Spread the love

COMPANY Response to SDK E-mails Disputing the Integrity of COMPANY Processing of Personal Data


SDK disputed the integrity of the personal data being processed by the UK Company – former employer immediately after receiving it. The COMPANY withheld my personal data from me while employed. This was a breach of my employment contract and the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). The main issues were highlighted in three (3) e-mails written by SDK to UK COMPANY Personal Human Resources Data Processors on 5 December 2014, 6 December 2014, and 20 December 2014. It should be noted that the HR Manager was also a principal subject of the 20 September 2013 delivered formal grievance that accused the HR Manager of bullying, harassment, discrimination, violation of UK Labor Laws, PGS UK Personnel Handbook Policy, and defamation. I believe there is a conflict of interest and several legal compliance issues regarding Nicholson processing my subject access request (SAR). This points to top Norwegian Geo-Services (Norway) parent COMPANY legal counsels involvement in the settlement contract negotiations to utter forged instruments to affect an illegal termination (bribery). Legal counsel endorsement of the settlement contract has rendered complaints to Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), who oversee DPA, mute. There needs to be an external government law enforcement investigation of all the actors involved in the alleged fraud conspiracy to utter forged documents to defame and blacklist a foreign worker whistleblower.

SDK disputed the integrity of the personal data being processed by the UK Company – former employer immediately after receiving it. The COMPANY withheld my personal data from me while employed. This was a breach of my employment contract and the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). The main issues were highlighted in three (3) e-mails written by SDK to UK COMPANY Personal Human Resources Data Processors on 5 December 2014, 6 December 2014, and 20 December 2014. It should be noted that the HR Manager was also a principal subject of the 20 September 2013 delivered formal grievance that accused the HR Manager of bullying, harassment, discrimination, violation of UK Labor Laws, PGS UK Personnel Handbook Policy, and defamation. I believe there is a conflict of interest and several legal compliance issues regarding Nicholson processing my subject access request (SAR). This points to top Norwegian Geo-Services (Norway) parent COMPANY legal counsels involvement in the settlement contract negotiations to utter forged instruments to affect an illegal termination (bribery). Legal counsel endorsement of the settlement contract has rendered complaints to Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), who oversee DPA, mute. There needs to be an external government law enforcement investigation of all the actors involved in the alleged fraud conspiracy to utter forged documents to defame and blacklist a foreign worker whistleblower.

The “Company”, i.e., directors and secretary wrote a 24 July 2013 letter was written and delivered to SDK. It was signed by the HR Manager accused of misconduct and ot following Company policies or UK law within the 20 September 2013 grievance. In fact, the 20 September 2013 grievance was my response to this letter. Was this letter legal and compliant to UK labor laws and Company policy?

Norwegian Geo-Services SVP Global Human Resources (HR), subordinate was the UK COMPANY HR Manager (HRM). The HRM was a subject in the grievance and was accused of misconduct and breach of policy and contract. The HRM proffered a settlement contract agreement to SDK 10 October 2013 to stop the grievance process. I do not believe that this was legal or compliant. According to Gov.uk website, such an offer would be a breach of contract, i.e., Nicholson was knowingly in breach of a contract which he had signed. Is this evidence of a conspiracy to defraud? I contacted Philip Landau with LZW Solicitors on 10 October 2013 regarding this proffered settlement contract agreement in response to my grievance. So, why didn’t my (eventually) hired counsel, Philip Landau, with LZW alert me of these issues? I believe Landua was compromised. Philip Landau became a principal at Landau Law, formed in February 2014.

Norwegian Geo-Services SVP Global Human Resources (HR), subordinate was the UK COMPANY HR Manager (HRM). The HRM was a subject in the grievance and was accused of misconduct and breach of policy and contract. The HRM proffered a settlement contract agreement to SDK 10 October 2013 to stop the grievance process. I do not believe that this was legal or compliant. According to Gov.uk website, such an offer would be a breach of contract, i.e., Nicholson was knowingly in breach of a contract which he had signed. Is this evidence of a conspiracy to defraud? I contacted Philip Landau with LZW Solicitors on 10 October 2013 regarding this proffered settlement contract agreement in response to my grievance. So, why didn’t my (eventually) hired counsel, Philip Landau, with LZW alert me of these issues? I believe Landua was compromised. Philip Landau became a principal at Landau Law, formed in February 2014.

20 September 2013 Grievance – Key Points

According to this letter, written on behalf of the COMPANY, the only people who processed my personnel file contents were HR staff, along with the HR Manager and Regional President who were both directly accused of misconduct within the 20 September 2013 grievance, including misuse of the performance management system and defamation. Also, they were accused of violations of the Health and Safety Act 1974 and the Equality Act 2006, in addition to several other breaches.

The list of persons who viewed my personnel file does not make sense! The referenced submitted grievance was e-mailed to the HR Managers supervisor supervisor, SVP Global Human Resources and the Division EVP superior of the Regional President. The SVP HR and Division EVP also chaired a 14 October 2013 grievance hearing. They never processed my personnel file contents? The 20 September 2013 grievance was a response to a 24 July 2013 letter written on behalf of the COMPANY and signed by the HR Manager. The directors and secretary never processed my personnel file contents? How could the COMPANY make their claims within the 24 July 2013 letter without processing the contents of my personnel file? Philip Landau was aware of the 24 July 2013 letter, as my grievance was my response to this letter and the letter was included within the grievance. The SVP HR and Division EVP also authored/signed a Memo, 25 October 2013, while Philip Landau was engaged as my solicitor. I believe forged documents are being uttered as my personal data. These forged documents were created to support an illegal performance based termination of a foreign worker whistleblower. But, can a Tier 2 visa holder be placed on a Performance Improvement Plan by their sponsor?

The 20 September 2013 Grievance was SDKs Response to the 24 July 2013 Letter (Ambush Letter) from PGSUK to SDK and signed by David Nicholson

There was no 11 September 2013 Meeting! The meeting date was changed to 20 September 2013. The grievance was delivered on 20 September 2013. This change was never made to the 24 July 2013 letter, written on behalf of PGSUK, being processed within my personnel file.

There was no 11 September 2013 Meeting! The meeting date was changed to 20 September 2013. The grievance was delivered on 20 September 2013. This change was never made to the 24 July 2013 letter, written on behalf of PGSUK, being processed within my personnel file.

No hard copy of the 20 September 2013 grievance was present within the personnel file copy received. It contradicts much of the forged content. The (alleged) forged 25 October 2013 (never disputed as forgery by Company or Philip Landau) grievance summary does not even reference the 20 September 2013 grievance!
Documents support a performance based termination without supporting processes/documentation. This is defamatory – not only disparaging. It is a way to blacklist under the guise of a legal responsibility to share such information with potential employers. Additionally, dates and events are inaccurate / made-up. It is not true that the Company will not alter the contents of my personnel file. Within this letter, the Company agrees to process – add to my personnel file – a 5 December 2014 e-mail written by me disputing most all of the contents of my hard copy personnel file. Isn’t this acknowledgement that inaccurate / false data was used to process the settlement contract?

###