Mobbing and workplace victimisation

Gail Wykes: Breaking contracts, social and employment: a warning for potential teachers: Do not believe anything the N.S.W Department of Education say; and a reminder to my victimisers

In my experience the N.S.W Department of Education lie about everything, to everyone. See the following blogg entry ´My attempt to gain natural justice´ for a brief overview, and my book  An Education in Victimisation f0r the complete story.

They lie to teachers that they will lose their ´priority date´,  their position on teacher-placement waiting lists,  if they do not take any offer made to them. This is a lie. They do this to trick teachers into working in schools no-one would otherwise work in, such as  Bidwill High. I found documents with the details of at least 19 teachers who had refused the same job I was offered at that school, and who, after refusing these offers, had immediately recieved much better offers. The names and schools were clearly documented. I photocopied these and many other documents.  I came across these documents, which I have kept but not published, due to considerations of privacy for those teachers, at the Mount Druitt District Office.  In other words the ´priority date´is bullshit. So refuse offers you don´t want.  Don´t let them trick you. I took a job 19 others had refused. Ask yourself why that School can continue to state that there were no ´problems´at their school, that I was the problem, when 19 others before me had been prepared to go to the end of the waiting list for any job at all in N.S.W, rather than teach at Bidwill H.S. Of course they never were placed at the end of the list. Only naive people like me believed the lies about such a waiting list, and policy. But more to the point, only teachers like me were willing to give the youth of Mount Druitt a chance at a quality education. I could have worked at private schools, but it is against my principles.

The Education minister himself also considers it O.K for a school to contractually offer you one job, in writing, and then to simply force you do a completely different job. I have this in writing, from the Minister himself. It is official. Clearly the department never act in good faith, and do not consider it a breach of ethics to break any contract they enter into. The contract, for such people, is simply a means to an ends. It has no other value. It is just a trick, a ploy, a  a tool to deceive their contractual partners, the new teachers.

So do not trust any contract you have with the N.S.W Dept. of Education. And as the IRC implicitly support the complete disregard for employment contracts, grievance procedures, or natural justice, I can only assume that you cannot trust any contract with any government employer in N.S.W. Any contract, in my experience around the world, is only meaningful for those in power, or with the resources to hire good lawyers. The government treat a contract as something they will insist on enforcing when it is in their favour, and completely ignore as soon as it becomes inconvenient to themselves, or their mates. Thus the contract becomes an instrument of violence employed by the powerful against the weak, the mob against the individual.

Do not believe anything you read or hear about any supposed grievance handling procedures. The government will never investigate any greivances you lodge.  They will simply vicitimise you until you  withdraw your complaints.  If you do not they will have you defined as unfit for service, fire you, and blacklist you, preventing you from working in any State or Nation for any government school ever again. They have done this to many teachers. Independent reports stated this clearly. Read them for yourself. Google ´Healthquesting´and read the official, independant reports. Independant investigators found and documented detailed, explicit, incontrovertible evidence that individuals were brutally victimised by Healthquest hired guns on behalf of the government. Just like in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany, if you speak up against the government, they will crush you. They will ruin your life. Of course if you have dependents, then their lives will be ruined as well. There are no Gulags in Australia, but the consequences and intentions of the State´s actions are effectively the same as those of the Checka or SS.

None of the victims of Healthquesting were ever compensated. The government implicitly admitted it  had victimised many people when it disbanded Healthquest. But it never took any steps to compensate any of the victims. Those individuals who stood up to the government ended up facing drawn out legal procedings. Poor individuals representing themselves had to fight against the most highly paid Queens council lawyers the Government could hire. These QCś spoke as slowly as possible, seeking to draw out the proceedings as long as possible, hoping the innocent victims of the state would simply give up all hope.  How does such cynical behavior on the part of the State encourage its citizens to behave ethically? The government was happy to pay a cynical lawyer thousands of dollars per hour, over several years, then to admit it had made a mistake, and to simply do the right thing by the victim of their mistakes.

If the State itself has no qualms about denying the violence it perpetrates, then what possible qualms could any of its citizens feel about acting according to their own convenience and satisfaction, and then simply denying it, or justifying it?

So Gail Wykes be warned. Until you have ensured that my grievances are actually investigated, and I am compensated, I have every natural right to make you pay for the violence you inflicted upon me, and continue to inflict upon me.  Do the right thing. The same goes for everyone else involved. I am still suffering. Violence if violence. It takes many forms. Violence breeds violence. Do not complain when you become the victim of your own acts of violence.

 The state has a valid  monopoloy on violence only so long as  it keeps its end of the ´social contract´.  I am now once more offering it the chance to make good on its obligations.  Otherwise Lex Talionis reigns, and ´society´breaks down into anarchy. I have every natural right to pursue justice by any means available, given that the State refuses to act in good faith on its end of the social contract. This is what produces terrorism. And these terrorists are often awarded noble peace prizes years later.

For the full story of my experiences at various schools in N.S.W,  and my  international research into workplace bullying, mobbing, and victimisation, see my unibook ´An Education in Victimisation`, or email me for a pdf download. All the supporting documents and my IRC submission are on this webpage. They are also on many others, in case the N.S.W Department of Education manage to have all my files deleted, as I suspect they did a few years ago with my Australian yahoo accounts. As a result I lost many years of work. Another act of violence.

Until I have been given natural justice I will continue to suffer, and I will have a burning need for revenge. The State cannot prevent me gaining revenge except by investigating my grievances and compensating me appropriately. It might ´punish´me for any actions I took,  after the even, but that would  not produce any positive impact, apart from perhaps drawing public attention to the need to define workplace victimisation as a form of violence, and to validate and compensate its victims.

