Marine Seismic Survey

Marine Geophysical Exploration

Page 3 of 5

Norwegian Geo-Services Company Corrupt Governance / Compliance do not Respond to Whistleblowing

2016 Exchange with Norwegian geo-services on  LinkedIn comment space.  These comments, along with e-mails to the Compliance Hotline contacts, are ever answered. any substantive questions and would delete them.  I eventually was restricted from LinkedIn for asking my former employer to resolve the truth about the crimes they are accused of.

Norwegian Geo-Services Company Corrupt Governance / Compliance do not Respond to Whistleblowing

How a Dysfunctional, Corrupt and Non-Responsive Compliance Program Harms the Reputation of the Company, Industry, and its Professionals by Covering-up a Conspiracy to Utter Forged Documents used to Terminate a Whistleblower under False Pretenses.

When I felt that my own professional and personal reputation had been defamed, I submitted a thorough formal grievance challenging the management of my employer directly to substantiate their orally and written aspersions.  I am now a former employee. I am a USA citizen who was sponsored to live and work in England on a Tier 2 visa, along with my wife and dependent children.  The Company that I worked for was an affiliate of a Norwegian Geo-Services company (NGS and NGSUK). When I tried to find redress through practicing my legal right under employment and contract law to initiate the grievance procedures (outlined within the UK Company Policy Handbook), this right was impeded through management’s conscious efforts to bypass the processes and  laws governing my employment as a foreign worker.  My rights were manipulated and denied and the health and safety of my family placed in danger through these same consciously violent acts. I was a foreign worker with no ties to the local community to find support. The Company and its Core Values is where I had placed my trust. But, this trust was betrayed categorically. The workplace was toxic and dehumanizing. When I finally did submit my workplace grievance, it pointed to multiple social and contractual breaches by the Company. But, I would not leave without defending my rights, dignity and reputation as a professional.  I tried to follow the rules.  My former employer presented me with an unprofessional, defamatory letter that contradicted most every rule of professionalism and civility. It was cowardly and an abuse of position. I responded to these aspersions upon my character and professionalism in the form of a grievance. Within my written grievance, I affirm:

A main motivation for my response in the form of a grievance is that one should never allow a defamatory statement to go unchallenged. Silence is perceived as acceptance. If one does not respond about what has been said and written about them – especially at a professional level – then it must be true.  – Steven D. Kalavity, 20 September 2013 Grievance Document

On 15 July 2013, the Company renewed their sponsorship of a Tier 2 visa allowing a foreign worker to fill a position that a local hire cannot. On 24 July 2013, the same Company wants to investigate placing this employee on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), following their raising concerns about the propriety of an “ambush meeting” which they were called to attend with NO NOTICE. Ambush Meeting’s are a common tactic used by workplace bullies. Following this meeting, I requested minutes of the meeting, how the meeting conformed to Company policy, and stated that I wanted to file a grievance. I was denied all of these requests. I have reason to believe that the 13 June 2013 was likely not compliant and subsequent actions/decisions by the Company were carried out to cover-up and escape accountability. How else could I still be blogging about it with so many unanswered questions?

Employer personnel files contain the documentation that is needed to provide an accurate view of an employee’s employment history.  The documentation supports the employer’s decisions and must be of a legal standard to protect the employer in a potential lawsuit.  Most employee personnel files will never be tested in this way.  But, this is the standard and basis for maintaining such records.  The personnel file contents demonstrate the employer’s rationale behind hiring, promotions, transfer, rewards and recognition, and termination decisions.  Outcomes are the derivative of processes and are only valid to the extent that the processes followed legal and compliant practices as prescribed in policy which is guided by employment law.  My grievance was grounded in the belief – no, my firm knowledge – that my personnel file data was intentionally defamatory and the byproduct non-compliant processes. However, rather than resolve the issue professionally in accordance to Company policy and procedures, my former employer decided to amplify the non-compliance and process – utter – knowingly defamatory forged documents which would be used to justify terminating the target of health-harming abusive behaviors on false pretenses. This would allow those with entrusted power to act irresponsibly and contrary to their duties to uphold policy and the law and most important, escape any accountability.

Ten months after I left England, I submitted a subject access request to NGSUK citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998.  I discovered that defamatory and inaccurate personnel records populated my personnel file contents.  This was done intentionally by NGSUK to create a false history of my employment which would obviously would harm me for future opportunities.  This was the basis for my filing a grievance in the first place and why defamation was specifically an issue that was brought up.  Another key issue brought up within my grievance document was that NGS Core Values were being ignored.  NGS Core Values and NGS Code of Conduct are specifically mentioned within the terms and of my original employment contract.  I knew that management had breached these terms and conditions through their deliberate and destructive decisions focused on me.  I was a target of workplace gang-bullying, harassment and discrimination. My reliance on Core Values was of principal importance because of the fact that I was a USA citizen working in a foreign country guided by foreign laws. The Core Values represented the common understanding of how decisions would be determined. The UK Company also sponsored me on a Tier 2 visa. How could a UK Company legally sponsor a USA citizen whom they believed was a poor performer? The Tier 2 visa is designed for filling positions that cannot be easily filled by local talent.

The best way for an individual or company to maintain a stellar reputation, first and foremost, is to be proactive and ensure that one’s decisions are guided by ethical values.   Enterprises must be principled and resolute about following such guidance.  The UK Companies Act 2006 clearly establishes that directors and secretary (“directors”) have the fiduciary duty to protect the reputation of the company that they direct.  Employee’s, present and former, are bound by contractual Confidentiality terms and conditions, such that they will not engage in activities and public disclosures that will negatively impact the business.  This, of course, includes the Company’s reputation.  The exception to any such public disclosures are protected disclosures, or whistleblowing.  Such protected public disclosure is provided through the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) and is specifically referenced within the NGSUK Policy Handbook.

Most people when accused of a crime that they are innocent of will vehemently proclaim their innocence and take action in the moment and not wait over three years to be outraged and file criminal defamation charges in a foreign country.  We must concede that the reaction of NGS / NGSUK directors and former secretary is not normal. 

At what point are such publications the fault of those charged with guarding the company reputation?  Where was the proverbial “line in the sand” in terms of what disparaging commentary would be tolerated?  The first and only official condemnation of my postings came in the form of a criminal complaint made by the NGSUK directors more than three years after my first blog post article naming names.  Prior to being President and CEO, one of the directors of NGSUK was NGS General Counsel and Legal Compliance.  I believe that he oversaw the creation and uttering of the forged documents which became “my accurate personal data.” This General Counsel ascended to be an Executive Vice President and then CEO, in spite of being highlighted as one of the perpetrators within in many published blog post articles.  As a member of the Legal Compliance Team, several e-mails were directed to him and his team.  All e-mails directed the Compliance Hotline were not answered at all.  I did have some exchange with other compliance team members.  Between April to September 2016, I complained to the Compliance Team on several occasions.  I provided published blog article content and links for their consideration.  The final blog article sent specifically to the attention of the Compliance Team and was titled The Crimes of <COMPANY CEO>. 

Many of the same claims that were directed to prior CEO within my 2016 blog publications are repeated within future blog post articles, but the new CEO was the focused.  My intention was to make sure that the same base complaints pronouncing the truth continued to be broadcast and considered relevant.  I continued publishing content and expanding the recipients of my complaints because the many issues important to me were never acknowledged or resolved by parent company agents or, most notably, the directors of the UK affiliate.   

I have always requested a thorough third party (police) investigation. That’s all.

