Victims of CSIRO supporting Dr Katherine Morton, another victim of Sexual Harassment in CSIRO
The following post on Facebook by an ex-CSIRO employee has prompted us to write about the plight of another, now Ex-CSIRO employee, Dr Katherine Morton. Dr Morton has recently been made redundant by the CSIRO after being unable to return to a safe work environment due to Sexual Harassment by a colleague. Whilst the perpetrator has been enabled free reign of the laboratory in which Dr Morton formerly worked, Dr Morton has been terminated as a result of her inability to return to work due to the perpetrators presence. CSIRO has an obligation to assist Dr Morton in her rehabilitation and this action on the part of CSIRO clearly demonstrates that CSIRO has absolutely no intention of meeting its obligations to Dr Morton under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. This is not an isolated case and is common practice in dealing with injured employees whom CSIRO does not wish to rehabilitate.
CSIRO would rather put the pure financial interests and those of an external partner above the health and safety of their own employees. Again, this is not an isolated case. Victims of CSIRO are aware of a CSIRO executive failing to progress complaints by up to 8 employees about bullying by an external collaboration partner by stating words to the effect “we cannot afford to loose this funding so deal with it”.
And now it would appear that CSIRO are attempting to attribute the good work of Dr Morton to someone wholly undeserving of that attribution. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this again is not unusually in the CSIRO where psychopathic narcissists duly claim the hard work of others. Please read the Facebook post for more details:
This piece on Simon Irvine and Natalie Habilay is a utterly false, and moreover it is apparently so if you know anything about Natalie’s entry in the organisation as a receptionist at the QCAT site, then a trainee at BIRC and then a technician. There is not doubt in my mind that CSIRO know this, but have chosen to misrepresent the truth. As a public organisation this is unconscionable conduct.
The truth is that it was Dr Katherine Morton who attended the indigenous engagement workshop and was the responsible CSIRO staff member that drove Natalie’s hiring as a trainee from that workshop. In fact, Natalie was the standout candidate and this was proven once she was onsite and observable from her work ethic. It was also Dr Morton who drove Natalie’s training, and then it was Dr Morton who drove Natalie’s successful application (including getting Natalie a reference) to enable Natalie to become a full time member of staff. A simple FOI request for these documents would prove this beyond any doubt. Further, the drive to get Natalie a full time position from Dr Morton came despite the resistances that Dr Morton experienced in putting forward Natalie for the position, particularly by the predominantly white middle aged management of the group that is responsible for Natalie’s current position. It was Dr Morton who was effectively, in all aspects of any relevance, Natalie’s mentor, supplemented by another member of the BIRC site, David Blyth–not Simon Irvin. Further, Natalie, during the period of her training, was actually line managed by David Blyth–not Simon Irvin. Obviously, David is not Simon Irvin and when Natalie suffered harassment at work, it wasn’t Simon Irvin who stepped in, but Dr Katherine Morton who dealt with those issues.
To suggest that Simon Irvine had anything to do with Natalie’s hiring, Natalie’s progression within the organisation or frankly anything to do with Natalie prior to 2015 is nothing short of dishonest and typical of your organisations constant attributing of anything that appears to be progressive to white middle aged men, rather than the sources from where these things occur. It is even more particularly abhorrent and dishonest as Dr Morton is only no longer a part of your organisation due to your inability to provide a safe working environment for her after she made a formal complaint that included sexual assault, sexual harassment and other bullying and harassment directed at her–poignantly the worst of these offenses occurred at the Bribie Island Research Centre site, where Natalie continues to be employed.
I will go further to state that Simon Irvin is a coward in the highest regard, particularly when as a site/team leader he is required by CSIRO policy to stand up for what is appropriate of the CSIRO values. This aspect of Simon was demonstrated in absolute in his behaviour during the grievance that Dr Katherine Morton chose to raise with the organisation. At this time, Simon Irvin chose to lie to the investigator about the behaviour of Dr Morton’s abuser, in particular of Simon’s knowledge of the abuse that the abuser had perpetrated (not just on Dr Morton, but on other members or Simon Irvin’s team) and moreso particularly denying the abuse that the abuser had actually directed at Simon Irvin himself, which he also chose not to disclose even though it is on record at the CSIRO, who chose not to disclose that information to the independent investigator into Dr Morton’s grievance.
It is also probably worthy noting in this comment, particularly as the article mentions them in a positive light, that there are clear misrepresentation being made as to what actually happened to the first Atlantic Salmon that arrived at the BIRC site (somewhere in the vicinity of 1000 or so fish). These salmon, which was organised by, and under the care of. Dr Brett Glencross, all promptly died within weeks or earlier of their arrival the the BIRC.
It is also probably worth noting that Natalie got her reputation at the site because she was (even as a trainee) obviously fields above her peers.
Given that I have actual evidence regarding the statements above, and ultimately so does the CSIRO, feel free to attempt to silence me here. You can choose to remove or not publish my comment here but I am reposting this on my Facebook page with this comment and will ensure that it is properly disseminated with the truth from there. It is thus your call as to whether you remove this article or let it stand with my correcting comments.