Submitting Grievances and Whistleblowing as a Foreign Worker – Part 2 The Psychological Terrorism of my 9-11
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.PGS UK OFFICE PERSONNEL HANDBOOK (2013) [PREPARED: DN – AUTHORIZED: TB
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 (Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3), 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 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 PGS Exploration UK Limited, 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY (PGSUK) 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. PGSUK 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 grievancee 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 PGSUK personel 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 documet is not being processed within my PGSUK personnel file records. However, it is mentioned and referenced within the 5 December 2013 settlement contract agreement (SCA), which when signed terminated my career with Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS). PGS’ HR 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 PGS legal compliance. The 11 September 2013 meeting that never happened is also referenced in another significant document being processed by PGS / PGSUK, but the date is not even mentioned within the SCA!
The new question was, how did the 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter conform to PGSUK 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 PGSUK 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 assasinated 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 PGS. How is this possible? The 11 September 2013 date has consumed me. PGS / PGSUK processing fake data makes it clear to me that the 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting. and 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter were not legal or compliant to PGSUK 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 PGSUK 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 PGSUK 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 PGS UK Office Policy Handbook (PGSUK Handbook). These were to either follow the PGSUK 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 by PGS / PGSUK 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, it is not being processed.
The 20 September 2013 formal grievance was never processed according to the PGSUK Handbook procedures. PGS / PGSUK 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 PGSUK, I was gaslighted into negotiating an SCA predicated on performance. I challenge all PGS / PGSUK, 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 happenning 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 PGSUK Handbook, and PGS Core Values. As my legal counsel, these factual discrepencies 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 PGSUK 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 PGSUK directors and secretary would have known this as well. What is also important to note is that there was a change of PGSUK secretary 13 September 2013. On 13 September 2013 Candida Pinto resigned as PGSUK secretary and Carl Richards, then PGSUK Head of Legal, assumed the role of secretary and the responsibility that the procedures had been and were being carried out legally and in accordance to the PGSUK Handbook and the laws of England. The PGSUK Handbook actually does cover issues regarding foreign workers with visas. The PGSUK Handbook also states PGSUK grievance and disciplinary procedures. Any official route should have implicitly followed PGS Core Values and PGS Code of Conduct, which are referenced in the PGSUK 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 Pinto nor Richards 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 employersMuneeza Sheikh, Workplace is wrong venue to address
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 toBurgess, Garbarino, & Carlson, 2006
injure individuals and create physical and psychological power imbalances.
As the PGSUK Handbook header indicates, Nicholson (DN) prepared the PGSUK Handbook and should be fluent in its contents. The 13 June 2013 Ambush Meeting was hosted by PGSUK HR Manager David Nicholson. The 24 July 2013 Ambush Letter was also signed by Nicholson, on behalf of PGSUK. In fact, all the documentation relevant to my termination is signed by only Nicholson, the PGSUK HR Manager. 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. Nicholson 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 forgeries. Further, no PGS / PGSUK, 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 PGS Compliance.
This lack of transparency seems to violate categorically the principles of the PGS Core Values and PGS Code of Conduct. Said another way, PGSUK’s official handling of my workplace concerns seems to have been violating my contract of employment on multiple levels. PGSUK 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 PGSUK Handbook states that the grievance procedure can be used freely and without prejudice by employees. The PGSUK 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 managements intension to investigate the possibility of implementating a performance improvement plan. But, what was the predicate for PGSUK’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. PGSUK 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 PGSUK Handbook, or employment and contract law. An official route that involves fraud, forgery, bribery, embezzlement and extortion. Legally guaranteed processes were not permited and choices limited to acheive 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 PGS / PGSUK employees have been bribed with salaries and job security so they can continue to ignore PGS Core Values and Code of Conduct. PGS / PGSUK is led by misconduct and depravity. PGS’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 PGS management 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 retroactivelySIGMUND 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