If the UK affiliate directors were truly confident of their innocence, they would have invited such an investigation to exonerate themselves.  This is what they should have done. An updated report was submitted to UK ActionFraud (police) accusing the directors of criminal behavior. This report was also published online my former website for some time.  No one from the UK affiliate ever addressed or sought to clarify the accusations made or asked for the reports removal.  Current publications implicate the same people as the articles published and forwarded to the Compliance Hotline in 2016.  The CEO reneged on his duty to defend the reputation of the Company in 2016, as the e-mails below clearly show.  So, who bares responsibility for damage to that reputation in 2018? The Companies Act 2006 states that it was always the responsibility of its directors.

 ###

Philip Landau, London Employment Law Solicitor, Represented a Tier 2 Visa Holder?

o1 November 2013 to 4 December 2013

First Contact with Philip Landau with Landau, Zeffertt, and Weir Employment Solicitors (LZW) was on 11 October 2013 through an article he had penned comment space. Philip Landau was formally engaged 22 October 2013.

Philip Landau Counseled me from 11 October 2013 through the eventual signing of a settlement agreement 5 December 2013. Almost two-months to negotiate a settlement?

Why am I able to blog about a settlement contract negotiated and signed by myself and Philip Landau on 5 December 2013? My first blog post article that challenged the UK policy handbook and the signed settlement Confidentiality provisions was published 3 July 2015 on LinkedIn Pulse. I have long contended that this settlement contract is a fraudulent instrument. In September 2018, my former employer initiated criminal defamation proceedings against me in Thailand (where I reside with my Thai wife) to stop the publication of blog articles on a dedicated website which I had viewed as protected public disclosure, or whistleblowing. This site with an IP address in Thailand was taken offline. I had written blog articles about my former counsel, Philip Landau, as well. However, the Confidentiality terms within the 5 December 2013 settlement contract agreement were never invoked in the over three (3) years of pursuing answers and justice from outside England, where the laws of England governed my contract of employment as well as the 5 December 2013 settlement contract.

The criminal defamation claims were dropped by my signing a new settlement agreement in Thailand proffered by the same Company who signed the 5 December 2013 settlement contract. The main difference is that the new settlement contract signed in Thailand does not include protection for whistleblowing (Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 [PIDA]). Which settlement contract takes precedence? To me, this confirms the illegitimacy of the 5 December 2013 settlement contract negotiated and signed on my behalf by Philip Landau. It also makes me question the legitimacy of the new settlement contract signed in Thailand. My former employer, an English Company, has a Thai law firm / lawyer on retainer to monitor my publications.

In October 2014, about a year after I had initially contacted Philip Landau, I submitted a subject access request (SAR) to my former employer citing the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). As part of my request, I received my Company personnel file. What I discovered were forged documents supporting a performance based termination. Because all lawyers involved were compromised to utter forged documents to support this settlement contract agreement, I could not rely on normal avenues of legal redress. I complained vociferously to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). But, they could take no action because of the binding nature of settlement agreements. I began publicly disclosing these issues in blog articles (LinkedIn Pulse), 3 July 2015. I submitted a report to UK ActionFraud (police) 24 August 2015. ActionFraud has never investigated my allegations. ActionFraud have relegated my reporting of crimes as the product of a disgruntled former employee. But, beyond the fraud perpetrated against me and my family, there required conscious deceptions made to UK government agencies, such as UK Border Agency and also the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). I was a foreign worker on a Tier 2 visa.

It appears to me as though Philip Landau uttered forged documents created by my former employer to affect an illegal settlement contract used to terminate my employment for being a whistleblower. That’s why no one wants to invoke its non-disparagement clauses!

Communications between Philip Landau and myself prior to negotiations, 11 October 2013 to 31 October 2013, are chronicled in the blog post article, “Philip Landau Represented Me?”

The fact that I am a Tier 2 visa holder should be very important. But, its importance is minimized, along with the health harming aspects of being a target of workplace gang-bullying (mobbing). Mobbing implies upper management involvement in the harassment and bullying. Philip Landau put the health, safety and well-being of me and my family at risk through advancing an inappropriate settlement contract agreement predicated on poor performance. Philip Landau also participated in the defamation and professional blacklisting . Is it even legal for a Company to both sponsor an foreign worker on a Tier 2 visa (shortage occupation list) who the Company believes is a poor performer? I always alleged that the Company performance management system was abused by the bullies to threaten and intimidate their target – whistleblower.

The settlement contract negotiations led by Philip Landau initiate with my employer remarking that they would be completely happy with my remaining employed. However, later that month, there is pressure to have me sign the agreement and place me on “garden leave” to get me out of the office. I was complaining of being bullied and harassed – gang-bullied – to someone seasoned in such abhorrent workplace behaviors. (So, of course my employer is happy with my staying!) Landau never really talks about the bullying, harassment, discrimination, and defamation claims. I had already paid Philip Landau (LZW) when negotiations commenced. I had also mentally prepared myself to get out of danger and leave my job. Philip Landau was supposed to be helping me accomplish this in the most advantageous way for me.

My employer engaged law firm Watson, Farley, and Williams’ lawyer Rhodri Thomas, to represent them in the negotiations. My Employer often used the firm Watson, Farley and Williams. In fact, Watson, Farley, and Williams, advised on the processing of the Tier 2 visa application for me and my dependent family members “leave to remain.” My employer had written a letter of sponsorship to UK Border as recently as 15 July 2013. Also, ACAS (Advisery, Conciliation, and Arbitration Service) explicitely states that when grievances and disciplinary issues coincide, they can be discussed at the same time. This settlement contract negotiation bypassed both the prescribed (Company) grievance and disciplinary procedures. Further, if grievance procedures constitute part of the employment contract, as it did in my case, such an settlement offer is another breach of contract by my employer. The submitted 20 September 2013 formal grievance had identified many others.

This is all gaslighting. My employer wants to illegally terminate me for blowing the whistle. Philip Landau, LZW (at the time, now with Landau Law) and Rhodri Thomas, Watson, Farley and Williams are complicit in this conspiracy. Note, I say that, “I am the only one playing by the rules.”

The Company opens with the attitude that they are happy with my staying. I was claiming being a target of health harming gang-bullying. Of course they want me to stay! Philip Landau answered very few questions. At this point, the outcome had been predetermined on the 25 October 2013 Memo. I was being forced to endure the health-harming workplace until I signed a settlement agreement. I told Philip Landau about visits to the GP and that the GP would assign an “unfit note.” Philip Landau would do nothing. I would remind him about the Tier 2 visa issues, and Philip Landau would do nothing! In the end, my employer just wanted me out of the office! I signed the contract, but was placed on “garden leave.” I was in a foreign country with my family! How depraved can my employer and solicitor be?!

OHN Report Withheld from me During Negotiations while Philip Landau was Engaged as my Counsel/Solicitor. This OHN Report is not being processed as my personal data. I submitted a subject access request to the OHN.

In October 2014, I submitted a subject access request citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998 to discover what personal data was being processed by my former employer about me. I was shocked to find forged instruments relating a false narrative. The Information Commissioner’s Office could not help me. The data had been signed-off by Philip Landau, my solicitor, as well as my employer and their hired counsel at Watson, Farley and Williams.

The entire grievance pivoted around defamation and misuse of the Company performance management system. Human Resources (HR) was being weaponized by the Company in their health-harming gang-bully – mobbing campaign. On the final day before signing the ill-fated settlement agreement, I sought assurances that the personal data being processed about me was fair and accurate. The assurance provided to me was a conspiratorial misrepresentation. On 22 December 2014, the Company wrote me a threatening letter regarding my questioning the integrity of the data being processed in my name. The Company agreed to process a 5 December 2014 e-mail citing many – not all – of the problems in my personal data. Isn’t this an acknowledgement that forged documents were uttered to process the settlement agreement?