My case is clear. It has never been investigated. If I did respond with violence, those on the receiving end would not be ´innocent´.  I am the ongoing victim here. If they suffer for their own vilolence, then they will simply be experiencing the consequences of their own violence. They will be responsible for the violence they suffered, as it would be merely a product of the violence they inflicted upon me, a violence I experience every day anew. It is not a physical wound that can heal. The healing can only take place after my legitimate grievances have been investigated and addressed.

Imagine you went through what I did, and continue to. What value would your life have for you? What would you possibly have to lose by getting revenge upon those who have actively contributed to your situation?

And this should give you pause. Imagine how many people there are in the world who enjoy physical violence. They would be quite happy to have some excuse to justify acting out their agressively destructive impulses. Impulses which most of us repress, in return for the benefits of ´society. For a few thousand dollars people kill other people. All they need is some pretense, some slight incentive, and they are happy to murder, to assault, and harm others. They have been marginalised from society and its benefits, and hence they have nothing to lose, no rational reason to repress the more destructive elements of their human nature.

And these people realise that most assaults, murders, and rapes are never solved. Most perpetrators, like the N.S.W Dept. Of Education, go uninvestigated and unpunished. If the representatives of the state, and hence the state itself, behaves opportunistically, devoid of any commendable ethical principles such as honoring contracts and respecting basic human rights, employing deception and violence as a means to their ends, then why should those marginalised people living on the fringes, with none of the benefits that the representatives of the state enjoy from the social contract and ´society´;  why should they of all people observe this ´social contract´and repress their impulses, thus denying themselves their gratification, and the satisfaction attached to them?

This will not go away. Even if I do go away, you will never know if I  have not arranged for someone else to gain my revenge.  I am not stupid. Unless I wanted to be caught, to bring media attention to these issues, I would be sure to ensure that nothing could  connect me to the violence that my victimisers suffered.  As far as you know, I may already have exacted  a quid pro quo from some of you. It may be in progress right now. It may come tomorrow. It may come the day after you retire. But until you investigate my greivances transparently, energetically, openly and fairly, and compensate me appropriately, the prospect will be there that you will pay for what you did to me, and what you continue to do to me every day, as long as you fail to address the violence you perpetrated upon me.

So do the right thing. Do it all transparently for the public to consider. If the state does not honour its ´social contract´with me, then why should they beleive that it will honour this social contract with anyone?  Why should the public give up their right to natural justice, and to grant the state a monopoly on violence, if that state does not uphold its end of the ´social contract´?

The old saying ´A contract is a contract is a contract´must once more become validated, or what basis do we have for ´society´except ´might is right´.  And even the most powerless of individuals can take down the most powerful, as terrorists all around the world have shown. Freudś  ´tyrannical father´learned this lesson. You can act all self-rightous and define yourself as an innocent victim, but that will not change the facts of the situation. Justice is indivisible. See Luke 16:10.

As you do unto others, so shall be done unto you.  We make the world we live in from every action we commit or fail to, in our daily interctions.

What world have your actions contributed towards?  One defined by violence, or one defined by justice, fairness, and good, longer-term ethics?

I would be happy to speak to any media about this issue, and the content of this blogg. I suggest the legal authorities investigate all my claims before worrying about harassing me further. Everything I have stated in my statuatory declaration is the truth. I have all the documents to support all my claims. You have them too, in this webpage.

Stop the passive victimisation you are perpetrating upon me by NOT investigating my claims,  failing to address my valid grievances, and failing to provide appropriate compensation to all the victims of the N.S.W Department of Education and Victimisation. These victims were identified by the ´independant´ report into Healthquest. Its findings were accepted. Thus Healthquest was disbanded. But none of its victims ever got compensation for their victimisation. None of the violence done has been addressed. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. For every one clear victim of Healthquest, many others, like me, simply refused to allow Healthquest, at the bequest of employees of the Dept. Of Education, including the then and following ministers for education, including the current one, to victimise them.

I have lived and worked in Russia. I have heard all the stories. And in principle they are no different from mine. The Australian Government behaves no better, in principle, than the Soviet Terror Regime did. Fact.

I suffer almost constant migraines, cluster headaches, tension headaches, and nausea, as a result of the violence inflicted upon me by Gail Wykes and the rest of the N.S.W Dept. Of Education, and facilitated by the I.R.C. I suffer finanical poverty as a result of their actions. Everyone  in the Department, the IRC, and the media who failed to investigate my documented grievances are  responsible for allowing people like Gail Wykes to violently victimise people like me.

‘Some of you have a ´moral´ responsibility. All of you have a  positive response-ability. So respond positively, as you should have in the first instance. Let us all learn and grow from these experiences while we are still capable of responding positively.

History never judges the victims of violence harshly for defending themselves through their own acts of violence. It is accepted that without natural justice, we are not fully human. Denying someone natural justice, or at least a transparent process which seeks natural justice, is denying them their humanity. And I thought we had an international charter on human rights to protect people from such forms of violence?  Perhaps the Australian government  imagines it can ignore such international charters. Well if so, it can hardly complain when it becomes the victim of the violence of a more powerful perpetrator.

And remember that no-one in the media has ever made any fuss over the violence that Australian citizens have suffered at the hands of Healthquest and so on. The general public have never shown any interest or support for these victims. The Australia I believed in as a child appears to have been a fiction of the advertising companies.

I just watched a television documentary about two men falsely accused of murder, and convicted to life in prison and a death sentence resepectively. It was a warning to all of you. Why should you care about mobbing, if you are not a victim of it?  Well, the answer is, you could easily become the next victim. Corrupt police had conspired with corrupt politicians and criminal business-men to frame two men for this business-man´s murder of a newly wed couple. The wife had seen her boss loading guns and bags of money into his car. He had been involved in some criminal activities, and now he risked her talking about what she had seen. So he murdered her. He then paid, through the police, two people to make false reports that they had seen the two men in the house just before the murders. In fact one of them had seen that businessman there. She accepted 2500 dollars from police to falsely testify. The other ´witness´ received 25000 dollars to also give false evidence.

