problems within the management of the organisation,” said Sophie Mirabella, Shadow Minister for Science, today.

“There must be an immediate correction of all of the misleading answers that CSIRO have given over the past twelve months.

“Persistent breaches from CSIRO management are disappointing and must be fixed to restore CSIRO’s reputation as a professional scientific organisation,” Mrs Mirabella concluded.

Article courtesy of:

http://liberal.org.au/latest-news/2012/10/17/csiro-admits-workplace-breaches

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Federal Court Statement of Claim against CSIRO

Posted on October 9, 2012. Filed under: Uncategorized |

Dr Sylwester Chyb who is in litigation with the CSIRO in the Federal Magistrates Court has consented to permit his Statement Of Claim issued to the Federal Court to be published on the Victims Of CSIRO website.  We have been following the progress of Dr Chyb’s case for quite some time and wish him success in conclusion of the matters before the courts.

Federal Court of Australia – Statement of Claim – Dr Sylwester Chyb

FCA_Chyb_SoC

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Parliamentary Submissions relating to CSIRO

Posted on October 8, 2012. Filed under: Uncategorized |

Having taken the opportunity to browse the current collection of submissions to the Parliamentary Inquiry Into Workplace Bullying published on the APH Website, the Victims of CSIRO have identified 4 submissions which we have on good authority are related to the CSIRO.  We have been advised of a number of other submissions from former CSIRO employees which are awaiting authorisation for publication:

Follow the Links below to the submissions.

sub39_Single

sub161_Single

sub169_Victims

sub176_Joint

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )