Business Ethics Geo-services Human Resources Marine Seismic Market Marine Seismic Operations UN Global Compact Whistleblower Workplace Bullying, Harassment & Mobbing

Letter to UK Companies House and Carl Richards, former PGS Exploration UK Limited Secretary (1 October 2018)

RE:  PGS Exploration UK Limited – Director and Secretary Fiduciary Negligence


Companies House

UK  Information Commissioner’s Office Caseworker(s) [RFA0XXX327]


Carl Richards, former secretary PGS Exploration (UK) Limited

Rune Olav Pedersen, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Director

Gottfred Langseth, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Director

Christin Steen-Nilson, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Director (no e-mail)

Gareth Jones, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited Human Resources Manager

Daphne Bjerke, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) Data Protection Officer

John Francas, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Head of Legal

Lars Mysen, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) General Counsel

Dear Companies House,

My name is Steven D. Kalavity.  I am a citizen of the United States of America (USA).  I currently live in Chiangrai, Thailand on visa with my Thai wife and three Thai – American children.

On 29-Oct-2018, I am scheduled to attend a hearing in Thai Court for claims made by Carl Richards, as a private person.  However, Carl Richards is the former PGS Exploration UK Limited secretary and Head of Legal.  Carl Richards is launching his claim on behalf of himself because he believes his reputation in Thailand has been damaged to a criminal level.  I have informed Carl Richards, as well as PGS Exploration UK Limited directors, that I regard my publications as whistle blowing.   I have always wanted and accepted comments that would improve the published content.  Carl Richards has never provided any.  Therefore, how can there be such a claims made in Thailand by fiduciaries of an English company that were the targets of these criticisms?

Carl Richards has no professional credentials in Thailand that I know about and I have certainly never published anything about it.  Carl Richards believes that he has been defamed to a criminal level through the publishing of evidence based articles criticizing his professional performance as PGS Exploration UK Limited secretary.  Yet, these same criticisms are not regarded as a breach of the non-disparagement clauses within a contract governed by the laws of England which Carl Richards reviewed and approved.  It seems that Carl Richards is misrepresenting his own integrity through advancing this claim in Thailand.

The online publications, which Carl Richards believes are damaging to his reputation, describe real events which occurred while I worked with PGS Exploration UK Limited in England on a company sponsored Tier 2 visa between 26 September 2010 and 31 December 2013.  The blog post articles, and accompanying image files, have been published while I have resided in both Thailand and the USA.  I am not a citizen of England, and neither is my wife.  The only Thai nationals mentioned within the articles are my wife and children, because they have been greatly impacted by these events and are victims of his alleged professional malpractice.  This claim filed by Carl Richards has distressed my family even more, and is a continuation of the concerted effort to destroy me and my family.

The articles are written in the English language, although certain articles have been translated to Norwegian.  The blog post articles and accompanying image files describe people, events, and actions by executives of Norwegian parent company, Petroleum Geo-Services and PGS Exploration UK Limited, which occurred while I was employed as a foreign worker in England.  Carl Richards was Head of Legal for PGS Exploration UK Limited for much of the time I worked in England.  However, Carl Richards became PGS Exploration UK Limited secretary 13 September 2013, at just the point when my dispute with PGS Exploration UK Limited began to have legal ramifications.

I believe that I am the victim of crimes and that my human rights were violated while employed with PGS Exploration UK Limited.  Carl Richards oversaw my termination from employment from PGS Exploration UK Limited.  My employment terminated through a settlement contract agreement.  I believe that this is an illegal contract.  I also believe that forged instruments were created to support the illegal contract proffered as a false pretense for termination.  These beliefs are reinforced by documented evidence, and further by these actions taken by Carl Richards in the Thai legal system.

I have complained vigorously to the UK Information Commissioner’s Office regarding the integrity of the data which PGS Exploration UK Limited was processing in my name.  I implored caseworkers to conduct an investigation to compel PGS Exploration UK Limited to authenticate the documents being processed as my personal data.  I first reported these crimes in August 2015 to UK ActionFraud (police).  I have also submitted a report to UK Serious Fraud Office.  For over three years, all that I have ever asked for is an impartial third-party investigation into my claims.

My postings relate to Carl Richards’ obligations while he was PGS Exploration UK Limited secretary.  Fiduciary duty is not like a coat that is worn when the weather changes.  Fiduciary duty is a legal responsibility.  In Carl Richards’ case, these obligations were under the Laws of England.  Carl Richards was especially obligated to uphold these responsibilities from 13-Sep-2013 to 25-May-2018.  Carl Richards was still PGS Exploration UK Limited secretary when he first contacted me through a private and unverified e-mail account when he informed of his intended claims in Thailand.

As a fiduciary, his responsibility is to the principal, PGS Exploration UK Limited.  The fact that Carl Richards brought these claims to defend his own character apart from his professional credentials is stunning to me.  I have been publishing content critical of PGS Exploration UK Limited that may have impacted the reputation of the company.  The exception to the contractual mutual non-disparagement clauses is whistle blowing.   A fiduciary duty under the UK Companies Act 2006 is to protect the reputation of PGS Exploration UK Limited, not just theirs.  Fiduciaries should also be supportive of whistle blowing.

All of my postings are relevant to this period of time where Carl Richards and PGS Exploration UK Limited directors were in positions to influence decisions and actions which significantly impacted me.  PGS Exploration UK Limited directors, and other named employees, have had multiple opportunities, as well as the resources, to present their defenses.   Their inaction has significantly impacted the well-being of my family.  Carl Richards, as PGS Exploration UK Limited secretary, has never refuted anything written or posted by me.  In fact, not one individual mentioned within my articles has ever commented on, or asked that I cease publishing, my online blog articles or image files prior to Carl Richard sending an e-mail to me from a private and unverified account.

I would not have published anything online if Carl Richards, as an expert on contract agreements, would answer my simple and reasonable questions and concerns.  Is the settlement contract agreement that was used to terminate my employment from PGS Exploration UK Limited a legal instrument?  Will you authenticate as legal and compliant both the processes and documents that support the legal settlement contract agreement?  These are simple questions for an expert to answer.  But, Carl Richards has refused to answer such simple questions which are the basis behind all of my publications.

Obviously, I do not believe the settlement contract agreement used to terminate my employment from PGS Exploration UK Limited is a legal instrument.  I believe that I was terminated from my position with PGS Exploration UK Limited for whistle blowing.  I am no expert on English contracts.  But, I was fully aware of the events that actually happened at the time.  What I do know, with absolute certainty, is that the documents being processed within my PGS Exploration UK Limited professional personnel file are inaccurate and do not meet any normal legal or compliant standard.  Expert Carl Richards should be able to quickly resolve these concerns.

Pertinent documents do not bare my counter signature and are factually incorrect.  I believe that these documents were created and processed to support the settlement contract agreement that terminated my employment under false pretenses.  An initial settlement contract agreement was proffered to me to terminate the grievance procedure which I had initiated.  Under the laws of England, and under my original contract of employment with PGS Exploration UK Limited, employees have the right to file a grievance and if the grievance procedure is included within the employment contract, employers are obligated to follow the prescribed grievance procedures; otherwise it would be a breach of contract.

Why was the settlement contract agreement proffered to me before completing the grievance procedures outlined within the PGS Exploration UK Limited Handbook?  My grievance cited bullying and harassment, discrimination, negligence, breach of duty of care contractual responsibilities and breach of contractual mutual trust and confidence.  My grievance exposed management misconduct, abuse of position and non-compliant workplace practices.  I believe these concerns reached the level of whistle blowing.  As PGS Exploration UK Limited secretary, Carl Richards had assumed the legal responsibility to ensure that my grievance was handled properly and legally.  My blog post articles have simply asked for proof of this.

I have regarded my blog post articles as therapy for the workplace abuses facilitated by Carl Richards.  The grievance which was submitted described the health impacts of workplace bullying and harassment on targets and organizations.  During the settlement contract agreement negotiations, I felt very distressed.  I took five consecutive sick leave days off from my work.  The human resources manager and my first line supervisor, both of whom were subjects identified as workplace bullies within my grievance document, requested that I see an occupational health nurse.  I did see the occupational health nurse.  I explained to her what was going on with me in the workplace.

The occupational health nurse provided a preliminary report to me and I had requested a copy of the final report.  Carl Richards never intervened at this point either, even though the workplace conditions seemed to be impacting my health.  Employee stress is covered within the PGS Exploration UK Limited Handbook.  Carl Richards should have been aware of my appointment with the occupational health nurse.  The occupational health nurse noted increased stress levels and recommended a follow-up evaluation.  However, I never received this report at the time and never was evaluated again by the nurse.  This intentioned action placed the health and safety of me and my family at risk.

Bullying is a serious health issue in the workplace and a risk factor for anxiety, depression and suicide.  Bullying is often referred to as psychological harassment or violence.  One type of anxiety is complex post-traumatic stress disorder (C-PTSD).  Symptoms of C-PTSD may include flashbacks, irritability, reckless behavior, avoiding reminders of the traumatic event, feeling numb, memory problems, guilt, difficulty trusting others, and anger.  Carl Richards oversaw my being denied health care while I was a vulnerable foreign worker of PGS Exploration UK Limited.

I have always regarded my online publishing as therapy.  C-PSTD would also explain the escalation of anger in my online publications.  There is pressure for targets of workplace bullying to be heard after their abuse.  Bullies and harassers will intentionally ignore their targets.  When bullies and harassers ignore their targets, it gives them control of the situation, and a power over the target.  This increases the trauma and stress of the target.  In my case of gang-bullying, many people are directly implicated in the creation and processing of fake data that was used to terminate me from employment with PGS Exploration UK Limited.

Through their collective silence, PGS Exploration UK Limited or Petroleum Geo-Services ASA have been defaming and damaging me.  They have continued their bullying and harassment.  Their collective refusal to prove the legality of the settlement contract agreement that terminated my employment, along with the processes and documents that support the settlement contract agreement, denies me the truthful narrative.  A settlement contract agreement used to terminate an employee for performance reasons is fundamentally different than settling a whistle blowing and workplace harassment claim for illegal workplace practices.

Ignoring someone, or giving them the silent treatment, is one of the most used destructive manipulation tactics of manipulative people.  When multiple actors participate it is gaslighting.  It is very distressing and destructive to the targets psychological health and well-being.  It drives victims crazy.  Multiple actors were involved in processing knowingly false and defamatory personal data about me.  I believe that my legal adviser for the settlement contract agreement was complicit, as e-mail communications between him and me do not corroborate the data which PGS Exploration UK Limited is processing as my personal data.  My former legal adviser similarly remains silent, as does the legal adviser that represented PGS Exploration UK Limited during settlement contract agreement negotiations.

I have been publishing content online critical of personal data controllers Norwegian parent company Petroleum Geo-Services and PGS Exploration UK Limited since 3 July 2015.  On 22 December 2014, PGS Exploration UK Limited explicitly threatened legal action if I did not accept their processing knowingly false and inaccurate personal data about me.   I knew that something very wrong had happened to me after receiving that letter.  However, no director or secretary ever contacted me following the initial 3 July 2015 online publication.  Of course, they never invoked the non-disparagement clauses or demonstrated that their actions regarding my termination from employment had been legal and compliant either.  I was ignored.