In court one of the men actually punched the prosecutor. He had every right to be angry. The trial was obviously completely rigged.  The  court had absolutely no intention of serving any sort of justice to these men. The judge refused to allow any of the evidence offered by the defense lawyer, and did everything to support the prosecution. The most damning evidence of corruption was never allowed to be presented to the jury.

Thus the jurors saw two angry men. Of course they were angry. They were the victims, and this court was further victimising them. They were facing the death penalty for murders they had had nothing to do with, and the judge was clearly conspiring with the prosecution against them. But as per human nature,  the jury simply defined their anger as being evidence of angry, agressive, violent natures. I have experienced exactly this sort of unfair and ignorant violence at the hands of the Tasmanian Dept. of Education. See my book An Education in Victimisation for details.

Over the next 17 years every police officer who attempted to investigate this case was victimised and deterred from continuing with their investigations. However one man continued, and found hundreds of glaring cases of inconsistencies and obvious indications of corruption. He too was victimised, but would not desist. He was demoted from Liutenant to the lowest police rank. However he continued. Finally he amassed so much incontrovertible evidence that one of the men was released from prison. He had served 17 years. And still it would take another 4 years before the other man, on death row, would be released. However neither were exonerated. They were never cleared of the charges. They were never declared innocent.

This policeman won 700,000 dollars in damages for the victimisation he suffered as a whistleblower. However the supreme court overruled the award, stating that you could not sue the government for compensation for its clear acts of victimisation. The government has ruled that no-one may challenge its right to victimise any of its employees. The government has made one rule for itself, and another for everyone else.

Of course this completely undermines the notion of ´all men being equal before the law´ on which the tacit ´social contract´which makes peaceable and productive society possible, rests. This is the foundation of society. That all of us are equal before the law.

And those who make the laws simply decide that they will make themselves above the law. Think about this carefully. The people with the most power, and therefore the people who represent the greatest risk of ´moral hazard´, the greatest temptation to abuse power in their own narrow selfish interests, have been allowed to decide that they should be completely invulnerable from the legal justice system. This  is pure Tom Stoppard and Kafka. It is sublime ´theatre of the absurd´.

We allow the people with the greatest motive to abuse power to absolve themselves of legal accountability. Surely if power corrupts, then power that is completely free from accountability is guaranteed to result in criminal acts of violence. Unless we assume that as soon as a person enters some public office, their human nature is suddenly purified of all selfishness, and they become ´noble savages´, we surely cannot accept such an untenable position.

Hamlet cited ´the insolence of office´ as one reason not to be.

Deterrence and accountability are the foundations of society.  Around 40% of male university students who responded to a U.S study stated that they would rape if they were sure of getting away with it. This is just stating the raison de´tre for having a legal justice system in the first place. We grant the state a monopoloy on violence to enforce the social contract, as otherwise few people would respect the rights of others, especially in emotionally charged situations.

This state, then, has a monopoly on violence. We give up our own rights to pursuing natural justice by the use of violence, in exchange for the guarantees that the State will do its best to pursue natural justice on our behalf.

But when this State grants itself immunity from accountability for its own acts of violence, those not committed in the quest for justice, we have to ask ourselves what sort of contract we are implicitly signing up for. The Nazi dictatorship was defined as criminal, as it supposedly did not have the consent of the people. Thus Germans after WWII claimed that they had no social contract with the Nazi regime. The same could be said of the Bolshevik reign of terror. People had no choice. No-one offered them the option. These terror regimes had simply assumed the same rights that the Supreme court in the U.S did when it defined itself as above the law.

You cannot allow lawmakers to be above the law, without expecting that they will, true to human nature, use that power  to protect them and theirs from acccountability. We know that when people are free from any accountability, they tend to express the worst in human nature. It is society that has allowed the best in human nature to propell humanity forwards into higher and more noble realms.

Society requires that the State actively and transparently seeks natural justice. This requires that it hold its own office bearers at least as accountable for their actions as the rest of us. In fact, we should expect them to be held even more accountable. For they are the role models for the rest of us.

It is in this context that I demand, as a citizen, that mobbing and workplace victimisation, and the vicitmisation of whistleblowers, be legally recognised as forms of violence, and defined as criminal acts. I insist that whistleblowers and victims of such mobbing be compensated financially and with official public apologies.

Otherwise the State has shown its complete contempt and disregard for society and the ´social contract´ it is based on.

The State has, so far, shown its complete contempt for me personally. It has committed acts of brutal violence against me.   It has denied me any form of natural justice. It has failed to investigate my claims. I made them in the form of a Statuatory Declaration. If any of my claims are untrue, then it can sue me. It has not done so as all my claims are true.

The State cannot therefore expect me to grant it a monopoly on violence, when it merely employs that violence against me, and others like me.

You, the public, have a right to know all of this. You have a chance to investigate all my claims. You have a right to have the wrongs of the past corrected. If you fail to do any of this, you would have no moral rights to criticise me for seeking natural justice in the ways that society, and the social contract, were designed to eliminate, by making them redundant.

I write this with the desire to eliminate all forms of violence and injustice. I do this with Luke 16:10 in mind. So far I have been the victim. But everything that goes in, that is impressed upon us,  must come out in some form. So far I have taken the only productive means at my disposal to express this violence.  I have expressed myself verbally and in writing.

This has so far proven completely ineffective at motivating the state into providing me relief from the violence it continues to inflict upon me every moment, often even in my sleep, in my dreams.

I thus ask you, the public, to identify your own common, shared, interests in my case, and all cases of workplace victimisation, mobbing, and the continued ´rape´ of its victims in the law courts, and in the continued failure to investigate and address the victims grievances, let alone prosecute the perpetrators, and provide compensation.