This is why I want a criminal police investigation. I contend that this was all a conspiracy to defraud and defame a whistleblower and terminate his employment illegally, but make it all look legal. I have been blogging for the legal justice that I was denied me by the Company since 2013. The Company, with Philip Landau’s help, was able to deny my legal right to proceed through grievance procedures and not be held accountable for many, many policy and ethical breaches.

Philip Landau has never explained what happened in spite of several requests.

###

Professional Codes of Ethics and Whistleblowing

Dear John, et al.
Why do I write my blogs? You know why, really. But, for the record, I publish in pursuit of the truth and justice that was denied me and my family by the evil that you represent. The silence and abuse of power can only protect evil so long.

It is high time that scrutiny is placed on the use of [Non-disclosure Agreement] NDAs in circumstances in which there is a clear imbalance of power between parties. Evidence suggests that they are used as a tool of abuse to scare victims into silence and suppress vital evidence from emerging.

Kevin Hollinrake, MP,
Non-disclosure agreements are being abused to scare victims into silence, says Yorkshire MP
Uttering a forged instrument is a criminal offense. When a person knowingly publishes or puts into circulation any forged or altered financial document, legal document or other writing with the intent to misrepresent it as true and defraud others it amounts to uttering a forged instrument.
A criminal conspiracy takes place when two or more people get together and plan to carry out a course of conduct which will necessarily involve the commission of an offence. In other words, more than one person agrees to do something which will involve committing a crime.
Truth, Justice and the American way …
In the absence of truth, power is the only game in town. – Richard John Neuhaus
A confidentiality clause or ‘gagging clause’ in a settlement agreement is not valid if you’re a whistleblower.
It is unethical for a lawyer to threaten to present criminal, administrative or disciplinary charges to obtain advantage in a civil dispute. Extortion constitutes a threat to accuse someone of a crime, or to expose or impute to him any significant misconduct, accompanied by a demand for payment “or else.” 

Extortion is the use of a threat to extract money from someone. Blackmail consists of threats made to gain anything of value from the other person, such as money, property or sexual favors. Blackmail, therefore, is broader. The threats themselves may be the same — such as the intention to inflict injury on someone else — but the nature of what the person seeks in return is the distinction.

Professionals have a responsibility to reveal unethical or illegal conduct by corporate board of directors’ and / or company executives. In fact, it is the definition of professionalism which supersedes technical proficiency.

The Society for Exploration Geophysicists Code of Ethics states:

It shall be your duty as a geophysicist, in order to maintain the dignity of your chosen profession to [abide by the Code of Ethics].

CIPD Code of Professional Conduct

Demonstrate and promote fair and reasonable standards in the treatment of people who are operating within their sphere of influence

The Norwegian Lawyers Rules for Good Practice states:

A lawyer’s task is to promote justice and prevent injustice.

The UK Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Code of Conduct states:

[Lawyers should always] uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice

Whistleblowers who are victims of crimes and abuse are attacked for being true Professionals!

###

UK Companies House Public Record

Available Online – Companies House

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is pgs-terror-org_2.png
In September 2018, I believe that the directors of Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) UK affiliate perpetrated extortion to silence protected public disclosure misusing / defrauding the Thailand criminal justice system to take down nopgs.com
,where the IP address was registered.  For over three years of publishing evidence of PGS board & executive fraud, Rune Olav Pedersen and Gottfred Langseth breached Norwegian (Worker’s Environment Act) and UK (Public Interest Disclosure Act – PIDA) whistleblower protection laws.  The evidence which was posted showed PGS defrauding UK and Norwegian government agencies through knowingly processing defamatory false instruments created to destroy the professional life and reputation of a foreign worker whistleblower.  This deception also has been perpetrated by the PGS USA affiliate in Houston where the false defamatory personal data was shared.  Pedersen & Langseth have overseen the mobbing, bribery, embezzlement, and fraud carried out to destroy a USA citizen whistleblower since 2013.  PGS had denied a US citizen the opportunity for legal redress through denying the legally guaranteed grievance process in 2013.  This effort required a conspiracy of actors inside and outside PGS. EVP Per Arild Reknes signed defamatory false instruments processed to deceive and “show” proper steps were followed when they were not.  Berit Osnes has been directly involved in perverting the course of justice since 2016 by aiding PGS compliance to “cover-up” their illegal acts.  Osnes abrogated  fiduciary duties under the Norwegian Code of Practice.  Workplace Mobbing is psychological terrorismPerpetrators of violent abuse, fraud, bribery and extortion must be held accountable for the health and safety of workers.
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 2019-pgsuk-directors.png
PGS Exploration UK Limited Directors are executives of PGS ASA (formally Petroleum Geo-Services ASA) [PGS]: Rune Olav Pedersen, PGS CEO & President; Gottfred Langseth, PGS CFO & EVP; Christin Steen-Nilsen, PGS Chief Accountant

Berit Osnes was an employee board of directors member on the Audit Team. She never responded to my concerns of PGS Compliance Team corruption. Rune Olav Pedersen was General Counsel and Legal Compliance prior to his rapid ascension to PGS CEO and President. He has been a principal in the alleged fraud, bribery, extortion, and embezzlement scandal. Terje Bjolseth, SVP Global HR is also a compliance team member, received the original 20 September 2013 grievance and signed the alleged forged 25 October 2013 MEMO.

Investigate Gareth Jone, PGS Exploration UK Limited, 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, KT13 0NY, Human Resources (HR) Manager.
Investigate Gareth Jone, PGS Exploration UK Limited, 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, KT13 0NY, Human Resources (HR) Manager.
Disturbed by the contents of my personnel file received through a subject access request in October 2014, PGS Exploration UK Limited wrote me a letter 22 December 2014 to clarify their position and threaten future litigation if I continued my inquiries. The 22 December 2014 letter is signed by David Nicholson, HR Manager (then) on behalf of PGS Exploration UK Limited (Directors: Jon Erik Reinhardsen, Gottfred Langseth, Christin Steen-Nilsen and Secretary Carl Richards.) The 22 December 2014 letter is ridiculous and raised more questions than it answered.
Carl Richards wanted me to delete all content mentioning his name. However, if one accepts the role of director or secretary there details become part of the public record.
In 2013, Rune Olav Pedersen was PGS General Counsel and Legal Compliance. Terje Bjolseth received the 20 September 2013 grievance document, chaired a 14 October 2013 grievance hearing along with EVP, Per Arild Reksnes. Both signed a important defamatory forged (alleged) document processed within my personnel file.

FACT: I am a US citizen. PGS Exploration UK Limited, 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY [PGSUK] sponsored my Tier 2 visa to work in England from 27 September 2010. PGSUK then applied for my leave to remain (renewal) 15 July 2013. PGSUK also sponsored my dependent wife and two children

2013 PGS Exploration UK Limited Directors are executives of Norwegian parent company Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) [recently changed to PGS ASA].

  • Jon Erik Reinhardsen, PGS President & CEO
  • Gottfred Langseth, PGS EVP & CFO
  • Christin Steen-Nilsen, PGS Chief Accountant
  • Candida Pinto, PGSUK lawyer (before 13 September 2013)
  • Carl Richards, PGSUK lawyer (after 13 September 2013)

This is public information which directors agree to be shared with the public, including potential customers. I do not believe that directors have the legal authority to prohibit publishing their public information online as it relates to protected public interest disclosures (UK Public Interest Disclosure Act – PIDA), or whistleblowing, relating to the public alleged corrupt and criminal acts. Responsible directors should investigate allegations. Demand police investigation.

