What does procedural fairness mean to you?
Do you believe that we should all be treated fairly and that justice should be balanced so that rich or poor we all receive justice?
Or maybe you're a CEO, or a Company Director, or a Minister? Does
that give you rights above the rest of society?
In 2003 John Finnin moved from a senior position with Foster's Group to
become one of only four regional directors of Austrade. Austrade was at that
time a taxpayer funded organisation with 142 locations in 64 countries,
employing more than 1,000 staff. (yesterday the Australian reported that
Tony Abbot is considering eliminating this organisation, which could be a great
saving for the private citizens who pay tax)
Finnin was given
top-secret security clearance and access to diplomats, foreign leaders, and
heads of state, in addition to every level of government official in Australia,
including John Howard. When the Australian government brought Finnin home in
2006 it was to have a quiet word with him. To offer him a “heads up”.
What the Australian
government knew was that Finnin was about to become the target of an
investigation into the procurement of a young boy for sex. Australia didn't
want a scandal. The best solution was for Finnin to resign quietly. This left
him free to join one of Australia's most well supported entrepreneurial rising
stars, touted as an international success and potential saviour of the planet,
a company that John Howard, Peter Holmes a Court and many others just couldn't
stop raving about. Firepower International offered him $500,000 pa, plus a
luxury Maserati, plus 6 million shares in Firepower, and a $100,000 signing on
bonus.
This isn't a morality tale
about our individual differences in sexual behaviour. The contrast I am hoping
to draw attention to is that of justice in the workplace. I am a believer in
social justice, and universal human rights and I was confused by the shire’s
statement on the alleged potential defamation event that started with DT's
letter;
“The Shire treats all
potential breaches of employment contracts seriously and will ensure that such
matters are investigated in a fair and confidential manner that promotes
natural justice.” Johan Louw
The use of the term “natural
justice” is probably
incorrect in this instance as the deliberation did not take place in a court of
law; what was probably meant was “procedural
fairness”. The rules for
procedural fairness defined by the WA Ombudsman includes a comment on bias. It
states that those seeking to provide procedural fairness must ensure that they
are unbiased.
“This includes ensuring that from an onlooker’s perspective there is no
reasonable perception of bias. For example, personal, financial or family
relationships, evidence of a closed mind or participation in another role in
the decision-making process (such as accuser or judge) can all give rise to a
reasonable perception of bias. If this is the case, it is best to remove
yourself from the process and ensure an independent person assumes the role of
decision-maker.”
But if the CEO had been found to be at fault what might have happened?
Something similar to what occurred with Max Eastcott? If the CEO fails then the
ratepayers have to pay him for the remainder of his contract. Surely not I hear
you cry, but sadly it's probably true. All too often senior people move on
without a stain, actually gaining financially when they have failed in some
way, but they certainly do not treat the workers they are responsible for in a
similar manner.
Too often those who make a mistake, or an error of judgment, at the
lower levels are treated harshly. Do you suppose that DT got a 2014 equivalent
of the benefits Finnin enjoyed? Adjusted for inflation and according to his
salary level of course, I'm a very reasonable woman, and wouldn't want to
suggest the underdog deserves more than the top dogs. But maybe just a little
more equality around the bone wouldn't go amiss.
A decent manager has the
self discipline and training to assess a situation from the perspective of the
institution, combined with the capacity to understand and empathise with the
employee.
If an employee is defaming
the institution then first it must be established that there is a genuine risk.
I would anticipate that on any day of the week there will be employees moaning
about injustice or immorality in most organisations, but they aren't dismissed
for it. One reason is that in a private company the costs would outweigh the
benefit. Did we ever get the full costs of the Anne Lake investigation and
associated legal and hospitality accounts revealed? No. Linton Hodsdon did his
best but was only given a partial answer. I wasn't given any answer at all. The
costs of dismissing DT were significant. If DT was a poorly performing employee
who needed to be "let
go" then a decent
organisation would have dealt with it as a routine matter, not waited until DT
was disgruntled.
Local authorities are "owned" by the citizens, they cannot be
defamed under Australian defamation law. If we believe our shire is shonky we
have a right to say this. So DT was not defaming the shire. If there was
defamation is was directed at individuals.
Mr Evershed was reported
as saying that he, and unnamed others, were potentially defamed. As we have no
knowledge of how widely the letter was leaked, or what it contained, we cannot
comment on how true or how defaming it might have been. However, we can also
take note of something else Mr Evershed claimed, which was that the author had
missed out on a shire appointment.
DT did not get the job and
was suffering from a disappointment. Did management invite DT in for a sincere
discussion and explanation when the job was not offered? Occasionally employees
do believe themselves to be capable of more than their manager thinks to be the
case. This must be dealt with. Difficult, but not impossible. If DT was a
competent employee who had just, on this occasion, made an error of judgement
about certain situations then why destroy a career and lose an otherwise good
employee?
The only conclusion was
that Mr Evershed and our councillors thought such a stance would stamp out any
further rumours, show others just how ruthless the shire would be if the bosses
were ever criticised. The subsequent communications have given the community a
clear indication that their councillors are not going to raise any criticisms
of the CEO. He has given a clear signal that he holds the power with the whole
council backing him.
Do any of us care about
this?
Possibly not, although if
you've read this far you must either be hoping to find fault with something in
the blog so you can cry “defamation” or have a passing interest.
Is what happened to DT
just the Australian way, to tear the fallen apart and spit them out?
How the shire operates is up to the local people, even legislation can
be changed if the will of the people require it. The shire reflects our
community values.
Maybe DT's letter will
continue to make tiny ripples, it might yet be the butterfly wings of
democracy, and whether it creates enough updraft to take us anywhere or merely
flaps about impotently remains to be seen but we do know that,
"The truth is on the march, and nothing shall stop it."
Emile Zola
Some of you are incredibly
stoic reading these huge blog posts and so to reward your investment of time
I’ll reveal why I was refreshing my mind about Firepower International. It was
really just the Holmes à Court involvement that piqued my interest. The Holmes
à Court family are appearing among the documents being sent to me as often as
the Horgans and Michael Hale. Curious.
Firepower is a good story though. I borrowed a book from the library and
it’s a quick read that reminds us that since WA Inc, since WADC, since Exim,
since Wanneroo, since Firepower, since the Bottom-of-the-Harbour scam,
etc, etc – not much has changed. We are paying more for regulation but
without the power of the people the regulators will never win. We need more
whistleblowers, not less.
Can you see parallels between Tourism WA, Eventscorp and Austrade, or
would that be fanciful. Stay grounded, focus on the facts. And ask why was that
Cowaramup transfer station moving? Because Michael wants it to..............
PS - Finnin was eventually
convicted and served a prison sentence.