When the perpetrators, the state itself, holds itself above the law, then the time has come for the people to call that state to account. We cannot facilitate the power of a state that does not consider itself accountable for its actions as individuals, and as departments.

The pain is real. The violence is real. The costs are real. Will you only validate them when it is you and yours that feel that pain, and are victims of that violence?  How far do you think we are from a new dictatorship?  If the powers that be consider themselves above the law, then they are already our defacto dictators. They simply have no bothered to proclaim themselves as such.  And remember, the most powerful form of power is that power which is effectively invisible.

Please do the right thing. Or was Freud ultimately right in having little hope for humanity?  Are humans really, at heart, mean and nasty?  Our lack of respect for the rights of animals today, merely respects the lack of respect for slaves, other ethnic groups, other nations, homosexuals, lesbians, atheists, members of other religions, and so on, that we displayed before society had advanced on waves of legal reforms which forced us to respect the rights of those less powerful than ourselves.

Terrorism is merely a response of the less powerful to the more powerful. Terrorism is a product of injustice. How many terrorists have gone on to be awared Nobel peace prizes?  Why?

See my TROONATNOOR books,  my novel, ´The veil of ignorance´,    TROONATNOOR, Convergences, Religion,  An Education in victimisation, Cautionary tales of working and teaching ESL overseas, Sung Seng Nim, My poems and songs, A taste of TROONATNOOR , and Autobiographical The Philosopher Prophet of The Eden Protocols. if you are interested in a fairer, more just, more beautiful world, and lives that are worth living for everyone.

Mobbing and workplace victimisation

My attempt to gain natural justice

Formal submission by Markus Rehbach to Judge McLeay re: IRC 04/385, application for relief from unfair dismissal

All document references are handwritten on the top right hand corner of the documents I have provided in support of my application. I have formed the laudable habit of taking notes during important interactions. Interlocutors can complete their statements without interruption, after which I can return to important points. For this reason I can confidently quote people verbatim. I offer all quotes with the same legal character as that of statuatory declarations.

1.I was made an offer of permanent employment at Bidwill H.S, as Teacher-Business Management/Economics.(See document joboffer.tif). A psychiatric assessment was not a condition of that contract.

2.At least 19 other teachers had refused the same offer of employment.I can provide personnel records of each of these offers. They did this in spite of the high unemployment rate of economics teachers, and the resulting threat of losing their ‘priority date’. This is important in the context of the systemic discipline and teaching difficulties which define the teaching environment of Bidwill H.S. My employer has sought to define these systemic features of teaching at Bidwill H.S as personal problems of myself.

3.I told staffing that I was wary of accepting the offer as I had already experienced problems at Bidwill H.S. They said that if I had problems again that they would help me.

4. I had been employed as a Teacher-Business Management/Economics. The principle, Gail Wykes, had never planned to honour my employment contract. She entered into the contract in ‘bad faith’. (See document badfaith.tif)

5.I was forced to teach 23 classes a week of Geography. The rest of my teaching timetable consisted of Maths and Travel and Tourism. (See document timetable.tif )

6. I was not “accredited” by the Dept. to teach any of these subjects. I had never requested, nor would I have ever been granted, the status “not accredited-willing to teach” any of these subjects. (See documents qualifications.tif , teachingareas.tif )

7.I experienced this situation as harsh, unfair, and unjust, both to myself and to the students in my care. The majority of staff at Bidwill H.S, however, did not empathise with me in any way, and in fact resisted, hampered, and resented my attempts to address this situation.

8. My employer is responsible for the invevitable problems and conflicts that arose due to their failure to honor the employment contract. I understand that a contract, is a contract, is a contract. The Dept. apparently have a much looser definition of a contract. (See documents ministerreply.tif , noonan.tif ) My Employer’s representatives have informed me that it was in fact “naive” of me to have expected the “luxury” of having my employment contract honored. It will be a matter for the IRC to decide whether an employment contract is binding on both parties or not. I believe the IRC would be setting a dangerous precedent if it determined that contracts were not legally binding.

9. I lodged grievances concerning this untenable situation. I requested that I be removed from the school due to the victimisation that I had experienced and which I expected would escalate. ( See document grievances5.tif ) My employer failed to take reasonable steps to avoid further victimisation or conflict. My employer cannot therefore blame me for the problems and conflicts that arose out of my employer’s failure to honour the employment contract, and failure to take reasonable steps to avoid an escalation of those problems and conflicts.

10.I lodged several grievances against my acting head teacher, Jacob Appleby, for unprofessional behaviour bordering on physical assault. (See documents appleby.tif and appleby1.tif , appleby2.tif )

11.I lodged grievances against the Principal, Gail Wykes, and the District Superintendant, Chris EVans, for unprofessional behaviour, ‘bullying’, and threats including those made to me by Gail Wykes to “go out quietly”, as “what happened here would follow me to my next school”. The principal had also threatened that if I pursued my grievances, reports would be written criticising my competence and behaviour. It was reasonable, in this context, for me to take misleading comments made by the District Superintendant, Chris Evans,that he could annul my probationary appointment at any time, as threats. He did in fact act on these threats, and recommended my annulment. (See documents wykes.tif,wykes1.tif,wykes2.tif ,wykes3.tif ,wykes4.tif ,wykes5.tif ,wykes6.tif ,wykes7.tif )

12. My original grievances re: the failure of my employer to honor their employment contract, were not addressed for over four weeks . I had appealed to the Director of Staffing, Greg Noonan, both in person and in writing, to be removed from the school, due to victimisation that I had already suffered, and had reasonable grounds to expect in the future. Mr Greg Noonan, as Director of Staffing, insisted that my situation did not warrant being removed from the school. I cautiously agreed to return to Bidwill H.S as an ESL support teacher, while awaiting a “nominated transfer”. I did this out of good will, and a recognition that the interests of students of Bidwill H.S would be best served as a result. (See documents grievances5.tif , noonan.tif )

13.My supervisors and other school staff openly resented the fact that my grievances had finally been recognised as valid and had been addressed by staffing. I was placed on a “nominated transfer list”, which for all intensive purposes meant that I had every chance of being ‘promoted’ out of Mount Druitt District and would be teaching years 11 and 12. The staff of Bidwill also clearly resented this.

