Monday, March 9, 2015


I am sick to death of the lies and half truths that  lower managers and even some of the executive at CIT have put across during the last years of this bullying fiasco.  Mr Melick was trying Richards case so he could not bring into the case the complaints of others such as mine, but, mine are detailed in the 'secret report' written up by Andrew Kefford's office and passed onto CIT. I was of course like the rest of the complainants, sent a letter saying that no evidence was found for my bullying. So they must not have asked CEO Adrian Marron, former Centre Director Peter De Dekker, (because he openly supported me and Richard)  Acting Centre Director Glenn Carter, Acting Education Manager Jayne Miller, Deputy CEO Peter Kowald, Head of HR Gerard Johnston, Deputy CEO Shane Kaye, (who I reported the missing funds to) and Education Managers Tony Purnell and Alison Halpin whether I ever complained about bullying and unprofessional behavior by John Frohlich ... because I spoke to ALL of them including talking to them about the 'open secret' of Johns bullying behaviour in our section and indeed across CIT including what I was witnessing towards Richard Saunders and others.

Did they all lie? I would not believe that for a minute. Some of them are just plain good folks that nonetheless failed to act - others of them were clearly in dereliction of their duty. I believe many were complicit in protecting ANY manager that staff complained about for reasons that have yet to come to light. I have always wondered what the thinking around this was. Did they worry about the reputation of CIT? I doubt it very much - I believe they were more worried about their own arses and  careers and once they had been involved in arse covering once they could not stop. It  was like a cult mentality- they reacted to any 'outside' 'attack' by closing  ranks, i.e., 'criticize one of us managers and you criticize us all'. A very dangerous attitude considering that in the end they will indeed be responsible for damaging the reputation of CIT. CIT as a collection of staff teachers and students do not deserve this, the broad organization does fantastic educative work but the rotten apples have been allowed to flourish. Many of the them have jumped ship in anticipation of the exposure.

If Melick could have included my complaints and the others against John Frohlich I could have told him that it is ludicrous beyond belief that Glenn Carter did not know of John Frohlich's reputation as a bully because within days of Glenn taking up the acting position as our Centre Director, I had a meeting with him and our acting Education Manager Jayne Miller because, after many insults and difficulties with John I was bailed up privately in a room after a staff meeting where John yelled and carried on at me in an effort (which was later successful) to make sure that a project I had $5,000 funding for from the previous CEO Colin Adrian never got off the ground. Frohlich or Glenn or both made this money disappear. In my meeting with Glenn Carter, Glenn told me that he was 'putting the project on hold' because John did not agree with it. Toni Purnell and I had gone to Colin Adrian together to win the funds and she supported me in this project. With her out of the way and two strangers to me in  - Carter and Miller - John was free to play the bully boy and get his way even though Jayne was my manager and the project had nothing to do with John. John instead thought his pet Vicki Collins should be handed the project even though I had done all of the work to set it up.

I had the meeting with Jayne and Glenn because  I wanted to make sure that they both know that I was pursuing mediation with John and that I had already had a meeting with Gerard Johnston head of HR to make that happen. I had hoped to be able to solve my bullying concerns by the 'lesser' route of mediation believing and stating to both Jayne and Glenn that I believed that John was acting to seriously undermine me and that I had also made a complaint to our previous centre director Peter De Dekker who had advised me to make a formal complaint. At that meeting with Peter, I said that as John was already undermining and  attacking me, I was afraid for my job. Peter told me that he would protect me and not let John do that to me.

Alas, Peter did leave CIT and I was left to John's mercy which is why I told Glenn Carter and Jayne Miller of my concerns as soon as I could. I was upset and ended up shedding tears in this meeting. A couple of days later Glenn Carter invited me to have a coffee with him at the Reid café. He said that he was very concerned that a staff member was so upset that they would burst into tears. As the meeting went on I realized that his concern was not for me at all and that he was an apologist for John.  I began to be suspicious of his questioning and of his advice that I not make a formal complaint and indeed mediation was the best bet. He also said that I was probably 'over sensitive' due to 'recent family events' (he had already said this in the meeting with Jayne and he) and that 'some people' i.e. John, just had 'difficult personalities' that other people had to learn to cope with!

When Glenn asked me further questions, I looked him in the eye and said that I no longer knew who to trust at CIT due to the manipulation I had already experienced and that this feeling included him and I did not wish to tell him anything further. I had NOT told him about the 'recent family events'  but John knew and had already briefed Glenn BEFORE my so-called confidential and private meeting. In mediation, John also brought up my 'recent family events'  as a reason I might be 'over sensitive'. However, bullying by him preceded  these events by two years!

I had worked closely with Peter Kowald on a project in 2009 while at the same time working for Communications Media and Music and often told him about Johns 'latest' bullying of me. Without asking him directly, I was hoping he would 'do something' about John. I was still unaware and indeed afraid of making a formal complaint and though I never asked him, Peter shook his head in sympathy with me but never offered me any advice. I respected him and trusted him during this time but when I was finally 'dismissed' by Johns pet, I took CIT to an unfair dismissal hearing. Peter Kowald and Gerard Johnston were at the hearing representing CIT. I twice said to both men; "for once, please please do not what you can legally get away with but WHAT IS RIGHT. Our union representative Mike Fitzgerald was also there as a witness. 

Incredibly the investigation by Andrew Kefford claimed to turn up nothing in the way of evidence. This is just my evidence and don't forget there were about another 4o people who gave evidence. Quite a few complaints were about John Frohlich. I have a number in my mind of about how many managers had complaints against them by the sheer amount of people who have contacted me and told me who they made complaints about.

At least 15 15!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! of the managers/executive at CIT had complaints made against them ... complaints were NOT made against the Indians.

Instead of dealing with the rot and putting the victims out of their misery, CIT and the investigators decided to bury the lot. We will never know what they investigated, who they investigated and how they came to believe that NOT A SINGLE ONE could be substantiated.

We; the Canberra public, will never know the truth of this appalling cover up in our public service until this 'report' is allowed to see the light of day and pertinent questions asked by those who MUST be given an answer such as those in an independent legally binding investigation.

What does the case of Richard Saunders say about the process of the investigation? It says that until a proper legal case is mounted where witnesses are subpoenaed and under oath to answer, the fiction of the investigation by Andrew Kefford under former Chief Minster Katy Gallagher will remain and the tax payers of Canberra treated like the proverbial mushroom - left in the dark and fed nothing but bullshit.

The case of Richard Saunders shows that CIT got it VERY wrong in one of the most important complaints in the whole investigation - important because his bully was named by several people - and as far as I know he was the only one with more than 5 complaints against him. Richards case was also one of the first that went to Mark McCabe of Worksafe.

Sadly, this fiction of an investigation has had an educative effect on the Canberra Public Service and especially those still working at CIT - because they have told me. If two years, 40 complaints and over a million dollars went nowhere, what is the point of complaining?

No comments:

Post a Comment