Carl Richards and PGS Exploration UK Limited have made arbitrary and capricious judgments as to what constitutes disparagement, defamation, or a breach in the settlement contract agreement terms and conditions.  If PGS Exploration UK Limited or Petroleum Geo-Services ASA had published similar critical content about me online, I would have pursued the matter referencing the settlement contract agreement non-disparagement clauses governed by the laws of England.  As long as PGS Exploration UK Limited treat the settlement contract agreement as a legal instrument, there is little that I can do.  PGS Exploration UK Limited’s silence and inaction since 3 July 2015 is fiduciary negligence, in my view.

I published more issues of concern about the settlement contract agreement between me and PGS Exploration UK Limited online the LinkedIn™ platform, 6 September 2015 and 20 September 2015.  These articles called for the resignation of the Petroleum Geo-Services ASA CEO and President.  The 6 September 2015 article was read by many people, according the platform metrics.  In a 10 October 2015 article, I called for expulsion of the Petroleum Geo-Services ASA CEO and President, and other employees, from the professional organization because I believed that these individuals had breached the ethical standards of the organization.  I named several PGS Exploration UK Limited and Petroleum Geo-Services ASA employees within these articles and never once received a comment or rebuke from Carl Richards or PGS Exploration UK Limited directors.  Why?

What was the intention of the 22 December 2014 letter, which threatened litigation if I continued to advance my concerns about the basis and legality of my termination from employment, if PGS Exploration UK Limited directors accepted these publications with no claim of settlement contract agreement breach in the non-disparagement clauses?  Within the 20 September 2015 article, I presented evidence to support my claims.  The presented e-mail and other document evidence showed that my personnel file documents were inaccurate and non-compliant documents.  Neither Carl Richards, nor PGS Exploration UK Limited directors, acted concerned or tried to contact me.

In 2016, I submitted a complaint report to the Petroleum Geo-Services ASA Compliance Hotline.  The response from the Compliance Hotline stated that there was an investigation and no fraud was detected.  I requested a copy of their investigation report.  Petroleum Geo-Services ASA refuses to provide the report or how the investigation was carried out.  I submitted several more complaints to the Petroleum Geo-Services ASA Compliance Hotline and have never received a response.  I continued writing and publishing blog post articles critical of PGS Exploration UK Limited and Petroleum Geo-Services ASA.  Still, no one ever contacted me or asked me to stop.

In 2017, I updated the 2015 ActionFraud report and submitted another report to the UK Serious Fraud Office to include the involved legal advisers which formed the settlement contract agreement.  I have reported Carl Richards and the involved legal advisers to professional law organizations in England that regulate legal professionals.  Carl Richards, and PGS Exploration UK Limited directors, have also been reported to the UK Companies House with regard to their performance in fulfilling fiduciary duties for PGS Exploration UK Limited, as described in the UK Companies Act 2006.

In 2017, I published and Open Letter directed to the Petroleum Geo-Services ASA Board of Directors.  There has been no acknowledgement.  In 2018, I have already written another Open Letter to the new Petroleum Geo-Services ASA data protection officer.  I have also posted an Open Letter to PGS Exploration UK Limited Head of Legal and another one to the PGS Exploration UK Limited human resources manager regarding the same base issues.  No replies for any of them.  There is only the continued silence and ignoring of a whistle blower.

I believe that the claims made against me by Carl Richards for this Thai legal proceeding are without merit for multiple reasons.  Carl Richards is portraying himself as a victim of unwarranted on-line criticism.  However, no one in any official capacity, especially one of PGS Exploration UK Limited director’s, has ever even tried to contact me before Carl Richards.  Their problem is a product of their own creation.  People in authority routinely abuse their positions and ignore their victims to maintain their power over them, and to demoralize, demean and destroy them.  I believe that this is happening to me now.

The silence and inaction by PGS Exploration UK Limited directors constitutes fiduciary negligence as much as it is a weapon used by manipulative people.  I have used social media to voice serious concerns, because Carl Richards, and other PGS Exploration UK Limited directors, do not respond to the many serious allegations that I have made.  Carl Richards is circumventing his fiduciary duties under the laws of England by launching his claim in Thailand.  Carl Richards and PGS Exploration UK Limited directors have also neglected their legal fiduciary duties under the laws of England by allowing events to rise to this level.

Carl Richards has not only had multiple opportunities, but also a fiduciary duty, to address the many valid concerns about his own, or PGS Exploration UK Limited stakeholders, reputations, as well as conduct, before now.  These duties are described within the UK Companies Act 2006.  Carl Richards has also decided to escalate this dispute to the criminal courts of Thailand as a first option and not as a last resort, even though Carl Richards is licensed to practice law in England.  This has taken a tremendous toll on my Thai family.

The best solution, it seems, should have been to exchange e-mails.  If that failed, then the mutual non-disparagement clauses included within the settlement contract agreement which terminated our employment relationship should have been discussed.  This settlement contract agreement is governed by the laws of England.  I have written multiple e-mails, made phone calls, and finally posted directed content online to get the attention of PGS Exploration UK Limited and Petroleum Geo-Services ASA since 3 July 2015.  They never respond privately, and so I have felt the need to go public with my concerns.

It has been my reputation which has been damaged because PGS Exploration UK Limited and Petroleum Geo-Services ASA agents refuse to engage me directly and responsibly to address my valid concerns.  It is this lack of engagement which has frustrated me to escalate my complaints and try to get their attention.  In spite of this escalation, no official of PGS Exploration UK Limited has ever attempted to contact me directly or tried to address my complaints and allegations.  Collectively, PGS Exploration UK Limited and Petroleum Geo-Services have ignored my concerns for over three years of attempted engagement on my part.  I can prove my claims with evidence in an appropriate legal venue.  I have already done so through my online publications. 

It simply should not take over three years for PGS Exploration UK Limited and Petroleum Geo-Services ASA agents to prove that they did their jobs and followed the rules.  The fact that they refuse to answer simple questions shows that they are hiding something.  But, clearly, if my claims are true, and I believe that they are, PGS Exploration UK Limited and Petroleum Geo-Services ASA agents did not do their jobs or follow the rules.  In this case, it is clearly my family who are the victims of PGS Exploration UK Limited and Petroleum Geo-Services ASA agents not doing their jobs and following the rules.  This is what I believe has been published online with evidence to back my claims.

With regard to this proceeding, I received an e-mail from the private Google™ account of a person purporting to be Carl Richards.  This was the first and only complaint that I have ever received regarding my online content.  This e-mail cited some complaints over content which I have published on-line.  I responded briefly to this e-mail, but requested proof of identification before I would consider the complaints further.  I never received another e-mail from this address.

Later, I received another e-mail from a person purporting to be a Thai lawyer who was representing Carl Richards.  Similarly, I requested proof of legal credentials from this person, as well as proof that this person was truly a lawyer representing the Carl Richards who I had worked with in England at PGS Exploration UK Limited.  I never received a response or confirmation from this person either.  So, it was very surprising to me when I received the papers from the court in Thailand without ever receiving confirmation of identity or discussing the issues more fully.  I was actually travelling outside of Thailand when the documents were delivered.

I do not know why Carl Richards is solving this simple legal problem in Thailand.  I am not a citizen of England.  This problem likely would have never happened if I had been an English citizen.  I believe that PGS Exploration UK Limited engaged in their trickery because my family and I were all foreigners and so it would be easy for them to get away with their scheme.  The events written about in my blog articles occurred in England.  I am in Thailand because my wife and children are citizens of Thailand.  We have had a home in Chiangrai, Thailand since 2006.  During all of my oversea assignments, Thailand is where we returned to, and Thailand was my home of record for rotational offshore work assignments with Petroleum Geo-Services.

Carl Richards has been trying to destroy me professionally, psychologically, and financially since 2013.  I was a victim in England, and I am a victim now.  Carl Richards wants to destroy my Thai home and family.  Carl Richards must be held accountable.  Carl Richards, and PGS Exploration UK Limited, must confirm with evidence that the settlement contract agreement that terminated my employment is a legal instrument.  Carl Richards must confirm that the documents and processes that support the settlement contract agreement were also legal and compliant.  Carl Richards must do these things now, because it has always been his duty to do so.  It was his duty in England, and it remains his duty now.

Carl Richards is trying to bypass most every critical action and decision which has brought us to this point as though he had no control of the situation.  He feels that his reputation has been damaged.  Yet, Carl Richards has never defended his reputation through directly confronting the accusations which I have made in a timely manner.  The base accusations have remained much the same since the first 3 July 2015 publication.  The reason that I communicate publicly and online is because PGS Exploration UK Limited and Petroleum Geo-Services ASA agents do not respond to private e-mails or even comment on the online publications.

Every one of my publications critical of Petroleum Geo-Services ASA and PGS Exploration UK Limited has been a risk for me.  The settlement contract agreement contained mutual non-disparagement clauses prohibiting parties from criticizing each other.  They have had multiple opportunities to invoke these clauses over the past three years and have chosen not to do so.  Why is this?  This inaction further supports my assertion that the settlement contract agreement is an illegal instrument.  There are records that Carl Richards, along with his colleague assistant, reviewed and approved the use of this settlement contract agreement.  It has always been known to be an illegal instrument.

I am begging Companies House, Information Commissioner’s Office, and the police to investigate and compel PGS Exploration UK Limited to authenticate as legal and compliant the settlement contract agreement along with the processes and documents and processes that support it.  I should not have to beg for this.  I should have never had to file a fraud report as a foreign worker.  I should have never had to endure the health harming effects of a toxic workplace.  PGS Exploration UK Limited is literally trying to destroy me and my family – the victims of abuse.  I desperately need your help.

Best regards,

Steven D. Kalavity  

Bullying Business Ethics Geo-services harassment Human Resources marine seismic Marine Seismic Market Marine Seismic Operations mobbing UN Global Compact Whistleblower Workplace Bullying, Harassment & Mobbing

Letter to UK Companies House and Petroleum Geo-Services ASA

Letter to UK Companies House and Petroleum Geo-Services ASA

(24 September 2018)

ATTN:    UK Companies House

CC:   Gareth Jones, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Human Resources Manager

UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) Caseworker(s)

Daphne Bjerke, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) Data Protection Officer

John Francas, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Head of Legal

Lars Mysen, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) General Counsel

Rune Olav Pedersen, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Director

Gottfred Langseth, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Director

Christin Steen-Nilson, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Director (no e-mail)

Dear Companies House, 

I am a USA citizen who worked in England on Tier 2 visa.  I worked for PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY from 26 Sep 2010 – 31 Dec 2013. 

I believe that I was illegally terminated and black listed for whistle blowing. 

I believe that the company directors and secretary were actively complicit in denying me my right to file a grievance and then creating false personnel documents to support a false basis for termination (performance based reasons). 

I first discovered issues with my personnel file documents in October 2014 when I filed a subject access request citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998.  