14. Within a few days of staffing having addressed my original grievances, a member of staff had violated my privacy and had gone through a folder I had lent to a Ms Chu, to show her boyfriend. The folder contained a philosophy manuscript that I wanted his opinion on, as Ms Chu had expressed to me that he wrote philosophy himself, and was interested in what I had written. I was not aware that any poetry had been left in the folder. I had not intended for anyone to read that poetry. I had no intention of bringing that poetry to school, let alone having it read, or distributed amongst the school community. My original intention was to write a heavy metal song, which I had hoped to have recorded one day by a heavy metal band.

15.Members of staff, without my consent, which I would never have given had it been requested, not only read my personal documents, but apparently made 40 copies and distributed them amongst the wider school community. This wider community was then lied to that I had handed out these copies of a poem to them with the intention of threatening their safety. (See document proofofconspiracy.tif )

16.On March 14 2000, I was directed to “alternate duties” at Mt.Druitt District Office. The next day, March 15 2000, the District Superintendant, Chris Evans, read out allegations to me that the Principal, Gail Wykes, had written, which stated that Gregg Freemen had alleged that I had “handed out copies of the poem to all the members of staff, as a threat”. The Staff Welfare Officer was at this meeting as my witness. She was also well aware of the allegations before the meeting took place. She had in fact corresponded with a Ms Kylie Herring from Industrial Relations services (IRS) about these allegations.(See document proofofconspiracy.tif ) Ms Kylie Herring was later assigned to be the “case manager” for my grievacnces. It appears that Linda Watts (SWO), had collued with Greg Freemen,Leading Teacher-Resources, the Principal Gail Wykes, the District Superintendant Chris Evans, and Ms Kylie Herring (IRS), in ‘covering up’ for Gregg Freemen and/or Gail Wykes, the fact that at least one of the two had maliciously made false allegations about me.

17.I immediately contacted a former colleague, Ms Chu, The probationary L.O.T.E teacher at Bidwill H.S, regarding these allegations. She was quick to apologise, and apparently informed Chris Evans that the allegations were false, and about how that poem in fact had come to be circulated. I played absolutely no active part in the distribution of that poem. No legal responsibility for the consequences of the distribution of that poem can be assigned to me. That poem was criminally copied and maliciously distributed against my wishes and interests. The nature of the poem was maliciously misrepresented with the criminal intention of damaging my reputation and inciting the community of Bidwill H.S to fear me. Many official documents spread propaganda concerning ‘threats’ that I am alleged to have made, and “a history of agression”. Security guards were installed as part of an orchestrated dramaturgy intended to scare people and define me as a threat. I can provide copies of such official propaganda.

18. I requested a copy of the original allegations that Chris Evans had read out to me. Chris Evans would not give me a copy of these allegations. The ‘report’ he did give me did not include the original malicious allegations. I have been requesting a copy of the original allegations in every appeal I have lodged since March 15, 2000.

19.Linda Watts, The Staff welfare officer (SWO), who had known about the allegations before the meeting, and who had volunteered to be present at that meeting as my ‘independant’ witness, denied that such allegations had been read out to me. In fact Linda Watts arranged a psychiatric assessment of me, to have me certified as ‘unfit for service’. (See document healthquest3.tif ) She lied to me about the nature of that appointment, telling me that the appointment was for a “General Probationer’s Medical”. Had I accepted her word, I would have turned up for a psychiatric assessment fully unprepared. I would have attended without informed consent, which is contrary to the official guidelines issued by HealthQuest at that time. Not one Departmental document regarding this appointment indicates anywhere that the appointment made for me at HealthQuest was for a psychiatric assessment. In other words the Staff Welfare Officer had sought to gain a psychiatric assessment of me by means of deception. This is a violation of the United Nations Convention on Human Rights at Article 19. Judge Schmidt has noted the same in the Kerrison case before the IRC. (See document healthquest4.tif )

20.I had to speak with the Director of HealthQuest, Mr Casolin, to discover that the appointment that Linda Watts (SWO) had requested was in fact for a psychiatric assessment. If I had not taken the intitiative of insisting to speak with the Director of HealthQuest, I would not have discovered the nature of the appointment until I had arrived, fully unprepared. Mr Casolin, Director of HealthQuest, then told me that I was well within my rights to postpone the assessment until I had all the “background information” that I needed. I had postponed that appointment until Chris Evans would provide me with a copy of the original allegations he had read out at the meeting of March 15,2000. I needed a copy of these allegations to demonstrate that the Principal, the District Superintendant, and the Staff Welfare Officer, had all colluded in a conspiracy to deny me the truth, and the natural justice that that truth would have allowed me to attain. No psychiatrist who had been deliberatelymisinformed by Linda Watts about my situation, would be in a position to accurately assess my mental well-being in the absence of that “background information”. Mr Casolin, the Director of HealthQuest, agreed with me on this point. (See document hqgrievance.tif )

21.Linda Watts (SWO), in her “request for a HealthQuest appointment”, had deliberately misrepresented the facts of my case, including direct lies, ommissions, misrepresentations, and innuendos. (See documents healthquest1.tif and healthquest2.tif )

21.I offered then, and have repeated this offer consistently, that I was “keen” to undertake a psychiatric assessment done by any independant pyschiatrist, whose opinions of me had not been contaminated by Departmental propaganda. (See documents grievances5.tif , mhrgrievance1.tif , and grievances2.tif ) It was well within the powers of The Director General of Education, according to the Teachers services act of 1980, to arrange an appointment for me with any Pyschiatrist of his own chosing. (See document healthquestalternative.tif ) He was not bound to using the services of HealthQuest. My employer cannot annul me for failing to attend an appointment that they themselves were unwilling to make for me. If there was any genuine concern for my health and wellbeing, then my employer would have made an appropriate appointment for me with an independant psychiatrist. My employer had every opportunity to arrange a neutral and unprejudiced psychiatric assessment.