I have evidence that PGSUK is uttering forged documents as personal data used to illegally terminate a whistleblower. PGSUK also has provided duplicitous information to UK Border Agency.

Companies House data is public information which directors agree to be shared with the public, including potential customers. I do not believe that directors have the legal authority to prohibit publishing their public information online as it relates to protected public interest disclosures (UK Public Interest Disclosure Act – PIDA), or whistleblowing, especially as it relates to alleged corrupt and criminal acts perpetrated by COMPANY DIRECTORS!

Law abiding and responsible directors should investigate whistleblowing allegations.

Corrupt corporate hierarchies have virtually unlimited resources at their disposal that can be aimed to disempower and silence their victims.

###

Why is there No Investigation when Proof is Provided?

Victims of Corporate Crime and Abuse do not Possess the Legal Authority to Hold Those with Entrusted Corporate Power Accountable, only Government Law Enforcement Does.

I’ll be the first to admit that, public safety, it’s a new thing for this agency.

Alan Steen

I stood there amazed. I found it all hard to believe, that I, Des Nilsen, had actually done all that.

Dennis NilSEN, Scottish serial killer and necrophile

Open Letter to Board of Directors (18-Jun-2017)

The Norwegian Code of Practice for

Corporate Governance

To me, the thing that is worse than death is betrayal. You see, I could conceive of death, but could not conceive of betrayal. – Malcolm X

First, organizations might desire leaders but they structure themselves in ways that kill leadership.

Gareth Jones, The Real Thing (interview)
If the challenge doesn’t scare us, then it’s not that important. – Simon Sinek
A lie has many variations, the truth none. – African Proverb

When you were thinking rationally, you made a decision that was supposed to manifest your values. But then in the heat of the moment you skipped it. Now, this isn’t some hard activity we’re talking about. It doesn’t take much skill to close the computer, stand up, and walk away. But even though it’s simple, it’s anything but easy.

CARL RICHARDS, Time off is a prerequisite for good work (Not a reward for it)
That what you think that you are, that, you are. – Carsten Ostergaard Pedersen
Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid. – Ronald Reagan
Prayers said by good people are always good prayers – Willa Cather

###

Toxic Workplace Culture Information for Foreign-worker Whistleblowers

Toxic Workplace Culture Information for Foreign-worker Whistleblowers

###

Landau, Zeffert & Weir (LZW) Represented Me?

LZW Principal Phlip Landau is now with Landau Law (since January 2014)

WHY I WANT A POLICE INVESTIGATION

Initially Reported to ACTIONFRAUD 24 August 2015 – Never Investigated! This further damages the victim of crimes and harms all stakeholders dependent on knowing the truth and seeking justice.

My first contact with Philip Landau was made online following my reading an article published by him. It was this public professional expertise and notoriety which gave me a feeling of trust in contacting him and eventually engaging him. Philip Landau advised me from 11 October 2013 to 5 December 2013. Within my short initial inquiry seeking guidance, I highlighted:

  • I was a foreign worker being sponsored by a UK Company on a Tier 2 visa
  • I was being harassed, bullied and discriminated against (nationality) in the workplace
  • I believed that the UK company employer sponsor had breached their duty of care, duty of trust and confidence contractual obligations and had violated the Health and Safety Act 1974, as well as other things.
  • I had initiated the grievance process but was being proffered a settlement contract prior to a grievance hearing and I stated my UK employer was trying to “buy me off.”

Was this protected public disclosure or whistleblowing?

I was a foreign worker, US citizen, being sponsored by a UK Company on a Tier 2 visa. I was being bullied and harassed in the workplace and had submitted a grievance 20 September 2013 complaining of those issues. The bullies were framing a performance based termination, as if I were a UK/EEA resident worker. My grievance complained about abuse of the performance management system as a weapon used to bully, harass and intimidate me.

5 October 2012 UK Company personnel file meeting memo included in my personnel file (top). This was a secret meeting which I did not attend. I had been the target of negative workplace behaviors and had started to bring it to the attention of my boss’ boss (SS) and the HR Manager (HRM). (I was being gang-bullied (mobbed) and was beginning to complain.) HRM, et al. started the process to pad my personnel file with documentation supporting poor performance so that I could be terminated for cause. HRM is not following UK Company Personnel Handbook processes, procedures or best practices. There is no data to support such a malicious and unprofessional assessment and conclusions. Therefore, this is defamation and not privileged content. I believe that the HRM, SS, my supervisor (S), with authority from UK Company directors and secretary not sharing this information with is a breach of my contract of employment and their Duty of Care obligations to me and my family, whom they are sponsoring on dependent Tier 2 visas. This also shows that they are all knowingly in violation of their sponsorship requirements to UK Border Agency, by advancing the Tier 2 visa renewal process if they truly had these concerns. Landau should have also known about this document and never mentioned it to me, as well.

Philip Landau, was provided with a Redacted Copy of my 20 September 2013 Grievance Document Presented to the UK Company Employer Sponsor of my Tier 2 Visa.

Grievance Table of Contents, Preamble, Key Points, Summary

20 September 2013 Form of Grievance Presented to UK Company Tier 2 visa Sponsor
This is an actual excerpt from the grievance document which I presented to Norway Company executives, as well as UK Company executives 20 September 2013. Landau was contacted 11 October 2013 following my meeting with the UK Company HR Manager (HRM), 10 October 2013 at which time the HRM proffered an initial settlement contract agreement TO STOP THE LEGALLY GUARANTEED UNDER CONTRACT GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES which were initiated 20 September 2013. A grievance hearing was scheduled for 14 October 2013. Landau received a copy of my 21 page grievance with names redacted on 11 October 2013.

Even though some of Philip Landau’s initial advice seemed odd, I needed to trust him because I was a target of health harming workplace bullying and foreign worker. I had to do something and trust someone.

I feel that Philip Landau violated that trust categorically. He has never addressed my published concerns or private e-mails. Philip Landau has remained silent and will not simply explain what happened?

  • Philip Landau counseled to NOT follow the grievance procedure and to instead move toward an “enhanced settlement” with the UK employer sponsor of my Tier 2 visa.
  • Philip Landau minimized the importance and significance of being on a Tier 2 visa, my legal basis for being employed in England/UK, and my claims of discrimination based on nationality
  • Philip Landau never spoke directly about the prime motivation behind the presenting the grievance which were the health and safety concerns to me and my family being a target of workplace gang-bullying/mobbing.

Pre-Settlement Communications with Landau, Zeffertt and Weir Law (Philip Landau) [10 October 2013 to 30 October 2013]

The entire premise of my grievance was my disputing my UK employer’s attempt to place me on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). I Recognized it as a tactic of bullies and knew there was no documented basis to support a legitimate PIP. It appears as though Philip Landau helped create the documented basis out of whole cloth with my UK Company employer and Tier 2 visa sponsor.

I eventually did sign a settlement contract agreement.

My employment with the UK Company Tier 2 sponsor was terminated by the settlement agreement forwarded by Philip Landau and his assistant, Holly Rushton on 31 December 2013.

Sensing retaliation/blacklisting by my former employer, I submitted a subject access request citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) while in Houston, Texas. The contents of my UK Company personnel file contains defamatory forged instruments supporting a performance based termination. Philip Landau and Holly Rushton will not explain how this is possible? I do not know how a performance based termination is legal for a Tier 2 visa holder.