My personnel file contain what I know are non-compliant false instruments.  None of the documents are signed by me or are corroborated with e-mail evidence.  In fact, it is just the opposite. 

The grievance document which was the basis for the proffering of a settlement contract agreement is not part of my personnel file, nor is a report from an occupational health nurse who noted dangerous heart and stress levels. 

In other words, my grievance which claimed executive misconduct and non-compliant behaviors, including  breaches in the Equality Act 2006, bullying and harassment, breach of duty of care, breach in mutual trust and confidence, and several departures from UK employment and contract law is destroyed and replaced with fake documents supporting a performance termination. 

I have been on a over three-year long blog campaign demonstrating that the settlement contract agreement is not a legal instrument and is supported by forged documents.  This implies that legal advisers were bribed to process these illegal documents. 

The directors and secretary, as well as parent company compliance team, refuse to authenticate the documents and processes used to form my termination as legal and compliant. 

The full force and resources of the company are being used to conceal the truth.  All I have asked for is a thorough third party investigation.   

I have reported this to Action Fraud and UK Serious Fraud Office.  Neither has investigated my claim.  I have also complained vehemently to the Information Commissioner’s Office.   

I have published many blog articles demonstrating my claims of an illegal contract.  During this time, I have been living in Thailand with my Thai wife and children. 

The former secretary has brought a claim against me in Thai court.  How can he PGSUK cite a problem in a Thai court when they have essentially neglected their Companies Act 2006 fiduciary duties? 

No director or secretary has contacted me or addressed my many criticisms.  I believe that this is because they know the settlement contract agreement and supporting documents are not legal. 

This means that the Company misrepresented the integrity of the personal data being processed in my name to the Information Commissioner’s Office.  Or it means that they misrepresented my qualifications to the UK Border Agency during the Tier 2 visa process.   

I believe that the Thai legal system is being used improperly so they can avoid the English legal system which the settlement contract agreement is covered with.   

It seems to me though that one could not both file a defamation claim in Thailand when they have a fiduciary duty to protect the reputation and interests of the UK company.  Any action should be taken through the UK legal system. 

My blogs are written in Thailand, but I am whistle blowing about an English and Norwegian company.  My blogs are only written in English and sometimes translated to Norwegian. 

I need some authority in England to investigate my claims.  They are trying to destroy a whistle blower and his family. 

Thank you for your consideration, 

Steven D. Kalavity  

Letter to Gareth Jones, PGS Exploration UK Ltd. and ICO Caseworkers

Letter to Daphne Bjerke, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) Data Protection Officer and ICO Caseworker

Business Ethics Geo-services Human Resources Marine Seismic Market Marine Seismic Operations UN Global Compact Whistleblower Workplace Bullying, Harassment & Mobbing

Letter to Gareth Jones PGS Exploration UK Ltd. Human Resources Manager and ICO Caseworkers (16 September 2018)

Letter to Gareth Jones, PGS Exploration UK Ltd. Human Resources Manager  ICO Caseworkers

ATTN:    Gareth Jones, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Human Resources Manager and UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) Caseworker(s)

CC:    Daphne Bjerke, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) Data Protection Officer

John Francas, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Head of Legal

Lars Mysen, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) General Counsel

Rune Olav Pedersen, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Director

Gottfred Langseth, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Director

Christin Steen-Nilson, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Director (no e-mail)

The preamble to Letter to Daphne Bjerke, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) DPO and UK ICO Caseworkers that was e-mailed on 2-Sep-2018.  requested the courtesy of an acknowledgement of receipt.  The data controller, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited.  The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY [PGSUK] was requested to respond within 30 days following the receipt of the 2-Sep-2018 letter.  PGSUK is the UK affiliate of Norwegian based Petroleum .Geo-Services ASA (PGS).  Daphne Bjerke is the Data Protection Officer (DPO) for PGS,  I had submitted a subject access request (SAR) to DPO Bjerke citing the new General Data Protection Requirement (GDPR).  GDPR came into full affect 25 May 2018.  The unsatisfactory response to this SAR  was sent on behalf of PGSUK from PGSUK Head of Legal, John Francas.  I have remained dissatisfied with the responses from PGS and PGSUK,  The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) caseworkers, who oversee GDPR compliance, stated that I had to inform PGS / PGSUK that I was dissatisfied with the initial response and provide an additional 30-days for PGS / PGSUK to address the concerns raised before ICO could intervene.  This is where we are now – waiting.  However, PGSUK still has not acknowledged even the receipt of the letter written to Bjerke, much less provided any substantive response to my many queries and concerns about how PGSUK is processing personal data.  PGS / PGSUK ignoring my concerns has been very damaging to me professionally, psychologically, physically, and financially.  The data which PGS / PGSUK is processing within my PGSUK professional personnel file is knowingly inaccurate and defamatory non-compliant documentation created by a weaponized PGS / PGSUK Human Resources (HR)  to process a false claim and basis to illegally terminate a whistle blower.  This belief has been at the core of my over three-year battle to reinstate my true and accurate data following the receipt of my personal data being processed by PGSUK through an SAR citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) between October – December 2014.  At that time, David Nicholson, PGSUK HR Manager, led the processing of my SAR, along with HR Officer, Laura Haswell.  However, Gareth Jones is the current PGSUK HR Manager.   Jones now oversees that my personnel file data is accurate and compliant to GDPR.  My simple request to Jones is to authenticate and prove the contents of my personnel file is accurate, as well as legally and PGSUK policy compliant through conducting a simple review of its contents.

I am not an HR professional.  However, much of my professional work experience has involved the processing and analysis of data.  Having said that, I have been an employee and interacted with HR throughout my work history,  Much of this work history was in the US.  PGSUK sponsored me and my family dependents on a Tier 2 visa.  This was my legal basis for working in England.  While in the US, I was employed by the US Department of Defense.  During that time, I completed a lengthy management training course which covered many of the functions required by managers to satisfy US HR requirements.  This included awareness of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) regulations as well as monitoring employee development.  The HR function had always been peripheral to the professional performance of  one’s duties.  The HR function, in part, was to make sure that training and development opportunities were aligned to the professional objectives set out by the work group first line supervisor.  Employee performance was never measure by HR.  HR was tasked to make sure that such measurement and appraisal of performance conformed to the prescribed practices.  Never before, until my work experience with PGSUK, had I experienced such direct involvement by HR in actually generating HR personnel data.  In all of my years of work experience, it was the work group supervisor(s) (sometimes more than one) along with the employee who together evaluated and directed employee professional development.  Both the supervisor and employee would sign-off and agree that the generated data was true and accurate.  Any concerns about the data would be annotated and included within the final data being processed by HR prior to being finalized and regarded as accurate.

PGSUK does not even recognize that I was a foreign worker being sponsored by PGSUK on a Tier 2 visa within my PGSUK professional personnel file, even though this was my legal basis for being employed by PGSUK.  I submitted my formal grievance on 20-Sep-2013.  My Tier 2 visa had recently been renewed 15-Jul-2013,  The  20-Sep-2013 grievance document highlighted my foreign worker status as basis to elevate by claims of workplace (gang) bullying to harassment because of nationality.  The PGSUK application to UK Border Agency for my visa renewal also stated that my skills were still required.  Also, my position was listed on the shortage occupation list (SOL) which meant that local UK workers could be bypassed for consideration in filling the role.  The Tier 2 visa application process was not trivial.  PGSUK engaged legal firm Watson, Farley, and Williams to advise and guide the application processing to the desired outcome.  The Tier 2 visa application process included my dependent family members as well.  There is a substantive fee for processing single and multiple visas which PGSUK paid.  Of course, PGSUK also paid WFW for advising on this process.  So, the processing of my Tier 2 visa which was necessary for me to remain legally employed by PGSUK as a foreign worker was both deliberate and costly to the extent that PGSUK engaged external resources in addition to internal human and other resources to ensure their desired outcome.  It was not just happenstance that had me employed by PGSUK.  However, my employment contract with PGSUK entitled me to the same rights and conditions afforded UK citizens.

The 20-Sep-2013 formal grievance claimed that PGSUK was not processing my personal data correctly.  It was my belief that the processing of my personal data departed from the processes prescribed within the (2013) PGSUK Personnel Handbook, and even relevant UK employment and contract lawto the extent that the transgressions reflected the abuse of position and misuse of the performance management system that, in my view, constituted workplace harassment and bullying.  The PGSUK HR Manager, at the time, David Nicholson, was directly implicated in misconduct and mismanagement in the processing of my personal data under my original contract of employment (OCE) with PGSUK.  Perpetrators also included my direct supervisor, Edward von Abendorff, VP Marine Contract Sales – Africa, and his boss, Simon Cather, Marine Contract Africa Regional President.  PGSUK has stated in the response to the 2014 SAR that they do not process, and have destroyed, the 20-Sep-2013 grievance document within my personnel file.  The 20-Sep-2013 grievance document is the most significant document – personal data – relevant to my employment with PGSUK and is central to all of the events which followed.  The contents received from the PGSUK 2014 SAR ignores the 20-Sep-2013 grievance altogether.  Most all of the internal e-mails received from the SAR regard the processing of the SAR terms, but do not discuss the claims of breach of contract, health and safety, workplace harassment or bullying which were made within the 20-Sep-2013 grievance document.  PGSUK seems to be processing fake personal data which supports a false claim.  The defamatory personnel file documents being processed by PGSUK support a termination for performance reasons.  But, how does this comport to data provided to UK Border Agency for the application of the Tier 2 visa?

My employment with PGSUK was terminated through a settlement contract agreement (SCA) supported by the personnel file documents.  The SCA is being processed within my PGSUK personnel file.  The 20-Sep-2013 grievance document is also specifically referenced within the SCA.  In fact, the 20-Sep-2013 grievance document is the only document referenced in the SCA,  How could any legal claim of breach of the SCA be made by PGSUK if the referenced 20-Sep-2013 grievance document is not being processed?  How can the SCA be a legal instrument?  An initial SCA was proffered to me by Nicholson as a response to the delivered 20-Sep-2013 grievance of which he was a principal subject.  PGSUK did not follow the legally and contractual prescribed grievance procedure.  This constituted an additional breach in the terms of my original employment contract (OEC).  The 20-Sep-2013 grievance document cited several other breaches.  I now believe that the issues brought forth within the grievance document constituted whistle blowing.  Further, the legal adviser whom I engaged was compromised or otherwise provided with misrepresentations to affect an unfair illegal outcome.  I believe that my termination from employment was not legal or compliant to UK employment or contract law and transgressed the PGSUK Policy Handbook.  The reasons for these beliefs is stemmed in the contents which I received from the 2014 SAR,

My PGSUK personnel file contents is veritably false and inaccurate.  I disputed the contents of my personnel contents at the time, but PGSUK refused to correct knowingly false and inaccurate data.  None of the disputed documents bare my signature.  Most are the creation of, and are  signed by, Nicholson.  So, it appears that Nicholson, as a subject of a workplace grievance citing misconduct and abuse of position, including the dissemination of defamatory information about me, was allowed to proffer an illegal SCA, as well as produce forged documents to support the illegal SCA, and then finally sign the SCA, to avoid culpability for his misconduct and mismanagement.  This is why PGS / PGSUK refuse to authenticate – prove the legality of – my personnel file data and derivative processes which created it.  I have known that there were many problems with PGSUK processing of my personal data since first receiving the contents of the 2014 SAR.  However, over time, I have gained a greater understanding of  the base corruption involved in generating it.  I went public with my concerns and published my first blog post article on 3-July-2015 regarding my 2014 SAR, An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data” .  I have now published over forty (40) blog articles which reside on my dedicated website criticizing PGS / PGSUK management.  The 2014 SAR contents and PGS / PGSUK processing of my personal data is the main topic of criticism within these blogs.  Further, the SCA contained mutual non-disparagement clauses.  PGS / PGSUK decision not to invoke these clauses with respect to my publications cast doubt on the legality of the SCA itself.  PGS / PGSUK continue to project the SCA as a legal instrument, but refuse to prove that it is.