22.I was not aware at the time of the widespread abuse of “HealthQuesting” in which the Education Dept. deals with inconvenient employees through the administrative expedient of having them assessed as ‘unfit for duty’, and then ‘medically’ retired. My suspicions, however, have been justified by an independant report on Healthquest commissioned as a result of over 44 complaints of “HealthQuesting”. The majority of these complaints were raised by employees of the Education Dept. HealthQuest has been reformed as a result of these complaints and the report. I can provide documents concerning these complaints and the report written by Lowe consulting

23. I followed the grievance procedures right up to the Director General, Dr Ken Boston. In my grievances I met my obligations under the 1994 Teaching Services Regulation and 1997 Code of Conduct to report breaches of the Teaching Services Act 1980, Section 83, with reference to maladministration, corruption, discrimination and harassment. The Director General failed to respond to my official report, and failed to investigate my allegations. My employer, the Director General of Education, Dr Ken Boston, failed to meet his legislative obligations to investigate the alleged breaches of the Teaching Services Act 1980, section 83. (See document grievances4.tif ). Every attempt I made to follow up on my allegations with Dr Ken Boston per telephone was prevented by his secretary. The District Superintendant’s eventual response to my grievances, with which the Minister for Education appeared to concur, was to direct me “home on pay”. He then apparently delegated the investigation of my grievances to the Industrial Relations Services. This is how Ms Kylie Herring came to be the “case manager” for my grievances.

24.My employer claims to have sent me a letter offering me the chance to argue why I should not be annulled. They either never sent it, or sent it to an address at which they knew I no longer lived.(See document proofnomail.tif ) That letter was, according to a postscript scribbled on a copy of a draft of the letter provided to me, sent by registered mail. Other letters had also been sent by registered mail, and were either returned to sender, RTS, or signed for, against the Post’s own regulations, by an Elke Rehbach. My Employer has provided no receipt to prove that they in fact mailed the letter. If they had mailed that letter, then they would have a receipt. If it was ‘returned to sender’, or if someone other than myself had signed for it, then they would have known that I had not received it. Had my employer been genuine in seeking to contact me, my employer could have telephoned me. My employer was obliged, under the legislation under which I was employed, to inform me of their intention to annul my probation and employment, and to give me 14 days in which to respond as to why I should not be. My employer has legally failed to meet their obligations. My annulment cannot be considered, for all intensive legal purposes, ever to have taken place. My employment has never been legally terminated, and as such my service has been continual since January 28, 2000. If my employer wishes to annul me, then they will have to continue the proceedings that they began in 2000, and send me a letter advising me of their intention, and giving me 14 days to respond as to why I shouldn’t be annuled. (See documents wheresreceipt.tif , rtswhat.tif , mailmother.tif , mailreturntosender.tif ) They had my phone number but did not call me.(See document contactdetails.tif ). This is further grounds for consideration that I was the victim of a conspiracy to deny me natural justice. Had they genuinely wanted me to be informed about their intention to annul me, and to offer me the chance to argue why they shouldn’t, then they could very easily have called me. (See document nomail.tif )

25. Later the Dept. claimed that; failure to respond to that letter; failure to attend a HealthQuest appointment; authorship of a piece of creative expression;
d. the problems and conflicts that arose at Bidwill H.S and Mount Druitt District Office;
e. my incompetence at teaching geography, Mathematics, and Travel and Tourism; and
d. discipline problems experienced in some of my classes:

all justified my annulment and subsequent blacklisting.

However, none of these grounds given for my annulment were or are valid.

26. I never received timely notification advising me that I was to be annulled, and offering me the chance to respond as to why I should not be. I did not “fail to respond” to such any such nofification.

27.I had been informed by Dr Casolin, the Director of HealthQuest, that I was well within my rights to postpone any HealthQuest appointment until I had the “background information” I needed. I had not “failed to attend” any HealthQuest appointment. I had actively “postponed” the two appointments made for me, until I had the “background information” I had been requesting since March 15, 2000. My employer failed to provide me with the background information I needed to attend a HealthQuest appointment after HealthQuest had been misinformed about my situation and behaviour. My employer failed to exercise my employers legal power to arrange an alternate psychiatric assessment by a neutral and unbiased medical practioner. My employer themselves thus prevented me from being psychiatrically assessed, and is therefore responsible for this situation. Further, there were not, and are not, any medical grounds whatsoever for seeking a psychiatric assessment of myself. This ground for annulment is invalid.

28. The mere fact that I wrote a poem 10 years ago was no justification to request an “urgent” psychiatric assessment. My authorship of that poem was never grounds to direct me to “alternate duties”, nor to hire security guards. Authorship of any form of artistic expression is a private matter, and not a public issue. My privacy and legal rights had been violated by the multiple-copying and maliciously motivated distribution of that poem. I had never had the intention of showing anyone that poem, let alone anyone from the Dept. of Education. I cannot be held responsible or accountable for the effects of the distribution of that poem. Other employees of my employer are responsible, and must be held accountable for that. Any damage done was as a result of their distributing that document, and not as a result of me having authored it. This ground for annulment is invalid.

29. My employer is responsible for the problems and conflicts that arose over my grievances, as they resulted from my employer’s breach of contract and the offering of a contract in ‘bad faith’, with absolutely no intention of honoring it. This ground for annulment is invalid.