24 July 2013 Bully Defamatory Ambush Letter

I had only seen one (1) of the documents being processed within my UK Company personnel file prior to my receiving the personnel file in late 2014 in Houston, Texas. This one (1) document, a letter from my employer dated 24 July 2013, was the basis for my 21 page grievance supplemented by another 45 pages of evidence to support my presented argument. The 20 September 2013 grievance document is not being processed in the body of my personnel file and is only referenced within the signed settlement contract agreement. Only the settlement contract agreement bares my signature. It stands to reason that the dated documents were referenced and processed during settlement contract agreement negotiations, along with the grievance document, especially since defamation and misuse of the performance management system were specifically cited within the grievance document. The most significant alleged forged document is dated while Philip Landau was engaged as my representative solicitor on 25 October 2013.

25 OCTOBER 2013 MEMO

UK Sponsor Company Tier 2 Visa renewal process for US worker was initiated 15 May 2013 . The UK Company used the counsel and advice of a law firm, Watson, Farley and Williams (WFW) to advise on the preparation of Tier 2 visa application documents. What personal data was provided to WFW by the UK Company sponsor to support the application? WFW also advised and participated in the settlement contract agreement (SCA) negotiations from 1 November 2013 to 5 December 2013 that terminated my employment with the UK Company.

The Norwegian Geo-Services Company (NGSC) UK affiliate employed legal firm Watson, Farley & Williams (WFW) to counsel and review my Tier 2 visa application and dependent family members documentation. It was my claim that the Norway Company and UK affiliate BOTH owed ME and MY FAMILY a Duty of Care, and this duty was not fulfilled..

My former employer is currently uttering defamatory forged instruments. Defamatory forged instruments were created so that a foreign worker whistleblower could be illegally terminated for “performance” based reasons, rather than a claim for harassment, discrimination, bullying, defamation, and breach of contract at many levels. HR3 currently presides over these knowingly false instruments designed to blacklist the USA citizen whistleblower. HR3, a UK citizen, was working in Houston, Texas sharing the defamatory personal data to blacklist me. Any experienced HR professional would know the documents being processed were both non-compliant and illegal. HR3 processed the contents of my personnel file contents in 2013. HR3 should have also been aware of visa requirements for both UK and USA employees. UK Company claims that HR3 was an employee of UK Company in 2013 because sharing UK Company personal data would be a violation of the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and now General Data Protection Requirement (GDPR). This contradicts his online LinkedIn profile. Further, I believe that it would have been illegal for UK Company to employ a “poor performer.” However, by making me a poor performer, this false information illegally verified by bribed lawyers could be shared with potential employers. This is blacklisting, which is illegal – also IN TEXAS. Further, misrepresenting HR3s agency to Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) who oversee DPA/GDPR compliance, they were ALSO misrepresenting to the USA Immigration service. The Norway geo-services company needs to explain and be held accountable, starting with HR3! , The previous HR Manager in 2013 and has created and signed many of the (alleged) forged instruments which populate my personnel file. I did not work directly for Nicholson and the instruments have no counter-signature and are factually inaccurate. Yet, Philip Landau and Holly Rushton, who represented me, along with Rhodri Thomas, with Watson, Farley, and Williams – all experienced employment law solicitors processed these?
The grievance itself is almost irrelevant. The advice at this stage should have really focused on the grievance process. I was being gaslighted by Landau – an EXPERIENCED UK EMPLOYMENT SOLICITOR who had published content on such matters. It is how I discovered him.
For over a week, NOBODY from the NORWAY or UK COMPANY had contacted me with regard to the 20 September 2013 presented grievance or 14 October 2013 grievance hearing. The issue of my Tier 2 visa is brought-up in the 20 September 2013 grievance document. Indeed, the only reason relocation was likely considered in the settlement contract agreement terms and conditions was the fact that I was a foreign worker who insisted on at least being repatriated. ALL communications were through Philip Landau, who never seemed to address the stonewalling that was going on. I could not conceive of the Norway/UK Company behavior from former colleagues and so-called professionals.

20 September 2013 Grievance Document Presented to Norway / UK Company executives and also to my hired solicitor, Philip Landau. Philip was formally engaged (paid for services) on 22 October 2013.

The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter:

I believe that Philip Landau must have been complicit in Uttering Forged Instruments. He has never explained the personnel records to me.

(Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3) was included with the 20 September 2013 presented grievance. However, the 11 September 2013 scheduled meeting was rescheduled for 20 September 2013. Among other things, this letter shows a collective conspiracy of intent by UK Company directors and secretary to bypass the UK government UK Border Agency legal reporting requirement and use forged defamatory personnel file records to harm and illegally process a termination of a Foreign Worker Whistleblower on a falsified basis. The personnel file references the 11 September 2013 meeting that never happened and omits the 20 September 2013 grievance document, except within the settlement contract agreement. Landau was reminded of this in the 24 October 2013 e-mail. I have to believe that Landau was complicit in uttering forged instruments/documents used to terminate my employment. Landau has never offered an explanation.

The 25-October-2013 MEMO is a FORGERY.  The Memo is not mentioned in a 25-October-2013 e-mail from my solicitor, Philip Landau (LZW).  Why not?  I believe Landau is compromised and allowing my legal rights to process my grievance to be denied through advocating a settlement agreement.

Landau knew that the copied recipients of the Memo had been accused within my grievance of misconduct, bullying, harassment and discrimination, along with my immediate supervisor.  There was no contact from any UK / Norway Company agents, most notably, the hosts following of the 14 October grievance hearing.  No minutes or right to appeal were ever provided, as required.  How is this possible for an experienced solicitor like Philip Landau?

It seems the entire fraud had been mapped out at this point. Nothing that I told Landau was considered. Watson, Farley and Williams’ Rhodri Thomas was gaslighting the performance narrative, even though ACAS states that both grievances and disciplinary matters c/should happen at the same time. The settlement was negotiated as a performance based settlement. The 25 October 2013 Memo was created to make it look like processes to support the performance based termination occurred. Problem is, NOBODY is INFORMING UK BORDER AGENCY, even after I bring up the matter of my Tier 2 visa MULTIPLE TIMES. NOT BEING AN EXPERT IN IMMIGRATION LAW IS IRRELEVANT. Watson, Farley and Williams is a large firm with many qualified lawyers on matters of visa’s. Why did Rhodri Thomas not question a performance based termination settlement contract agreement? The Norway/UK Company used one set of data to process the Tier 2 visa and ANOTHER FAKE SET OF FORGED DOCUMENTS to process the whistleblower termination. Conspiracy to defraud?

Two Years Too Late, Subject Access Requests to Watson, Farley & Williams and LZW confirms that Fake Data was used to process my termination settlement contract agreement.

Was Withholding my Occupational Health Nurse Report from me OK?

Philip Landau was hired to represent my interests while he was with Landau, Zeffertt, and Weir Solicitors (LZW) in October 2013.

I am a US citizen who was sponsored
on a Tier 2 visa by a UK Company in England.

On 20 September 2013 I initiated the company grievance procedure complaining of being a target of workplace bullying, harassment, discrimination, and defamation. A grievance hearing was scheduled for 14 October 2013, however, one of the accused bullies, the HR Manager, proffered me a settlement contract agreement to end the grievance procedure on 10 October 2013. I declined the offer and sought legal advice. I read an online article by Philip Landau and contacted him 11 October 2014 and provided him with a redacted copy of the grievance.