25 October 2013 Memo

24 July 2013 Ambush Letter

20 September 2013 Presented Grievance

The mishandling of my grievance is at the source of the creation and processing of veritably false and inaccurate personal data being processed in my name.  PGSUK refuses to authenticate the data being processed in my name.  They are relying on the fact that I signed the SCA on 5-Dec-2013.  I did sign the SCA on 5-Dec-2013 under the condition that PGSUK was processing accurate data about me.  If this is the case, it should be easy to authenticate my personal data.  However, it seems obvious that PGSUK and their legal adviser for the SCA, WFW, along with my legal adviser, Landau, Zeffertt, and Weir (LZW) were lying.  How can my personal data change from accurate to inaccurate following my signing of the SCA?  Jones only needs to authenticate – prove the legality – of what I claim is unverifiable and inaccurate personal data.  Jones would also need to show that processing important personnel file documents with no counter signature adheres to PGSUK policy and procedure.  Since I know the contents of these documents is false, I cannot believe such processing is even allowed in a compliant HR.  But, Jones can clarify all of this through thoughtfully answering these queries.

Best regards,

Steven D. Kalavity

Referenced Data

Communications with Landau while settlement negotiations were ongoing with respect to the non-disparagement clause which remained an issue to the end.  PGSUK wanted to finalize the settlement and place me on garden leave.. How did defamatory personal data with no countersignature remain as part of my personnel file? (EvA = Eddy von Abendorff / SC = Simon Cather / DN = David Nicholson.

20 September 2013 Delivered Grievance – Key Points

Our Code of Conduct, Core Values, and People Policy reflect the principles of PGS.  PGS expect that you would adhere to these principles at all times during your employment.

Philip Landau, LZW Solicitors, (Represented Me) Pre-Settlement E-mail Communications

On 24-Oct-2013, Philip Landau is made aware that I wanted to follow the grievance process. 

On 25-Sep-2013, Philip Landau states that he makes first contact with 25-Sep-2013. This is the same date of the forged Memo being processed by PGSUK HR signed by EVP Per Arild Reksnes and SVP Terje Bjolseth.

Questioning Landau about informing UK Border Agency about the situation. Watson, Farley & Williams, said the Tier 2 status was not discussed during negotiations.

On 26-Oct-2013, no one from PGS had contacted me with regard to the grievance. This contradicts the 25-Oct-2013 forged Memo signed by Reksnes and Bjolseth.

PGS Exploration UK Limited Requested Occupational Health Assessment During Negotiations Withheld


Business Ethics Geo-services Human Resources Marine Seismic Market Marine Seismic Operations UN Global Compact Whistleblower Workplace Bullying, Harassment & Mobbing

Letter to Daphne Bjerke, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) DPO and UK ICO Caseworkers

Letter to Daphne Bjerke, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) Data Protection Officer (DPO) and UK ICO Caseworker

Note: This letter has been edited for spelling, grammar and clarity.  Thus, it differs slightly from the letter sent to DPO Bjerke and ICO caseworkers.

ATTN:    Daphne Bjerke, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) Data Protection Officer

CC:         John Francas, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Head of Legal

Lars Mysen, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) General Counsel

Gareth Jones, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Human Resources Manager

Rune Olav Pedersen, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Director

Gottfred Langseth, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) Director

UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) Caseworker(s)

RE:  Human Resources Personal data being processed in my name, Steven D. Kalavity, by Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) and their affiliate, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK).

Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail.   I have received recent correspondence and direction from the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) who oversee UK General Data Protection Requirement (GDPR) compliance.  I need to provide evidence that I have raised concerns and remain dissatisfied with how PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK) is processing my personal data.  ICO has related that PGSUK has one-month (30 days) to respond to these concerns.  A copy of this letter has been provided to ICO caseworker(s) (GDPR Case Reference Number: ENQxxxxxxx). 

Daphne Bjerke, PGS DPO and ICO Caseworker,

I have received a response to my recent subject access request (SAR) submitted to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY (PGSUK) citing the General Data Protection Requirement (GDPR).  I remain unsatisfied with the PGSUK processing of what is claimed to be legal and accurate personal data.  PGSUK has never actually authenticated – proved the legality of – the data that they are processing in my name within my PGSUK professional personnel file.  Likewise, PGSUK have never confirmed that the processes which produced my personnel file data were legal and compliant or confirmed how the data was actually used.  The settlement contract agreement (SCA) which terminated my employment with PGSUK, is supported by the dated documents being processed by PGSUK.  PGSUK is projecting that the SCA is a legally binding instrument.  But, PGS / PGSUK processors, including DPO Bjerke, refuse to actually authenticate the documents which are being processed within my PGSUK professional personnel file.  How can the SCA be a legal contract if the documents which support it cannot be authenticated and are, in fact, inaccurate forged instruments?  Such a projection by PGSUK personal data processors would be a knowing misrepresentation of the integrity of my personnel file documents to both me and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

PGSUK is taking the position that they have already fulfilled the current 2018 SAR requirement by the data which was provided to me through the 2014 SAR, which cited the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) [ICO DPA Case Reference Number: RFAxxxxxxx].  Again, PGSUK made a similar claim with regard to a 2016 SAR.  The truth is that PGSUK has never complied with providing me with my accurate personal data.  I have proved so much through presenting e-mail and other time-stamped data that proves that the data being processed in my name cannot possibly be accurate and compliant to DPA/GDPR principles.  None of the disputed documents being processed as my personnel file records bare my signature and factually contradict data shared through PGS / PGSUK and external e-mails.  I have recently distributed the article Proof of Norway’s Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) Conspiracy to Defraud to the GDPR DPO Daphne Bjerke, as well as copied it to principals with direct knowledge of the circumstances around the personal data which PGSUK is processing in my name.  I was not able to compile all of the information during the relatively short time span between October–December 2014 when I initially received the contents from the 2014 SAR.

To be clear, I have never accepted the personal data contents of my professional personnel file received from the 2014 SAR as legally valid and compliant to DPA principles.  In fact, at the time, I identified several documents as inaccurate and non-compliant to standard Human Resources (HR) data processing requirements and standard practices as soon as they were received.  I also made a concerted effort to bring up these concerns with ICO caseworkers, as well as Norwegian Data Protection Authority caseworkers.  I have begged for a third-party investigation to evaluate DPA / GDPR compliance and personal data integrity.   In 2014, I had requested that PGSUK remove several documents from my personnel file because they contained false and unverifiable information which I believed then, and continue to believe, made them non-compliant to DPA principles.  Between October-December 2014, I wrote many e-mails to PGSUK HR Manager (2013) David Nicholson and HR Officer, Laura Haswell, stating my concerns as clearly as I could.  (I intentionally copied Haswell on these e-mails because of a jaded history that I shared with Nicholson.)  The accuracy and compliance of the PGSUK personnel file data was challenged directly within the contents of three (3) e-mails sent from me on 5-Dec-2014, 6-Dec-2014, and 20-Dec-2014.  (Copies of these e-mails were also provided to DPO Bjerke with the 2018 SAR.)  PGSUK refused to consider or correct knowingly inaccurate and non-compliant personal data.

Nicholson wrote a letter on behalf of PGSUK which summarized a final response to the 2014 SAR within a 22-Dec-2014 letter that referenced these e-mails.  The 22-Dec-2014  letter was delivered by post and e-mail.  The 22-Dec-2014 letter threatened legal action if I did not acquiesce and accept the inaccurate and non-compliant data that PGSUK was processing in my name.  PGSUK was determined to continue to process the incorrect and unverifiable personal data.  As the 22-Dec-2014 letter was written on behalf of PGSUK, it stands to reason that the directors and secretary of PGSUK were also aware of the contents and claims that it made.  They were also aware of the true events relevant to the SCA and the personal data which supported it.  In other words, they were completely aware that the data being processed within my PGSUK personnel file was false and inaccurate.  The directors of PGSUK, when the 22-Dec-2014 letter was sent, were PGS President and CEO, Jon Erik Reinhardsen; PGS EVP and CFO, Gottfred Langseth; PGS SVP and Chief Accountant, Christin Steen-Nilsen, and secretary, PGSUK Head of Legal, Carl Richards.  The 22-Dec-2014 extortion letter effectively ended the interrogatories regarding the integrity of my PGSUK personnel file data.  However, at no time did PGSUK demonstrate that my personal data was, in fact, accurate.  Since receiving the 22-Dec-2014 extortion letter, I have done most everything that the 22-Dec-2014 letter threatened me not to do.

I have also violated the SCAs non-disparagement clauses on multiple occasions hoping that PGSUK would take this case into a legal venue.  I have published multiple internet articles revealing PGSUK non-compliance and personnel file contents inaccuracies.   These issues have also been related to ICO caseworkers.  Since the 2014 SAR response from PGSUK, I have created a dedicated website, [taken down December 2018 d/t PGS Exploration UK Limited criminal defamation claims put forward by directors Rune Olav Pedersen, Gottfred Langseth, and Christin Steen-Nilsen, along with former secretary Carl Richards], whose mission has been to reveal the truthful and accurate narrative of my work history which PGSUK has worked very hard to suppress through complaining to social media’s uninformed gatekeepers.  However, PGSUK has never tried to prove to the public that the SCA is, in fact, a legally binding instrument itself, and PGSUK has never used the SCA as an instrument to stop publications that have been publicly very critical of PGS / PGSUK management.  This seems a dereliction of fiduciary duty under the UK Companies Act 2006.  PGS / PGSUK has allowed the reputation of several agents to be impugned by not confronting these criticisms.  This inaction damages the reputation of PGS / PGSUK.  However, PGS / PGSUK continuing to process inaccurate data and not defend their processing has damaged my reputation even more.  Every inaction by PGSUK points to a knowledge that PGSUK is processing inaccurate and non-compliant personal data in my name.  PGS / PGSUK silence implies agreement to my claims.