30.I had stated from the beginning that I had no competence to teach Geography, Maths, or Travel and Tourism. I cannot be held responsible for my employers decision to force me to teach subjects I am incompetent to teach. It cannot be considered appropriate to assess my competence as a Business Management/Economics teacher by referring to my incompetence as a Geography ,Maths, and Travel and Tourism teacher. This ground for annulment is invalid.

31.The school management failed to do their duty with regard to providing support for the management of discipline. They failed to provide a discipline officer, and failed to offer me any intensive support program for beginning teachers (See documents problemsnosupport.tif ,nosupport.tif , nosupport3.tif ), even though Ms Kylie Herring (IRS) had recommended this course of action.(See document proofnosupport.tif )

31a. My employer is responsible for assigning me, as an inexperienced probationer, the most difficult classes in one of the most difficult schools in Australia. My employer defined Bidwill H.S themselves as such directly (See documents problemsnosuppport.tif ,specialneeds.tif ,probationsupport2.tif ,expulsions.tif )

31b. This definintion of Bidwill H.S is implicit in the “points system” for transfers and appointments that my employer uses. My Employer has not yet provided the documentation I have requested on this points system that I applied for under my F.O.I application. This ground for annulment is invalid.

32. The references made to any failure to carry out duties refer to ‘unreasonable’ and ‘malicious’ directions. I was directed to lower a student’s test scores. I of course ‘failed’ to do so. I was directed to enter rolls on the computer at an arbitrary time maliciously chosen by Jacob Appleby to deliberately and unnecessarily inconvenience me. I entered the rolls well within the timeframe in which they were needed.

33. My employer has never had legitimate or compelling grounds to annul me. My employer first sought to have me certified as ‘unfit for service’, and then simply annuled me, as an adminstrative expedient, as a convenient alternative to investigating and addressing my grievances. There is not one compelling ground that I can be held responsible for, or accountable for, for ever having begun any proceedings against me, let alone having annulled and blacklisted me.

34. Documents released to me under a Freedom of Information Application support all of the above contentions. I have not seen one document that justifies my employer’s decision to annul my probation. These same documents provide many reasons to consider that a wide ranging conspiracy, both of active collusion, and of passive failures, existed and exists, to deny me the truth, and the natural justice that that truth would demand, and facilitate.

35. I am filing my own appeal for relief from unfair dismissal based on the similarities of my case with the Kerrison case. My employer is currently contesting Judge Schmidt’s verdict in the Kerrison case, and seeking to appeal Judge Schmidt’s rulings. See: Industrial Relations Commission of N.S.W in Court Session-Kerrison v N.S.W TAFE Commission (2003) NSWIRComm76. File No: IRC3124 of 2000.

36. Judge Schmidt overruled the TAFE submission that the IRC had no jurisdiction in this case. Judge Schmidt also ruled against my employer’s contention that, as Ms Kerrisons application was “grossly out-of-time”, it should not be accepted. I anticipate that Judge Schmidt’s ruling will not be overturned, and as such wish to appeal to the Kerrison case as a precedent for my own case. In this sense I am appealing to the IRC that it exercises its discretion in allowing my appeal for relief for unfair dismissal, although it is in fact “grossly out of time”.

37. In support of my appeal for the IRC to exercise this discretion, I wish to state that Mr Chris Evans (Mt.Druitt District Superintendant), Mr Wayne Freakley (D.E.E.T Legal Services Unit), and Mr Peter Phelps (D.E.E.T Industrial Relations Services) all volunteered to me that my case was closed, that I had no right of appeal, and that I had no other means or avenues available to me to seek any legal remedies for my situation.

37. I sought independant legal advice, under the terms of legal aid, from a solicitor supposedly specialising in Industrial Relations matters, next to Seven Hills railway station. This solicitor listened to my description of my situation vis a vis my annulment, and then stated unequivocably that as a probationer I had no right to apply for relief from unfair dismissal, and that my failure to attend the HealthQuest appointments in any case meant that I had not met my obligations as a probationer, and therefore the Dept. could annul me as they pleased. This advice did not contradict anything that I had been told, or lead to believe, by any employees of my employer that I had ever had contact with.

38. I sought independent legal advice, under the terms of legal aid, from a solicitor supposedly competent in Industrial Relations matters, next to Seven Hills railway station, a few days after my meeting with Mr Freakley and Mr Phelps. This solicitor listened to my description of my situation vis a vis my annulment, and then stated unequivocally that as a probationer I had no right to apply for relief from unfair dismissal, and that my failure to attend the HealthQuest appointments in any case meant that I had not met my obligations as a probationer, and therefore the Dept. could annul me as they pleased. This advice did not contradict anything that I had been told by, or lead to believe, by any employees of the Dept. that I had ever had contact with.

39. I was very depressed and disillusioned with all that had taken place. I had no reason to believe that any of my grievances had ever been investigated. I had never been shown any evidence. In fact persons claiming to have been the most senior persons responsible for the investigations of my grievances demonstrated that they had absolutely no idea about the details of my grievances. They referred to documented incontrovertible facts as allegations. (See documents minutes1.tif.tif , minutes2.tif.tif , minutes3.tif.tif ). Documents demonstrate that the no genuine investigation ever took place. The IRS investigators merely “assumed” that whatever they were told was true. (See documents assume1.tif,assume2.tif). Key witnesses were either never approached, as in the case of Mr Geoff Berry, or not asked the most significant questions, as in the case of Ms Shyan Chu.

40. I had been blacklisted from any government teaching in N.S.W. Other states required that I inform them as to whether I had been blacklisted. All of my friends and family in any case lived around Sydney, and in Germany. My friends advised me to try to forget what had happened. Everyone thought a change of environment would help me overcome the victimisation I had experienced. I decided to leave Australia and go to Germany, where I could at least find some sort of work suited to my training and vocation. The only work available there was casual, and with very poor conditions. In any case I was very depressed and disillusioned with people after the victimisation I had suffered at the hands of people I should have been able to trust. This victimisation haunted me, and continues to haunt me. I returned to Australia a few times, each time determined to find some justice by getting my case investigated . Every time I was to face the same sort of Departmental response, and every time I gave up in despair.

