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.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s