The SCA was proffered to me as a response to a formal grievance which was delivered by me on 20-Sep-2013.  PGSUK does not process the 20-Sep-2013 grievance document within my PGSUK personnel file, nor acknowledge any of its claims within any of the disputed documents except the SCA.  It is the only document specifically referenced within the final SCA, and it is the central reason for the collective silence and inaction by PGS / PGSUK.  I now believe that the 20-Sep-2013 grievance document, which identified non-compliant and illicit behaviors, was tantamount to whistle blowing and that it was never properly handled in respect to PGSUK policy guidelines and UK employment law.  PGS SVP Global HR and compliance officer, Terje Bjølseth, is completely aware that the data being processed as my personal data is non-compliant and inaccurate because he was a recipient of the 20-Sep-2013 grievance document that contradicts the documented narrative being processed within my PGSUK personnel file.  The PGSUK HR Manager (2013) David Nicholson is also completely aware that the data being processed as my personal data is non-compliant and inaccurate because Nicholson was a recipient, as well as one of the principal subjects of the 20-Sep-2013 grievance document.

Bjølseth was a recipient of the 20-Sep-2013 grievance mostly because he was the hierarchical superior of PGSUK HR Manager, David Nicholson.  PGS EVP Marine Contract (2013), Per Arild Reksnes was also a recipient of the 20-Sep-2013 grievance document because he was the hierarchical superior of Simon Cather, Regional President, Marine Contract – Africa, who was the hierarchical superior of my boss, Edward von Abendorff, VP Contract Sales – Africa.  Nicholson, Cather, and von Abendorff were the three subjects specifically accused of workplace harassment and bullying.  Every recipient of the 20-Sep-2013 grievance document knows that my personnel file data is non-compliant and inaccurate.  The grievance claimed that Nicholson, Cather, and von Abendorff management practices were in contravention to prescribed PGSUK policy and UK employment and contract law and also breached PGSUKs contractual duty of care responsibilities, as well as abrogated their duty of mutual trust and confidence.  The 20-Sep-2013 grievance document claimed that the bullies von Abendorff, Cather and Nicholson all abused their positions, did not abide by published and contractual PGS Core Values, misused the performance management system, and disseminated defamatory information about me.  The 20-Sep-2013 grievance document also noted that harassment and bullying are classified as significant workplace health and safety hazards.

Because of these facts, I believe that it has been completely inappropriate and non-compliant for Nicholson to have been involved with any processing of my personal data and handling of the SAR.  The 20-Sep-2013 grievance document claimed that Nicholson was producing and disseminating defamatory information about me.  But, it gets worse.  Nicholson as a principal subject within the 20-Sep-2013 grievance document claiming his professional misconduct was also allowed to be the person who scheduled the grievance hearing for 14-Oct-2013.  Most notable by me, at this point, was Bjølseth’s absence and silence from the grievance process following its delivery.  On 10-Oct-2013, four days before a scheduled grievance hearing, Nicholson called me to his office and proffered an initial SCA to end the grievance process.  Nicholson also related that I would need to engage a solicitor to approve any SCA.  I refused this SCA and wanted to follow through the grievance stages.  Nicholson was allowed to proffer an SCA to stop a grievance process in which he was a key subject.  The entire reason that the 20-Sep-2013 grievance document was submitted to Bjølseth and Reksnes was to get Nicholson out of the process because he was mismanaging and not following the PGS Policy Handbook practices.

There were so many problems with my personal data received in the 2014 SAR.  There is no way that I – or anyone – could have anticipated the mass of these issues.  I believe that PGSUK could not have imagined that their foreign worker would submit and SAR followed by a blog article campaign.  But, here we are.  Therefore, for PGSUK to suggest that they have already addressed the 2014 SAR issue is ridiculous.  The 2016 SAR followed my submitting a report to the PGS Compliance Hotline (CH) in which I again raised the many concerns with the processing of my personal data.  The PGS compliance team at the time when I submitted the CH report was composed of PGS General Counsel, Rune Olav Pedersen, PGS SVP Global HR, Terje Bjølseth and Silke Hitschke.  CH stated that my report had been investigated.  However, no evidence of an investigation or report was ever provided to me.  By this time I had compiled information and published articles for their consideration.  However, PGS again refused to review my concerns and authenticate the data being processed as my personal data or the processes which it was derived from as legal and compliant.  What I have always requested is for PGS to demonstrate DPA / GDPR compliance, with regard to my personal data, with evidence.

Dysfunctional Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Compliance Does Not Respond to Whistleblowing

In addition to multiple unanswered e-mails addressed to CH, DPO Bjerke also received copies of several inquiries made through the PGS LinkedIn™ posts comment sections.  This comments, and this data, was obviously sent after the 2014 SAR.  The PGS practice is to not answer.  When PGS does answer, the say that they have already answered, so quit asking.  However, this is yet another example of the hypocrisy and disconnect between their lauded PGS Core Values and their actual opaque business practices.  For PGS to contend that they have already responded to my 2014 SAR in a legal and responsible way is ludicrous.  PGS has taken every conceivable measure to suppress any new information and has continued their processing of knowingly false and inaccurate data which has been very damaging for me personally, physically, and professionally.  But, this has always been their intention.

The 22-Dec-2014 extortion letter raised other issues, as well.  These issues regard the omission of real data that should have dictated actions prescribed by the PGSUK Policy Handbook, but didn’t and therefore impacted the health and safety of my family.  The 20-Sep-2013 grievance document is not being processed, but is referenced within the SCA.  The 22-Dec-2014 extortion letter also does not explain why a report issued by a third-party occupational health nurse (OHN) while SCA negotiations were ongoing is not part of my personnel file record.  The final report and recommendation for a follow-up visit was never delivered to me, as the OHN requested.  Among other things, the report confirmed increased stress levels and also divulged the fact that I was involved in SCA negotiation regarding bullying.  The PGSUK Policy Handbook prescribes practices for distressed employees.  However, I was not provided with any consideration.  E-mail records show that Nicholson and von Abendorff had requested the check-up.  HR Officer Anna Stokle communicated directly with the OHN and me regarding the health check-up.  E-mail correspondence between me and my legal advisor, who was supposed to be helping me confirm that he was made aware of the health check-up and report.  Why was this report withheld and not considered during SCA negotiations?

Another issue that seems inconsistent with standard practice is that I was employed by PGSUK on a company sponsored Tier 2 visa (shortage occupation list criteria).  PGSUK hired legal advisers from firm Watson, Farley and Williams (WFW) to help complete the application and processing of the Tier 2 visa application documents.  I was very involved in providing documentation to support the application to UK Border Agency for the visas for me and my family members.  I was never provided with, nor was I aware of any of the dated documents that were received from the 2014 SAR.  WFW also advised PGSUK during the SCA negotiation process.  In 2016 I submitted an SAR to WFW and it was related to me that the basis for my legal employment as a foreign worker with PGSUK was not even considered during SCA negotiations.  However, e-mail records between me and my adviser show that I inquired how my termination from employment would be reported to UK Border Agency.  The visa application documents to UK Border also seem to contradict the contents of the documents being processed within my personnel file.  These documents are not processed within my personnel file as appendices to my curriculum vitae, which is being processed.

The 20-Sep-2013 grievance document had also highlighted my foreign worker status and was the basis to elevate my claims of bullying to harassment, due to nationality (race).  How could the legal basis for why I was able to work in the UK not considered when terminating my employment?  Anyone who has been a target of workplace gang-bullying (mobbing) should sympathize with someone who is a target of such despicable mistreatment in a foreign land by an employer lauding core values.  These people are the most cowardly and evil kind of miscreant.   The 22-Dec-2014 letter also states that only five data processors had processed my professional personnel file data.  These processors were Nicholson, and HR officers Haswell, Anna Stokle, Gareth Jones, and Marine Contract Africa Regional President, Simon Cather.  This list struck me as implausible.  How could Reksnes and Bjølseth chair a grievance hearing and compose a Memo stating a conclusion from that hearing and not have processed my personnel file data?  Von Abendorff, my boss, did not sign any of the disputed personnel file records and is not listed as a processor of my personnel file data.  According to Nicholson, as related to my legal advisor in e-mail records, PGS lawyers in both Norway and England read the grievance and decided to proffer the SCA.  E-mail records indicate that PGSUK Head of Legal, Richard, as well as his subordinate, Ben Kelly, had read the 20-Sep-2013 grievance document.  How could Richards and Kelly provide any guidance on the SCA without processing the personnel file data?

Another concern of mine which the 22-Dec-2014 extortion letter addressed was that my personnel file was processed by Gareth Jones.  Jones was working at the PGS offices in Houston, Texas, US.  Jones was not working at PGSUK when I was.  I recognized his name because I would submit time sheets and expense forms to him when I was working on vessel rotations.  Houston was my decided US destination.  Nicholson stated that Jones was a PGSUK data processor.  However, I have located data stating that Jones was working in the US with a PGS US sponsored H1B visa.  I do not understand how Jones can be both a PGSUK and PGS US data processor at the same time.  I cannot understand the business case for sharing my personnel file data with him either when we never interacted with each other in the over-three years I worked with PGSUK.  DPA places restrictions on how data is shared outside the European Union with DPA.  However, since the personnel file documents are defamatory, and Nicholson knew this, I assume Jones was enlisted to sabotage my job search with the blessings of the PGS hierarchy who had the whistle blown on them.  Whatever Jones did with my data was deliberate with full knowledge the data being processed in my personnel file was non-compliant.  No seasoned HR – or other – employee would process noticeably non-compliant documents which had no subject and subject supervisor signature.  E-mails received from the 2014 SAR show that Haswell and Jones were discussing my move to Houston while SCA negotiations were ongoing without my knowledge.

In 2015, I submitted a report to UK Action Fraud (police).  This report has been updated since then, as new facts came available.  However, there was no thorough investigation.  Similarly, in 2017 a report was submitted to the UK Serious Fraud Office, as well.  This was done as it became apparent to me that my legal adviser and PGSUKs legal adviser processed the fake data created by PGSUK HR.  PGS has relied on an umbrella of deceit propagated by the PGS board of directors and PGSUK directors that protects them from acting on the tempest of allegations of wrong doing.  PGS / PGSUK would need no such umbrella if the final SCA is a legal instrument.  PGS / PGSUK could find shelter from the deluge of accusations and repudiations through invoking the non-disparagement clauses contained within the SCA, which are legally enforceable in the courts of England.  PGS / PGSUK instead complain anonymously to social media and search engine gatekeepers.  It is obvious the PGSUK have little faith in their negotiated SCA.  This is because PGS / PGSUK know, as I know, that the data being processed within my PGSUK personnel file is inaccurate and not compliant to DPA / GDPR principles.  PGS / PGSUK are just gaslighting me and ICO.   If my PGSUK personnel file data were accurate and compliant, then PGS would have provided such evidence by now.  This is why a third-party needs to be involved. It is time for DPO Bjerke to do the right thing and authenticate my personnel file documents and end the blog writing campaign for the future good of PGS and their stakeholders.