Philip Landau was Provided with a Copy of the 20 September 2013 grievance document, UK Company Personnel Handbook, and Copy of Company Core Values Prior to Settlement Contract Agreement Negotiations on my Behalf

Landau Law (London, UK Employment Solicitors) website Stress at Work

UK Company Personnel Handbook – Stress at Work Policy

Excerpts from 20 September 2013 Grievance Emphasizing “Stress”:

Norway / UK Company Core Values

Occupational Health Nurse Employee Evaluation Report – This Report was Withheld from the Employee During Settlement Contract Agreement Negotiations

DEMAND UK, NORWAY, USA LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION

I believe that the HR personal data processors for the UK affiliate of a Norwegian geo-services company continue to process/utter non-compliant defamatory forged instruments. I also believe this was done to illegally blacklist a whistleblower. HR1 and HR2 worked in the UK HR office. HR3 worked at the USA affiliate of the Norwegian geo-services company in 2013 & 2014. C/should HR3 have legally been provided with personal data for a UK employee/Tier 2 visa holder? HR Manager in 2014 stated (Information Commissioner’s Office/ICO) HR3 was a UK company personal data processor. However, what if the personal data is inaccurate defamatory non-compliant forged documents? What if HR3 was a USA affiliate personal data processor? DPA Principle 8 would be violated, wouldn’t it? No clear answers have been provided.

Current CEO & President of Norwegian geo-services Company and Director of UK Affiliate. Also was former General Counsel and legal compliance (2013) at time of key events.

CFO & EVP of Norwegian geo-services company
and Director of UK affiliate company, 2013-present

Chief Accountant of Norwegian geo-services company and Director of UK affiliate company, 2013-present

SVP Global Human Resources of Norwegian geo-gervices company who I believe denied me a fair and legal grievance process. Instead, he protected his abusive and corrupt subordinate, HRM, from accountability for misconduct/harassment and misuse of the performance management system. He signed and processed a forged document (Memo) to support a false narrative as an illegal basis for a defamatory performance based termination, thus defrauding me and my family. This processing also defrauded the UK Border Agency. If the documents and basis for termination were true, then the UK affiliate would have been illegally sponsoring a poor performer and displacing settled UK/EEA worker. By uttering the forged documents, he has also misrepresented this data to the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and Norwegian Data Protection Authority (DPA) as true and accurate. He uttered defamatory forged instruments outside the EEA/UK and shared with the US data processor (to confirm), also in violation of DPA. If HR3 is actually UK data processor, this was misrepresentation to both US/UK immigration.

Former Employee Representative board of directors member (EBD) of Norwegian geo-services company I do not believe fulfilled fiduciary duties and responsibilities under the Norwegian Corporate Governance Code of Practice. Evidence suggests that EBD conspired with the compliance team members to cover-up non-compliant/illegal behaviors. The EBD was copied on substantive e-mails sent to to the Norwegian geo-services Company compliance team that were never answered. Thus, EBD perverted the course of justice in allowing the continuation of abuse and blacklisting to damage the whistleblower’s professional reputation and also place the health and safety his family in danger. EBD is not a model for female executive leadership, but a co-conspirator in non-compliant and criminal activity.


EVP of Norwegian geo-gervices company was superior of subordinate accused of misconduct and non-compliant behavior within a presented grievance document. This EVP protected his abusive and corrupt subordinate, SS, from accountability for misconduct/harassment and misuse of the performance management system. He signed and processed a forged document (Memo) to support a false narrative as an illegal basis for a defamatory performance based termination, thus defrauding me and my family. This processing also defrauded the UK Border Agency. If the documents and basis for termination were true, then the UK affiliate would have been illegally sponsoring a poor performer and displacing settled UK/EEA worker. By uttering the forged documents, he has also misrepresented this data to the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and Norwegian Data Protection Authority (DPA) as true and accurate. He uttered defamatory forged instruments outside the EEA/UK and shared with the US data processor (to confirm), also in violation of DPA. If HR3 is actually UK data processor, this was misrepresentation to both US/UK immigration.

Secretary and lawyer with UK Company affiliate when grievance was presented. This secretary was in the forefront of involvement in proffering and managing the legal processes for what I allege is a fraudulent settlement contract agreement which terminated my employment. This settlement contract agreement purposefully denied me my rights under UK employment law and contract to proceed through the legal grievance procedures outlined within the UK company personnel handbook. Forged documents were created and uttered to support a performance based termination, thus defrauding the UK Border Agency through illegally sponsoring a poor performer and displacing settled EEA workers.

Former CEO & President of Norwegian geo-services Company and Director of UK affiliate company in 2013.

The UK affiliate company has removed the Occupational Health Nurse Report from my Personnel File, as noted in correspondence to UK affiliate HR personal data processors in late 2014 when they processed a subject access request (SAR) citing the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).


The UK affiliate still does not address the propriety, legality or compliance issues around the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting. I have challenged the processes and also state that I do not have documented performance issues. If I did, how could I qualify for the Tier 2 shortage occupation list position? The 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting minutes were never provided to ME. I wanted firm documentation to reference. The UK affiliate company authored the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter. My presented 20 September 2013 formal grievance was my entitled response.

The OHN Report was received through issuing an Subject Access Request to the OHN. The report was never provided to me nor discussed during negotiations . It again confirms that there was an unscheduled meeting 13 Jun 2013 (i.e., Ambush Meeting). The grievance was not against my boss so much as challenging the propriety of the 13 June 2013 meeting and for my immediate supervisor to provide evidence to support the assertions made during the meeting. The meeting was hosted by the HR Manager and the boss of my boss also attended. My issues was with all three of them with respect to the meeting and performance management discussions, which I believed were unfounded (as the 20 September 2013 grievance discussed).
The Human Resource Manager never delivered this OHN report and instead withheld this report from me during negotiations. I could have made the GP appointment, but there was a rush to have me sign the settlement agreement contract. I was on garden leave from 5-31 December 2013 near the offices of the UK affiliate company and could have easily made the appointment. My solicitor, Philip Landau was complicit in the withholding of this important OHN health report.

Workplace Mobbing is Psychological Terrorism

No one deserves to be terrorized for any reason. In the workplace, mobbing is emotional and psychological terrorism deliberately inflicted on an individual with the express purpose of destroying that person emotionally, psychologically, physically, and professionally.

VALERIE ROBINS , WORKPLACE BULLYING: MOBBING IS EMOTIONAL & PSYCHOLOGICAL TERRORISM

Mobbing can only persist as long as it is allowed to persist. Organizational leadership plays the most important part in its prevention. By enforcing decency, civility, and high ethical standards in the workplace and by creating a nourishing environment, bullying and mobbing will not surface.

NOA ZANOLLI,

Extortion occurs when someone attempts to obtain money or property by threatening to commit violence, accuse the victim of a crime, or reveal private or damaging information about the victim.

Open Letter to the Board of Directors of a Norwegian Geo-Services Company (18 June 2017) was never Acknowledged nor Responded to. Responsible?

Excerpt from Norwegian geo-services UK affilate office personnel handbook. I submitted a workplace grievance to the SVP (et al.) claiming workplace bullying and professional misconduct perpetrated by HRM. The UK affiliateignored and denied all of my protections and provisions of the UK office personnel handbook (2013 Edition) as well as UK labor & contract law in their mobbing campaign and acted with arbitrary caprice in protecting unethical and illegal executive behaviors,

Overall, our predictions regarding the correlations between the Dark Triad and bullying were supported. Psychopathy was the most strongly related to bullying, followed by Machiavellianism, and narcissism

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN BULLYING BEHAVIOURS AND THE DARK TRIAD: A STUDY WITH ADULTS

I was represented by legal counsel, Philip Landau with LZW Law (he now is with Landau Law in London) negotiating a settlement contract agreement for my termination from employment following my submitting a workplace grievance (20 September 2013). Landau was engaged as my solicitor when this memo was created and I believe complicit in the uttering of false instruments used to support an illegal performance based termination of a US citizen employee whistleblower. Landau had been provided with all of the correct information to debunk the contents of this 25 October 2013 Memo.


