Archive for June, 2014
Why is the CSIRO investigation any different?
One striking contrast between the CSIRO Investigation into workplace bullying and other unreasonable behaviour and other similarly commissioned inquiries into other agencies is that those other lines of inquiry included investigation of the mishandling of such allegations and complaints by those responsible for the duty of care towards the complainants. It is quite apparent that both the Inquiries into sexual abuse in the Australian Defence Forces and the current inquiry into institutional sexual abuse have focused quite heavily on the culpability of those in charge in failing to meet their duty of care in protecting those under their supervision.
Given these precedents, what possible justification does the investigator leading the CSIRO investigation have in deliberately removing or excluding from investigation those complaints relating to the manner in which complaints were initially handled, particularly where there is evidence to indicate that those responsible for handling such complaints either ignored or attempted to confound resolution of such complaints or have subsequently participated in the ostracism or victimisation of the complainant.
More incredulously, some of those involved in the CSIRO Investigation into workplace bullying and other unreasonable behaviour were also involved in the investigation of other departments or agencies in which the responses to allegations of misconduct were heavily scrutinised?
Hypocrisy?
Whilst we make no claim about the comparative impacts between sexual abuse and institutionalised bullying (which may very well contain elements of sexual abuse and sexual harassment), the long term devastation experienced by victims of workplace bullying compounded by the lack of recognition and closure directly attributable to the CSIRO’s failure to properly manage such complaints, surely warrants investigation in its own right.
After all, a failure to act to protect the welfare of employees not only breaches CSIRO’s own Code of Conduct policy but also constitutes a breach of the CSIRO’s statutory obligations under the Commonwealth Work Health and Safety Act. A failure to report or cover up misconduct is also a breach of the CSIRO’s Code of Conduct policy as are attempts to false or misleading information.
How many of those senior officers who provided knowingly false information to Mr Martin Williams and then subsequently provided unreliable information to Deputy President James Constance in the AATA matter of Williams v Comcare [2012] ever faced misconduct proceedings?
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Discussion Point: The question of Legal Privilege and Independence
Recently Victims of CSIRO has received a number of communications from participants in the CSIRO investigation process who have expressed considerable frustration that they are being denied access to material relating to their particular investigations (including access to individual investigation reports) as a result of the CSIRO claiming Legal Privilege in respect to these particular documents.
Legal Privilege protects a client’s legal discussions and legal advice from their legal representative from being disclosed publicly. In theory, this is similar to the Professional Privilege maintained by Doctors in relation to their patient’s medical information which cannot be disclosed to any other party without the consent of the patient, however, in the legal context, a legal practitioner has an overriding duty in assisting the court to reach an appropriate and just determination.
This raises the most serious question of whether a legal practitioner, who has the solemn duty to protect their client’s interests and not to disclose their client’s privileged information is capable of claiming independent status, in for example, an “independent” investigation into workplace bullying allegations.
In invoking Legal Privilege, as has occurred in the case of the CSIRO, the overtly partisan client-provider relationship between the CSIRO and HWL Ebsworth has been firmly established and therefore any claim to independence swiftly evaporates.
Victims of CSIRO would welcome further discussion, opinions or clarifications in relation to this topic.
It is reprehensible that Professor Dennis Pearce continues to claim independence when the very law firm who has engaged him (HWL Ebsworth) has a professional obligation in protecting the interests of the very organisation he has been tasked to investigate.
Professor Pearce and/or the CSIRO should either attempt to substantiate the claimed independence of the investigation process by opening it up to proper public scrutiny in permitting reasonable access to all investigation materials or should come clean in declaring the process to be a partisan undertaking intended to “manage” the CSIRO’s public reputation and its legal interests, in particular the organisation’s potential legal liability.
The lack of transparency in this investigation is obvious to even a casual observer. In fact both the investigator and CSIRO have resisted, and even gone so far as to attack any efforts to ensure reasonable scrutiny of the investigative process.
It is noteworthy that the Parliamentary Inquiry into Workplace Bullying (PIWB) which preceded the CSIRO investigation by some months perceived no real impediment in publishing redacted versions of the submissions made to the inquiry and subsequently did so. This level of transparency is decidedly lacking in the CSIRO Investigation.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Victims of Bullying, Harassment, and Victimisation in the CSIRO 