Steven D. Kalavity

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited data subject and former employee

Proof of Norway’s Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) Conspiracy to Defraud 

The difference between Whistleblowing and Defamation

Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one’s definition of your life; define yourself. ~ Harvey Fierstein

A good reputation is more valuable than money. ~ Publilius Syrus

Black’s Law Dictionary states that defamation is the injuring of a person’s character, fame, or reputation by false and malicious statements.  The key point is that a statement must be false, meaning untrue or inaccurate, to be considered defamation.  I still do not understand what criteria the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) holds to in assuring subject data accuracy.  I know that ICO, the organization that oversees data controller compliance to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), were again unable to assist me recently.  In October 2014, I submitted a subject access request (SAR) to my former employer, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY (PGSUK),citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), the predecessor to GDPR.  GDPR came into full effect 25 May 2018.  PGSUK is an affiliate of Norwegian marine seismic service company, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS).  When I received the contents of my PGSUK personnel file, I discovered that PGSUK had breached their commitment made during negotiating terms and conditions of a settlement contract agreement (SCA) which was used to terminate my professional employment.  Several PGS and PGSUK personal data processors continue to process knowingly non-compliant and defamatory personal data about me.  The objective of PGS has been to blacklist me professionally for revealing and complaining about being the target of workplace gang-bullying involving non-compliant and illegal acts by PGSUK executives.  I am a whistle blower.

I have published nearly forty (40) blog post articles in my campaign for truth and justice.  Each publication has been a breach of a legal SCA.  Many of the blog post articles have been especially critical of the former and current CEO and President of PGS (Jon Erik Reinhardsen and Rune Olav Pedersen), who also serve(d) as company directors to PGSUK.  Too much time was spent negotiating the mutual non-disparagement clause within the SCA between myself and PGSUK to suggest its inclusion was  unimportant.  Of course, the clause was of paramount importance to me.  Personal data accuracy was a central topic during the SCA negotiations.  I had even asked for the unsubstantiated records (which I knew about) to be wholly expunged (as they should have been), as I considered the content to be defamatory.  The three bullies which I identified were my boss, Edward von Abendorff, PGSUK VP Marine Contract Sales – Africa; his boss, Simon Cather, PGSUK Regional President Marine Contract – Africa; and David Nicholson, PGSUK Human Resources (HR) Manager, conspired in a coordinated campaign to discredit and ruin my career through bypassing PGSUK policy, as well as UK employment and contract laws.  It was my complaining about these behaviors which led to the SCA negotiations.  Further, the inaction on the terms and conditions of the SCA by  PGSUK directors (and secretary) demonstrate a corrupt dereliction of fiduciary duty that is destructive to PGSUK and its stakeholders.

Communications with Landau while settlement negotiations were ongoing with respect to the non-disparagement clause which remained an issue to the end.  PGSUK wanted to finalize the settlement and place me on garden leave.. How did defamatory personal data with no countersignature remain as part of my personnel file? (EvA = Eddy von Abendorff / SC = Simon Cather / DN = David Nicholson.

I do not believe that the SCA should have ever been proffered at all or that it is even an actual legal instrument.  It is an instrument which is a byproduct of conspired agreement by agents misusing lawyer credentials to make it binding.  The reason for the creation and processing of the forged personal data records is to form the appearance of a legal instrument.  There are no legal processes that would allow forged documents to be processed as my personal data as an outcome.  Only illegal processes can produce an illegal outcome.  Further, not one of the PGSUK directors, nor other PGS/PGSUK employees, as well as lawyers involved in forming the SCA criticized – and even accused of crimes –  within my blog post articles have even tried to contact me directly, in the capacity of their agency, and asked me to cease publications or threatened legal action.  Not even my hired legal adviser.  Clearly, the blog post articles critical of PGS management are noticed.  However, anonymous complaints to social media and search engine administrators claiming that PGS/PGSUK agents have been the one’s defamed has been the solution to limit the reach of my truthful narrative.  PGSUK have opted to not defend their own decisions, actions, and reputations, nor those of other identified employees mentioned.  This is the case even though PGS/PGSUK agents have a “legal” instrument at their disposal equipped to penalize the instigator of any such disparagement.  But, such a course of action is not taken.  This seems to be an abandonment by the PGSUK directors (and secretary) of their fiduciary duties, at the very least, under the UK Companies Act 2006.  Inaction against my violations as a countersigner to the SCA terms and conditions is ipso facto action to protect corrupt directors from culpability and clearly addressing the salient issue as to whether the SCA is actually a legally viable instrument supported by legal processes and documentation.  In the absence of such evidence, the only person who has been defamed is me, through the inaction and silence of PGS/PGSUK agents and their insistence to continue processing fake personal data intended to harm me.

Tragedy in life normally comes with betrayal and compromise, and trading on your integrity and not having dignity in life. That’s really where failure comes. ~ Tom Cochrane

Remember that the more you know, the less you fear. ~ H. Jackson Brown, Jr.

The non-disparagement clause(s) within the SCA prohibit criticism by one party on the other.   On the other hand, an actual legal defamation claim, not to be confused with complaining to social media gate-keepers and manipulating search engine results, requires a much higher threshold of the content being inaccurate.  There is, however, a specific exception contained within the SCA non-disparagement clauses.  The UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 protects whistleblowers.  Public disclosure which the whistleblower “reasonably believes” shows a criminal offence, a failure to comply with legal obligations, a miscarriage of justice, danger to the health and safety of employees, damage to the environment, or the hiding of information which would show any of the above actions is not protected by the non-disparagement clauses.  This is the reason why PGS chooses to complain anonymously to social media and search engine gate-keepers.  The inaction with regard to breaches in the SCA is wholly out of self-interest to hide from and escape culpability and guilt for the collective non-compliant and illegal decisions made by the corrupt in the top-tiers of PGS.

The evidence points to a scenario where agents of PGSUK and PGS cooperated in a confidence fraud.  This scam included  compromising/bribing my legal adviser, along with their, PGSUK, contracted legal adviser, to process defamatory data to support an inappropriately proffered settlement contract agreement (SCA) under false pretenses.  My circumstance of being a foreign worker (US citizen) has been a substantial hurtle in resolving these claims.  Ironically, it is also these circumstances which likely played a major factor into the conspiratorial decision as to how to resolve their whistleblower issue.  All of the blog articles have essentially made the same requests.  I ask that PGS/PGSUK agents establish the legality and compliance of the personal data records and processes that produced them.  It has been evident to me since receiving the contents of my personnel file were received through the SAR that the data being processed by PGSUK is in fact inaccurate and illegal.  PGS/PGSUK agents have never directly challenged the substantive claims, which are supported with evidence, that are made within the blog post articles.  Instead, complaints are made clandestinely and anonymously.  Corrupt PGS/PGSUK agents misrepresent the truth to persuade social media gate keepers and search engine administrators through their collective psychological projection.  To these uninformed gate-keepers, PGS agents can claim that those identified within the articles have been defamed.  But, this is a ruse used by those misusing their authoritative power to lie so they can escape culpability for their own corrupt truth and actions.

The PGS board and top-management would like to frame the evidence based blogs as being the work of an unhinged ex-employee who was a poor performer, rather than the victim of psychological and physical abuse of gaslighting, conspiracy, and confidence fraud.  (Of course they would!)  PGS weaponized their human resources (HR) department so that they did not apply legal processes nor legal documents to form their predetermined outcome, which was to expel a whistleblower from the workplace.  It is clear now that a corrupt PGS hierarchy rewards (bribes) corrupt actors who protect this hierarchy.  The HR function has been used to create and process fraudulent / forged instruments with the explicit intention to  effectively discredit and blacklist the data subject.  PGSUK HR professionals knew full well that they were not following prescribed fair and legal processes.  The procedures ascribed within PGSUK Policy Handbook were ignored.  Therefore, the end product of ignoring such processes illuminates a conscious understanding that the actions of HR personnel was corrupt.  Select PGS HR department personnel have been enfranchised to violate UK employment and contract law, ignore PGS Code of Conduct and PGS Core Values from the top of the organization to exert as much maniacal damage as possible to the whistle blower.  Make no mistake, these actions were violent and corrupt, and approved by PGSUK directors (at the time), PGS CEO and President Reinhardsen; PGS CFP and EVP, Gottfred Langseth; PGS Chief Accountant and SVP, Christin Steen-Nilsen, and PGSUK Head of Legal and Secretary, Carl Richards, as well as the PGS Compliance Team, Rune Olav Pedersen, General Counsel and Terje Bjølseth, PGS SVP Global HR.

People try to say suicide is the most cowardly act a man could ever commit. I don’t think that’s true at all. What’s cowardly is treating a man so badly that he wants to commit suicide. ~ Tommy Tran

Never do a wrong thing to make a friend–or to keep one. ~ Robert E. Lee

My relationship with PGSUK was professional and contractual.  PGS Core Values were included as a part of my original employment contract (OEC), as well.  Had I behaved and treated co-workers in the same manners that current and past PGS/PGSUK employees treated me, I would have been in breach of my contractual obligations, as defined in clause 10. Conduct.  Central to the eventual formal grievance that I submitted was the claim of workplace bullying vested in the propriety and legality of an impromptu meeting which occurred on 13-Jun-2013.  I was called to this ambush meeting attended by Nicholson, von Abendorff, and Cather, where my performance was verbally impugned without evidence or foundation.  On 18-Jun-2013, I contacted Nicholson by e-mail requesting minutes of the meeting, how the meeting conformed with PGSUK policy, and shared that I wanted to address the distressing event by grievance.  I was denied all of these requests.  This information is corroborated with e-mail evidence, which is presented within blog post articles, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Shoud Resign 2 (20-Sep-2015) and The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of Fraud (24-May-2016).  PGS/PGSUK was intentionally obstructing my legal right under contract to submit a grievance.  For those knowledgeable of workplace bullying, the ambush meeting is a common documented tactic used by workplace bullies.  

Instead of explaining the grievance procedure to me, Nicholson pointed me towards the PGSUK Personnel Handbook Disciplinary Procedure (2013), which applies to matters of employee conduct and performance.  I still had not received anything in writing to act on, and so I requested something in writing.  On 15-Jul-2013, PGSUK renewed my Tier 2 visa so that I could remain and work in England.  The PGSUK letter to the UK Border Agency stated that I was still needed, and my leave to remain was approved.  However, on 24-Jul-2013, Nicholson delivered a letter that he had authored whose subject line read, Investigation for possible implementation of a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).  In this letter, a meeting was scheduled for 11-Sep-2013 for me to respond.  I intended to respond in the form of a grievance because I believed a PIP was without basis and that I had been bullied.  Neither Nicholson nor von Abendorff ever discussed what steps were being followed.  The 11-Sep-2013 meeting was rescheduled for 20-Sep-2013.  I delivered my formal grievance on 20-Sep-2013 to the three bullies, and their respective supervisors, Per Arild Reksnes, PGS EVP Marine Contract and Terje Bjølseth, SVP Global HR.  By this time I had also requested to be accompanied with a coworker, John Barnard.  I also sent a copy of the grievance to John Greenway, PGS SVP Marine Contract.