41. It was only recently that my Newstart Jobsearch Casemanager recomended that I approach my local State MP about my experience. My local State MP suggested that I contact the Premier’s office. My local member and the Premiers office contacted the IRS on my behalf, and explained my situation. The IRS called me back, and directed me to the Kerrison case. I studied this case and came to the conclusion that my case was similar enough to anticipate success. The Premier’s office also directed me to a web search, through which I became informed about the 44 similar cases of “HealthQuesting”, the independent report into HealthQuest and subsequent ‘reforms’ of HealthQuest, the Questions raised in Parliament concerning such cases of victimisation ( and their not-answers), and various articles concerning ‘whistleblowers’ who had been, and who were currently being, victimised by my employer.

42. Recognising that I had a moral obligation to pursue my particular case as it did reflect a systemic problem, that their was an avenue open to me to pursue natural justice, and that the IRC had granted Ms Kerrison natural justice after many years, including years of hearings, I came to the conclusion that I must file an application for relief from unfair dismissal with the IRC, even though it would be grossly out-of-time.

43. I wish to appeal to the notion of natural justice, which would be denied me, if through no fault of my own, my application was denied. Had I been aware at the right time that I could apply for relief from unfair dismissal with the IRC, then I would have contacted them immediately, and found out that I had 21 days to apply, and I would have travelled into Sydney to file my application personally. I believe that the interests of the state, and the interests of natural justice, will best be served by exercising the available discretion, and allowing my application, as grossly out-of-time as it is.

44. I believe that my employer had a moral, if not legal, obligation, to inform me of my rights to seeking relief from unfair dismissal from the IRC, and of my obligations to file for such relief within 21 days of being annuled. I therefore appeal to you and the IRC to exercise the available discretion and allow my grossly out-of-time application.

45.I intend calling the following witnesses;

45a. Ms Kylie Herring and Ms Linda Watts: to explain the context of their correspondences concerning the allegations made at the March 15 meeting (See document proofconspiracy.tif );

45b. Mr Geoff Berry, Training and Development/Curriculum Co-ordinator, Mt Druitt District Office: to prove that Chris Evans did in fact admit, at the meeting of 30/03/2000, that the report I had been requesting, did exist, but that I would never be given a copy of it, and as witness to Chris Evans barely controlled rage. Chris Evans did in fact very angrily wrench the pencil with which I was taking notes, out of my hand, and agressively direct me to leave the District Office within a few minutes. (See document witnessreport.tif );

46c. Ms Shuyuan Chu, Languages Teacher at Chifley College-Bidwill Campus: to prove that Gregg Freemen has lied concerning threats he alleges I had made to her on a number of occasions (See documents freemenlies.tif , propaganda.tif, chulies.tif, and refreemenlies.tif ); to describe the context in which she apologised to me on March 15; and to express clearly and unequivocably that the only fear that she has in fact ever had in relation to me was that if she sought to help me, she herself would be victimised by my employer, who is also her employer;

45d. Dr Casolin the then Director of Healthquest: to prove that I never failed to attend any appointments, rather I had them postponed, with his support, until Chris Evans would release a copy of what he refers to as an “internal report”, and which represented the ‘background information’ I needed; and to comment generally on HealthQuest procedures re: informed consent.

46.Please note that I had consistently requested that Mr Geoff Berry be interviewed concerning Mr Chris Evans Behaviour on the day he forced me to leave Mount Druitt District Office. Ms Chu has never been asked about our conversation of March 15. Further, Val Macauley contacted Ms Chu days after Gregg Freemen and Gail Wykes allege I had threatened her. They alleged that she went to the police to report these alleged threats. Ms Chu made no mention of any such threats to Val Mcauley. Val Macauley failed to ask Ms Chu about Ms Chu’s fears that Ms Chu would be victimised if she provided me with any further information regarding my grievances. (See document refreemenlies.tif )

47. I am seeking that the IRC should determine that the annulment of my probation was never legal. I seek that the IRC order that my employer should treat me as if I had never been annuled, and provide me with all lost wages, superannuation, entitlements, and recognition of service, that I would have received had my probation not been unfairly annuled. I seek that the IRC order that my employer honor the contract that my employer made with me in January 2000. I seek that the IRC determine that it is not legal for my employer to force its employees to teach subjects that they are not accredited to teach. I seek that the IRC determine that it is unfair for probationer teachers to be assigned to the most difficult classes and schools in their probation year.

48.There is no substance to the constant propaganda spread within the Education Department that I have ever threatened anyone. Policing resources have been tied up with vexatious and frivolous allegations. Such lies, omissions, and misinformation have been maliciously directed at intimidating me to be silent about the injustices that both students and teachers alike have been forced to suffer, due to the unwillingness of my employer to recognise systemic problems within the Department of Educaiton, particularly in the Mt. Druitt district. I have a moral duty to pursue this application with the IRC. I appeal to the intention or spirit behind the law, to provide relief from unfair dismissal, should my application be considered ‘grossly out-of-time’ by the exact letter of the law.

49. I believe that the actual documents that I have provided, together with a detailed description of the context in which they are embedded, will provide enough substance to judge my application, even in the event that the witnesses I have identified can not be located or compelled to attend hearings. I have put together a detailed account of my experiences within the Department of Education. I cannot afford to print this document, however I can provide both the IRC and Mr Quinn with a CD rom copy of it. The document can be viewed online at

50. I hereby state that this document, for all legal purposes, should be considered to be a statuatory declaration. It is with this sincere intention that I sign this document.

Markus Rehbach
Wagga Wagga, March 21, 2000.