5 Secrets To Spot You’re About To Be Mobbed At Work

Narcissistic Boss or Employer: Coping and Survival Tactics

https://mclip.tv/video/3_YdgSy77xY/narcissistic-boss-or-employer-coping-and-survival-tactics


https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/hr-pills/workplace-bullying-mobbing-GtfZ3AmYEs-/

https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/hr-pills/workplace-bullying-mobbing-GtfZ3AmYEs-/

https://blogs.psychcentral.com/recovering-narcissist/2019/03/7-gaslighting-phrases-malignant-narcissists-sociopaths-and-psychopaths-use-translated/

The most dangerous culprits of gaslighting? Malignant narcissists, who, by default, use gaslighting as a strategy to undermine the perception of their victims in order to evade accountability for their abuse. 

Shahida Arabi, Bestselling Author 

Submitting Grievances and Whistleblowing as a Foreign Worker -Part 2


The Psychological Terrorism of my 9-11

Submitting Grievances and Whistleblowing as a Foreign Worker – Part 2

Psychological terrorism is the deliberate targeting of an individual in a way that leaves no physical scars but leaves psychological injuries or trauma that have long-lasting impact.

Valerie Robins , WORKPLACE BULLYING: MOBBING IS EMOTIONAL & PSYCHOLOGICAL TERRORISM

Discrimination, bullying or harassment of any kind will not be tolerated by the Company and all allegations of such behaviour will be dealt with seriously, confidentially and speedily.

UK COMPANY OFFICE PERSONNEL HANDBOOK

Within a previous MarineSeismicSurvey (MSS) blog  post article, Submitting Grievances and Whistleblowing as a Foreign Worker – Part One: The Ambush Meeting (Part 1), the 24 July 201 Ambush Letter, was discussed. The 24 July 201 Ambush Letter scheduled another meeting for 11 September 2013.  Of all the dates to choose to eliminate the American (USA) foreign worker, 9-11 was chosen as a meeting date with all its emotional symbolism.  Minutes from the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting had been requested right after the event.  These important minutes chronicling a distressing event were denied, but I pressed for something firm in writing. That was how the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter came about. Almost six-weeks following the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting, a letter was finally delivered to me.  What was never answered in the interim or within the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter was how the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting conformed to the UK-England company written policy, procedures, and of course contract and employment law.  The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter actually raised similar concerns once it was received. 

The copy of the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter scanned and referenced in this article was received through my submitting a subject access request (SAR) citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) in October 2014.  The UK company is an affiliate of a Norwegian geo-services company (NGSUK). NGSUK personal data processors within the human resources (HR) group are processing this 24 July 201 Ambush Letter.  Unfortunately, there are many problems with the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter. It would serve as the impetus for my submitting a lengthy workplace grievance on 20 September 2013.  However, the most immediately visible problem with the 24 July 201 Ambush Letter when I received it as part of my official NGSUK personnel file documentation is that the mentioned scheduled 11 September 2013 (my 9-11) meeting actually never happened!  The same HR manager who hosted the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting of questionable propriety and intentionally withheld the requested meeting minutes from me, also prevented the submission of a grievance soon after the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting, and also cancelled and rescheduled the 11 September 2013 to 20 September 2013, as the 18 September 2013 e-mail indicates. The same HR Manager was now overseeing my SAR a year later. I did submit a 20 September 2013 formal grievance, but this document is not being processed within the body of my personnel file records. However, the 20 September 2013 formal grievance is mentioned and referenced within the 5 December 2013 settlement contract agreement (SCA), which when signed terminated my career with the Norwegian geo-services company (NGS). NGS’ HR departments subsequent processing of defamatory fake data is a sinister form of blacklisting. Both are not compliant nor legal acts, but were the coordinated endeavor of the corrupt and evil NGS legal compliance. The 11 September 2013 meeting that never happened is also referenced in another significant document being processed by NGS / NGSUK, but the date is not even mentioned within the SCA!

The new question was, how did the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter conform to NGSUK policy and procedures? Within the pages of the submitted 20 September 2013 formal grievance, I had made the case that the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter and 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting did not conform to NGSUK policy and procedure or UK contract and employment law. The 20 September 2013 formal grievance had focused on the propriety and the participants of the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting as well as countering the unsubstantiated claims made within the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter, since I never had received minutes from the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting. (This point was made within the 20 September 2013 formal grievance, as well.) I was also astonished to discover a version of minutes for the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting was also being processed within my official PGSUK personnel file. My truthful professional reputation was assassinated on 11 September 2013, an event that never happened to me in reality, but exists as the most significant date within my professional official work history with NGS. How is this possible? The 11 September 2013 date has consumed me. NGS / NGSUK processing fake data makes it clear to me that the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting. and 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter were not legal nor compliant to NGSUK policy and procedure or UK employment and contract law. For some time, I have believed, and collected evidence showing, that I was a victim of a conspiracy to defraud, on top of being a target of severe workplace gang-bullying (mobbing). I have been on a writing campaign for justice since discovering this. However, it is a very difficult endeavor to confront corrupt power and money, especially when so many “professionals” from different companies participated in the alleged crimes against me and my family. Overcoming the banality of corruption and incivility is difficult, especially when those entrusted with corporate governance are the principal perpetrators and facilitators of the crimes.

Make no mistake. Gaslighting is not about love or concern. It’s about power and control. A gaslighter is someone who needs to feel superior and who manipulates people to further their own agendas.

Marie Hartwell-Walker, Ed.D., 7 Ways to Extinguish Gaslighting

Trust yourself. Recognize what they are doing and stay calm. If you know your case, preserved your record, and know why you’re in court today, you are armed. You will correct the record as appropriate and return focus to the important issues for the court and your case. You have prepared and you know what you are doing.

Alyson A. Foster, Gaslighting in Litigation

The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter was written on behalf of NGSUK and states that its creation was necessary since I had related that I wanted to pursue the matter officially. To me, this meant according to NGSUK policy, procedures, as well as employment (Tier 2 visa) law and contract law.  The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter did not address my simple queries.  At the same time, I was helpless to steer events.  It seems that there were two avenues which could have been pursued, based on the NGS UK Office Policy Handbook (NGSUK Handbook).  These were to either follow the NGSUK Handbook grievance procedures or the disciplinary procedures. These would have been the anticipated official routes to be followed.  As was pointed out in Part 1, when disciplinary and grievance matters are related, as was the case here, according to ACAS, the matters can be resolved together.  The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter also indicated that I would have the opportunity to respond with my case and supporting documentation.  The 20 September 2013 formal grievance, which is not being processed within the body of my personnel file by NGS / NGSUK HR, was my response and contained substantive information countering the claims made during the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting and subsequent 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter. But, my truthful narrative is destroyed.