The cabal had been vying to push me toward a performance based termination through making the work environment so toxic and intolerable that I would grab at anything to leave.  I considered it.  But, I decided to fight for my rights under contract instead.  The prescribed PGSUK Disciplinary Process had not been followed, much less all the other performance management recommendations contained within the PGS UK Handbook.  PGSUK had only conducted the 13-Jun-2013 ambush meeting and presented the 24-Jul-2013 ambush letter.  The meeting scheduled within the ambush letter for 11-Sep-2013 was rescheduled for 20-Sep-2013.  By 20-Sep-2013, the bullies were aware that a grievance would be submitted.    There was no discussion of any PIP during the 20-Sep-2013 meeting, only the presentation of the grievance as a direct response to the ambush letter, as well as the ambush meeting.  (I only had a record of the 24-Jul-2013 letter to refer to directly within my grievance, but of course also referenced the ambush meeting.)  The grievance went point-to-point over the allegations presented within the ambush letter, and also highlighted why I regarded their behaviors as bullying.  I stated why I believed that these behaviors transgressed PGS Core Values and PGSUK Personnel Handbook, and even UK employment law.  The bullies had anticipated that I would file a grievance implicating only my boss, von Abendorff.  This would have allowed Cather and Nicholson to “resolve” the issue.  But, my formal grievance identified all participants of the ambush meeting, von Abendorff, Cather, and Nicholson.

When men are full of envy they disparage everything, whether it be good or bad. ~ Tacitus

When marketers influence habits, they influence peoples’ self-identity. And so when a group or company does something that doesn’t correspond to our core values, it feels like a betrayal. ~ Charles Duhigg

20 September 2013 Delivered Grievance (Key Points)

There was no concern or communication following the delivery of the grievance from any of the recipients.  Most notable was the lack of concern or comment from Bjølseth, who also was part of the PGS Compliance Team along with (then) General Counsel, Rune Olav Pedersen.  Looking back, I was quite naïve about what was really going on, and especially how employers typically reacted to workplace bullying and harassment complaints.  I was an American drinking the Norwegian Kool-Aid that projects Norway as a bastion of low corruption and fair-play.  (The Kool-Aid affect dissipated long ago.)  What I really did not grasp was that my grievance noted employment contract and policy breaches, as well as violations in UK labor laws.  In other words, my grievance was actually whistleblowing.  Nicholson, a bully directly implicated within the distributed grievance for abuse of position, misuse of the performance management system, and defamation, was allowed to continue his mismanagement of the PGSUK grievance procedure.  Again, this too seemed to depart from the PGS UK Handbook.  Eventually, Nicholson did scheduled a grievance hearing for 14-Oct-2013.

On 10-Oct-2013, Nicholson called me down to his office and orally proffered an initial SCA to terminate my employment and end the grievance process.  Once again, I was very surprised that Nicholson was even allowed to proffer the SCA.  During this meeting, Nicholson stated that both PGS and PGSUK legal had opined that I was in dispute with the Company.   But, no one from PGS/PGSUK legal ever contacted me to tell me this, or discuss the grievance at all.  Nicholson also informed me that I would need to engage a legal adviser, if I opted to accept an SCA to terminate my employment.  I did not accept the initial SCA proffered, but I obviously sensed a problem that I wanted to learn more about.  The next day, I came across a blog article authored by Philip Landau, then with Landau, Zeffertt, and Weir Solicitors (LZW).  I completed an online questionnaire and also a copy of the grievance document with the names of principals redacted.  The grievance hearing scheduled on 14-Oct-2013 was a video conference from PGS Norway offices and PGS England offices.  I was with Barnard in England.  Bjølseth  and Reksnes attended in Norway.

Our Code of Conduct, Core Values, and People Policy reflect the principles of PGS.  PGS expect that you would adhere to these principles at all times during your employment.
If the grievance procedures are part of the employment contract, to not follow those procedures constitutes a breach.

David Nicholson, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, as well as one of the principals accused of misconduct within the 20 September 2013 grievance, proffered a settlement contract agreement 10 October 2013, before the 14 October 2013 scheduled grievance hearing. I declined the offered settlement agreement. In the short 10 October 2013 meeting, Nicholson related that if I decided to consider the settlement that I would need to engage a solicitor-adviser.

I began researching my options and came across an article written by employment solicitor, Philip Landau, who was with Landau, Zeffertt and Weir (LZW) Solicitors at the time. Philip Landau is with Landau Law now.

These are the communication that I had with Landau prior to settlement agreement negotiations.

Landau is an experienced solicitor, as well as a prolific blog writer on matters of employment law.  Of course, my initial reaction and desire was to continue to follow the prescribed PGS grievance procedures.  For one thing, I had read that it was beneficial to follow the defined procedures if the issue ever went further to tribunal.  I was educated in geophysics and my work experience involved a variety of geospatial and seismic data processing.  Plus, as a US citizen, I had no reason not  to trust Landau’s advice on matters of employment law in England.  Looking back, Landau never asked for my employment contract, the Company grievance procedure, or any other documents, prior to his recommendation to pursue an enhanced SCA.  There was continued silence following the grievance hearing and I was distressed and becoming anxious to move forward.  I had endured months of lies and manipulation and it was taxing my health and well-being.  However, according to the website, if grievance procedures are a part of your employment contract, employers who do not follow these procedures are in breach of the contract.  Nevertheless, against my better judgement, I eventually relented to the pressures and  took Landau’s advice.  I decided to move forward with some sort of enhanced SCA.  I officially engaged Landau’s services 22-Oct-2013.  Once formally engaged, Landau was then provided with the grievance document with names not redacted.  Landau also was sent a pdf copy of the 2013 PGSUK Personnel Handbook, PGS Core Values, and PGS Code of Conduct.  I felt that I had compiled substantive evidence that provisions articulated within all of these documents cited in my employment contract had been.

As a lawyer who has dealt in defamation, I know that someone’s reputation has to be lowered in the eyes of right-thinking people to sue. ~ David Hunt

  • Questioning Landau about informing UK Border Agency about the situation. Watson, Farley & Williams, said the Tier 2 status was not discussed during negotiations.
  • On 24-Oct-2013, Philip Landau is made aware that I wanted to follow the grievance process. 
  • On 25-Sep-2013, Philip Landau states that he makes first contact with 25-Sep-2013. This is the same date of the forged Memo being processed by PGSUK HR signed by EVP Per Arild Reksnes and SVP Terje Bjolseth.
  • Questioning Landau about informing UK Border Agency about the situation. Watson, Farley & Williams, said Tier 2 status was not discussed during negotiations.
  • On 26-Oct-2013, no one from PGS had contacted me with regard to the grievance. This contradicts the 25-Oct-2013 forged Memo signed by Reksnes and Bjolseth.

You can’t have a value structure without a hierarchy. They’re the same thing because a value structure means one thing takes precedence over another. ~ Jordan Peterson

Within a 24-Oct-2013 e-mail, Landau was made aware of the rescheduling of the 11-Sep-2013 meeting to 20-Sep-2013, the grievance document delivery date.  This is significant.  Also, according to e-mail records, Landau stated that he had made first contact with PGS/PGSUK lawyers on 25-Oct-2013.  Memorialized within a 26-Oct-2013 e-mail between myself and Landau was the fact that no one from PGS/PGSUK had yet contacted me with respect to the grievance.  In fact, the grievance would never be directly discussed with anyone from PGS/PGSUK.  (My communications with Landau and his assistant, Holly Rushton, are published on a separate webpage.  Sometime after 25-Oct-2013, PGSUK engaged legal firm Watson, Farley, and Williams (WFW), employment lawyer Rhodri Thomas to negotiate the final terms of the SCA.  (I never communicated directly with Thomas.)  Landau and Rushton would forward communications to me during the SCA negotiations.  As for my work within the Marine Contract Sales – Africa group, I was kept quite busy and was not really afforded the time to participate directly in the negotiations.  On 1-Nov-2013, the negotiations between WFW and Landau (on my behalf, I believed) began.  The underlying performance issues were, in fact, the basis for the grievance which articulated the many transgressions and abuse of position in correctly overseeing the PGSUK performance management system.  All recipients of the grievance were aware of this.

WFW Thomas had the OEC for reference, and it therefore stand to reason that both he and Landau would have been referencing it.  Both LZW Landau/Rushton and WFW Thomas were seasoned employment law solicitors.  Why did LZW Landau/Rushton and WFW Thomas essentially agree to breach the OEC and engage in SCA negotiations in lieu of following legally prescribed grievance procedures, as informed by the GOV.UK website?  Why did PGS/PGSUK depart from their own grievance procedures?  I was a foreign worker and geophysicist illuminating what I saw as health and safety violations, and certainly departures in practice of the lauded PGS Core Values.  The communications with LZW Landau/Rushton show that I was communicating points raised in the grievance to improve the negotiating position.  In mid-November, following a week of sick-leave absence from work, Nicholson and von Abendorff requested a verification check-up.  An occupational health nurse (OHN) conducted the requested health check.  At the time, I let her know what was going on, in terms of SCA negotiations, etc.  Of course, I related all of this to LZW Landau/Rushton. However, I was becoming frustrated with the negotiations pace and failure to address the central issues which were the basis for the SCA being proffered in the first place.

Withheld Occupational Health Nurse Report

The stress from the entire ordeal was impacting my health and of course my morale.  In mid-November, I took five-consecutive workdays off.  The led to Nicholson and von Abendorff requesting that I see a occupational health nurse (OHN).  The grievance hearing had completed 14-Oct-2013 and settlement negotiations were well into November.  It was all very taxing on me personally.  The OHN had provided me with a preliminary report from her check-up of me.  However, I never received a final copy.  Landau and PGSUK were aware of the health issues, yet again, Landau never seemed to use this information to benefit me.  I considered ending the settlement, except for the fact that I was a US citizen, had already provided notice to my landlord and my children’s school, I would have never signed the SCA.  However, it came to the point that I knew I was not welcome, and quite frankly, had no interest in staying in Weybridge any longer.  PGSUK gave me an ultimatum around 3-Dec-2013 to sign the SCA.  On 5-Dec-2013, I signed the final SCA after being assured by Landau and Thomas the day before that the personal data that PGSUK was processing as my personal data was accurate.  I was placed on garden leave through the end December 2013.  My family departed England on 24-Dec-2013 to celebrate Christmas in the state of Colorado.  We then flew to Houston, Texas USA where I had lived for a short time before working with PGS on vessels and internationally from 2003.  