The 20 September 2013 formal grievance was never processed according to the NGSUK Handbook procedures. NGS / NGSUK had denied me my legal right to follow the grievance process. How was this permitted? With the assistance of my compromised counsel, Philip Landau of LZW Solicitos and Watson, Farley and Williams (WFW), representing NGSUK, I was gaslighted into negotiating an SCA predicated on performance. I challenge all NGS / NGSUK, LWZ Solicitors, and WFW legal and HR professionals involved in my SCA termination to show otherwise that the process was compliant and legal. I quite frankly could not figure out what was happening at the time and why all my queries seemed to fall on deaf ears. I never really believed that the process was being carried out correctly, but was being fed misrepresentations from all sides. (WFW had also recently processed my Tier 2 visa leave to remain.) I made countless queries during the negotiations that went unanswered because I had no legal representation. My hired solicitor, Landau, I allege, was complicit in the conspiracy to defraud. This is what I have reported to UK ActionFraud (police). I have also compiled the numerous e-mail communications that confirm that my solicitor was aware of the 11 September 2013 to 20 September 2013 meeting change. Landau knew that I was a USA citizen and had also received a copy of the 20 September 2013 formal grievance, a copy of the NGSUK Handbook, and NGS Core Values. As my legal counsel, these factual discrepancies should have been noted. However, what especially should have been noted was that my legal right to file a grievance was adhered to. It was not. Instead, false instruments were processed that supported a corrupt disciplinary process used to illegally terminate a whistleblower.

The NGSUK HR Manager was aware that the response to the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter (and 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting) would be in the form of a formal grievance prior to the 11 September 2013 scheduled meeting.  Therefore, the NGSUK directors and secretary would have known this as well.  What is also important to note is that there was a change of NGSUK secretary 13 September 2013.  The new NGSUK secretary assumed the role of secretary and the responsibility that the procedures had been and were being carried out legally and in accordance to the NGSUK Handbook and the laws of England. The NGSUK Handbook actually does cover issues regarding foreign workers with visas. The NGSUK Handbook also states NGSUK grievance and disciplinary procedures.  Any official route should have implicitly followed NGS Core Values and the NGS Code of Conduct, which are referenced in the NGSUK Handbook. Nicholson continued to be the main driver of the process even though he was directly implicated in misconduct and bullying through hosting the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting. Neither NGSUK seretaries ever contacted me before or following the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter. Within the 20 September 2013 formal grievance it was my belief that my nationality and Tier 2 visa status had elevated the destructive behaviors to harassment of a protected class, or illegal harassment. My Tier 2 visa status was a very important consideration which seemed to be ignored.

Indeed, most of those surveyed for the report identified employer retaliation and not being taken seriously as the most common barriers to taking complaints to employers

Muneeza Sheikh, Workplace is wrong venue to address
harassment

First, his silence may be taken as consent to whatever has been said to him, as an implied admission. This inference arises where a denial would be expected if the statement was false. Here silence operates rather like a nod; it is as if the party did not think it worth while lasting words in assenting to what he and the speaker know is obvious.

J. D. HEYDON, SILENCE AS EVIDENCE

Subsequent debates have argued the fine print over whether these individuals are actually psychopaths, or sociopaths, or have another mental disorder, called narcissistic personality disorder. But whatever the name of their conditions, they create chaos.  They have no capacity to see or respect the perspective of others, are completely disrespectful, and many of them prop themselves up with a sadistic addiction to diminishing others.

Jenny Luesby, How Toxic Bosses Destroy Companies

Perpetrators actively, though often covertly, seek to harm others–physically, emotionally, and spiritually, using tactics designed to
injure individuals and create physical and psychological power imbalances.

Burgess, Garbarino, & Carlson, 2006

20 September 2013 Delivered Grievance

Contents, Preamble, Key Points and Summary

As the NGSUK Handbook header indicates, NGSUK HRM prepared the NGSUK Handbook and should be fluent in its contents.  The 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting was hosted by NGSUK HRM, as well.  The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter was also signed by Nicholson, on behalf of NGSUK. In fact, all the documentation relevant to my termination is also signed by only the NGSUK HRM. Nothing is countersigned by the employee (me) or his supervisor. The exception is a Memo dated 25 October 2013, when Landau was engaged as my solicitor. NGSUK HRM did not sign this Memo, but neither did I. None of these documents are authenticated or substantiated by documentation and are therefore defamatory. I did not work directly for any of the directors, secretary, HR department, or division Executive Vice-President (EVP). The documents relate uncorroborated events, wrong dates, and non-existent documents. They are all forgeries. Further, no NGS / NGSUK, WFW, or LZW agent has ever challenged or commented on the allegations that the documents are forgeries in over three-years of protected public disclosure – whistleblowing. No definitive answer nor clarification has ever been provided as to the propriety of 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting  or 24 July 2013 Ambush Meeting following multiple queries, including NGS Compliance. NGS, Landau, and WFW uttered false instruments to process my termination from employment with NGSUK.

This lack of transparency seems to violate categorically the principles of the NGS Core Values and NGS Code of Conduct.  Said another way, NGSUK’s official handling of my workplace concerns seems to have been violating my contract of employment on multiple levels.  NGSUK continued to obstruct my ability and right under UK employment law to complain!  My queries were simple and reasonable. They could have been addressed easily. The NGSUK Handbook states that the grievance procedure can be used freely and without prejudice by employees.  The NGSUK Handbook notes the importance of formal and informal lines of communication, especially between the employee and their immediate supervisor.  The grievance procedure discusses provisions where the immediate supervisor is the focus of the grievance or if the employee is uncomfortable discussing the matter with their immediate supervisor.  In this case, the grievance should be raised with the employee’s supervisor’s superior. As for any disciplinary actions, such matters must be fully investigated and focused on a fair resolution.  The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter stated management’s intention to investigate the possibility of  implementing a performance improvement plan.  But, what was the predicate for NGSUK’s directors and secretary intervention prior to any completed investigation or addressing the central concern as to the propriety of the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting

These behaviors seem to model the behaviors of workplace harassment, mobbing, and bullying, inclusive of manipulative gaslighting, as described in literature. They seem to model non-compliant and criminal behaviors. NGSUK manipulated the processes to force a desired outcome. This included blocking all avenues of legal redress through adopting an official route that is not included within the NGSUK Handbook, or employment and contract law. An official route that involves fraud, forgery, bribery, embezzlement, extortion, and uttering forged instruments. Legally guaranteed processes were not permitted and choices were limited to the employee so that management could achieve their “win” in this nefarious end game. This end game included co-opting a truthful professional narrative with a fabrication of events. This end game included the symbolic elimination of the American from their workforce on my 9-11. It was all psychological terrorism. It involved illegality, the denial of my human rights and rights under contract and employment law, which were all documented within the 20 September 2013 formal grievance. Most troubling is the witnessing of the death of professionalism and civility and the revelation of weak characters that found sadistic pleasure in abusing their power. Many, many NGS / NGSUK employees have been bribed with salaries and job security so they can continue to ignore NGS Core Values and Code of Conduct. NGS / NGSUK is led by misconduct and depravity. NGS’s dumbfounded Norwegian management and board should have thought twice before lodging their despicable terrorist attack on an American focused on justice. Truth is very strong. Poor management is weak and soon runs out of resources. Weak NGS management- management built upon the “sands” of deception – and board of directors attacked me and my family and now these “leaders” hide from their actions and accountability. Pathetic. Even more pathetic is the employee ranks who allow such depraved leadership to remain unaccountable to a Code of Practice or Responsibility Report and functional corporate governance.

In essence, the psyche constantly returned to scenes of unpleasure because, by restaging the traumatic moment over and over again, it hoped belatedly to process the unassimilable material, to find ways of mastering the trauma retroactively

SIGMUND FReud

Privilege, or immunity, is also a defense against a claim of defamation. Qualified privilege is usually used in cases where the person communicating the statement has a “legal, moral, or social duty to make it….” The person making the statement must show that he or she has made the statement in good faith, believing it to be true and that the statement was made without malice. One example of qualified privilege is the immunity of members of the press from defamation charges for statements made in the press in good faith unless it can be proven that they were made with malice.

Qualified Privilege as a Defense in a Defamation Case

###

« Older posts Newer posts »