The principle that human nature, in its psychological aspects, is nothing more than a product of history and given social relations removes all barriers to coercion and manipulation by the powerful. ~ Noam Chomsky

Research shows that the climate of an organization influences an individual’s contribution far more than the individual himself. ~ W. Edwards Deming

Ten-months after departing England, I sensed something was not right when I met people at professional events and during my job search in the Houston, Texas area.  This is what prompted me to file a subject access request (SAR), citing the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) in October 2014.  When I received my contents of my personnel file, I was aghast.  I found forged documents telling a false and inaccurate narrative of my work with PGSUK, and the reasons for my termination from employment.  The most damning document was a forged Memo, Conclusions from Grievance Hearing 14th October 2013, dated 25-Oct-2013.  This means that Landau and Rushton were my advisers when this Memo was created.  I never received this Memo, and e-mail communications between me and Landau/Rushton confirm this.  The Memo is addressed to my attentions and is signed by Bjølseth  and Reksnes.  The Memo  does not even reference the 20-Sep-2013 grievance, but instead references the 11-Sep-2013 meeting that the e-mail at the top of the article shows that Nicholson cancelled!  Landau was also made aware of this change after he was engaged and before negotiations commenced.  The ambush letter also has not corrected the 11-Sep-2013 scheduled meeting date to 20-Sep-2013.  More importantly, the response to the ambush letter, the 20-Sep-2013 submitted grievance, is no longer part of my personnel file.  Finally, the personnel file has an unverified written record of a 13-Jun-2013 scheduled meeting.  The 20-Sep-2013 grievance document notes that minutes to the actual impromptu ambush meeting were not distributed (to me).  So, there was agreement by the legal advisers to process inaccurate defamatory data as my personal data.

The most important document regarding my termination from employment was the 20-Sep-2013 grievance.  This document is cited specifically within the SCA.  Whereas, none of the events and/or documents “referenced” within the 25-Oct-2013 Memo are mentioned within the SCA, mainly because they do not exist.  The 25-Oct-2013 Memo is a forged instrument relating a false narrative.  When the SAR was submitted to PGSUK, Nicholson was the principal who oversaw the processing of the SAR.  However, Bjølseth had also been informed about my SAR.  In fact, I had submitted a separate SAR to PGS Norway at the same time.  Bjølseth stated that all of my PGS personal data was being processed through PGSUK.  The same personal data processor, Nicholson, who was accused within the grievance of misusing the performance management system, abusing his position, and defamation was now also completing the SAR.  Bjølseth had again divorced himself from direct involvement.  Of course, I complained vehemently to Nicholson, and fellow personal data processor, Laura Haswell.  Nicholson wanted the diatribe to end.  Nicholson wrote a threatening letter to me on behalf of PGSUK, which means the directors and secretary, of PGSUK were lying to me, as well.  Nicholson was adamantly defending the false records as somehow being legal and accurate as if I hadn’t actually been the subject of his false narrative in real life!

The letter also referenced the 20-Sep-2013 grievance document, even though the intention of the entire scam seemed to be to not deal with it and deny it was ever delivered.  The 20-Sep-2013 grievance document challenged most every claim made within the fake documents, none of which was countersigned by me.  PGS/PGSUK also had to omit other records.  I inquired about why there was no OHN health report, which occurred during negotiations, was not being processed by PGSUK.  Nicholson did not acknowledge such a report, even though it was he who had requested it.  I submitted a separate SAR to the OHN following the one with PGSUK only to discover that Nicholson had intentionally withheld the report which diagnosed increased stress levels and recommended a follow-up visit.  Landau and Rushton were also made aware of these health concerns and my appointment with the OHN, as the e-mails indicate.  The PGSUK also has protocols for how to handle employee stress.  PGSUK did not follow these protocols and instead put my personal health at risk.  PGSUK was acutely aware of stress issues in the workplace and had even highlighted these concerns through a group e-mail to PGSUK employees.  Landau and Rushton were aware of this too.

It’s not about the past; it’s about knowing your history so that you can fight in the present. Otherwise, you don’t know who the real enemy is, what the real issue is, because it had been covered by many layers of bad information, of lies, and manipulation. ~ Raoul Peck

A lawyer with a briefcase can steal more than a thousand men with guns. ~ Mario Puzo, The Godfather

PGS/PGSUK was denying the reality of what happened and was striving for a performance based termination.  The problem is that no real data supported such a termination. This is why PGSUK needed to create the fake data, while omitting the real data of an employee who was the target of health harming abusive workplace harassment and bullying.  Within the letter, Nicholson stated who had processed my personnel file documents.  Besides himself, Cather, Haswell, Anna Stokle, and Gareth Jones were named.  Jones had been working at the PGS offices in Houston, Texas in 2013.  E-mail communications received from the SAR show that Jones and Haswell were anticipating my move to Houston.  However, it is a violation of DPA to send personal subject data outside the EU where data protection applies.  I was told that Jones was an employee of PGSUK and therefore was allowed to process my personal data.  I never believed this, but it almost doesn’t matter.  I actually had interacted with and was familiar with Jones when I worked on-board PGS vessels.  Jones would receive time sheets and expense forms.  I believe that Jones, Stokle, Haswell, and Nicholson were completely aware that they were processing non-compliant and illegal data.  Nicholson and Cather absolutely knew the data was inaccurate.  However, what is even more odd is that according to Nicholson, von Abendorff, Bjølseth, and Reksnes never viewed my personnel file?  Bjølseth, and Reksnes signed the Memo and of course chaired the grievance hearing.  Von Abendorff was my direct supervisor.  I did not work directly with any of the people named in the letter and none of them were qualified to assess my work directly, anyhow.

The personal professional data records being processed under my name by PGSUK are fabrications which misrepresent factual accuracy, and even create events out of whole cloth.  The forged document records support a mythology of PGS/PGSUK business practices to hide true non-compliant and corrupt business practices.  The fiduciary duty of PGSUK company directors and secretary is to uphold the reputation of the company and its agents.  Proving a breach in the SCA would be tremendously less involved than any defamation claim.  But, when the SCA is fraudulent, lying to social media gate-keepers is the preferred option.  The evidence seems to show that PGSUK agents created defamatory fake data to support a fraudulent contract.  Legal advisers were then bribed to gaslight during negotiations and process the fake data.  This confidence fraud was guided by the top hierarchy of PGS, including its board of directors, in order to terminate and blacklist a whistleblower.  No legal contract worth its salt would allow even one of the signers of the SCA to publish so many blog post articles and tweets admonishing the company and its directors and top executives.  The fiduciary duty of PGSUK company directors is to uphold the reputation of the company for all stakeholders.  In fact, the SCA used to terminate my employment contract contained mutual non-disparagement clauses for that explicit purpose.  Yet, company officers have not invoked this clause.  Rather, they have allowed multiple employees to be publicly professionally admonished and accused of crimes.  So, how is this fulfilling one’s fiduciary duty to defend the reputations of innocent employees who represent PGSUK to customers?

Several PGS employees have prostituted themselves to serve the corrupt interests of the PGS hierarchy, rather than fulfill their contractual obligations to PGS/PGSUK.  These obligations include, at the very least, an adherence to PGS Core Values and the PGS Code of Conduct, along with compliance to the (UK) PGS Handbook.  As a PGSUK employee, making such disparaging remarks about the company and fellow employees is expressly prohibited and is a terminable offense, if the terms and conditions of their employment contracts embodied the same base provisions of upholding PGS Core Values, as mine did.  Isn’t permitting and acquiescing to non-compliant behaviors, especially when one holds the power and responsibility to stop such behaviors an employment contract breach?  PGSUK would like to frame me as an unhinged and deranged former employee.  However, what is really deranged thinking is to believe that truly competent and principled top-executives would remain silent if they were wrongly accused, especially when they possess a legal instrument with terms that they specifically negotiated designed explicitly to prevent such criticisms.  Further, such nonchalance by PGSUK directors, with regard to the integrity of the SCA and compliance to GDPR, would seem to breach their responsibilities under the UK Companies Act 2006.  After all, I have reported this all to UK ActionFraud and the UK Serious Fraud Office.  PGSUK directors inaction has damaged their own reputations, as well as the reputations of all employees, and therefore, the reputation of PGS itself.  The truth is that within a fair system not controlled by corrupt leadership, I can prove that I was a mark for their elaborate conspiracy to defraud.  But, I haven’t the funds to bribe and pay salaries to corrupt internal gatekeepers who only lie, lie, and lie.  And this is the truth.

Honest men are the soft easy cushions on which knaves repose and fatten. ~ Thomas Otway

The only way to cover up a lie? Keep lying. ~ Tomi Lahren



Revisiting Deming (19-July-2015)

Applying ISO 9001:2015 QMS within a System of Profound Knowledge

Quality begins with the intent, which is fixed by management. — W. Edwards Deming

Edwards Deming (c.1900-1993) is indelibly associated with quality management, and rightly so. However, his ideas on quality are interwoven within his broader theory of management and leadership which focused on four interrelated areas: appreciation for a system, knowledge of variation, theory of knowledge, and psychology. Deming called his transformative approach to management and leadership the System of Profound Knowledge (SOPK).  Deming was a critic of the prevalent western style of management and leadership which he believed led to a road to ruin for enterprises and workers. Deming was a champion of the worker.  Through his presentations, papers, and books, he demonstrated empirically and simply the flaws in the western management paradigm.  He believed that workers, societies, and economies paid a steep price for such flawed management and leadership practices.  As the world continues to emerge from economic recession, perhaps it is again time to revisit the Deming SOPK and consider its application within complex organizations applying advanced technologies to deliver products and services.  Can a bridge be built from SOPK to the combining of improved management system standards and methodologies such as ISO 9001:2015 Quality Management System (ISO 9001), and knowledge based risk management techniques?

Deming was a scientist and mathematician with a sharp mind who was able to recognize and understand complexity while at the same time adept at reducing such concepts to a more understandable level.  He was formally educated as an electrical engineer and later specialized in mathematical physics.  (He was an assistant professor at Colorado School of Mines at one point early on in his illustrious career.)  Deming made impressive contributions in his work with the United State Department of Agriculture and the National Bureau of Standards advocating and then applying statistical sampling methods.  While working at the Bureau of Census Deming was introduced to scientist and statistician Walter Shewhart.  Shewhart had a strong influence on Deming.  Shewhart was a pioneer of Statistical Process Control as well as the (now) often referenced Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle.  Through their collaboration Deming helped make Shewhart’s work more understandable to a wider audience.  Shewhart worked with Bell Laboratories searching for ways to minimize variation of products for the expanding telephone industry.

Deming was recruited during World War II to teach courses in these techniques to engineers and scientists.  These courses were very beneficial in improving the quantity and quality of war time production.  During the war, at least temporarily, U.S. industry was steered away from the less effective traditional scientific management techniques.  Following the war, in 1947, Deming begin his work in Japan.  Even though the ideas he taught the Japanese were first formed in the U.S. and to a great extent influenced the outcome of the war by making the U.S. a mass producer of reliable equipment which overwhelmed the armies of adversaries east and west, his teachings never resonated the same in the U.S. and Europe as they did in Japan.  Within the crucible of a war torn Japan desperate to extricate herself from industrial destruction and despair, Japanese industry was able to learn, practice, and improve.  Deming, along with other prominent thinkers of quality from outside and inside Japan, taught and refined the fundamentals of quality management which lead to Japan becoming the second largest world economy by 1978.  It was especially during the years working with Japan that Deming observed, studied, and learned what factors drove quality and refined the SOPK.

Without a standard there is no logical basis for making a decision or taking action. — Joseph Juran

While Japan’s economy was accelerating and moving forward following the end of the war, this was not true in the west.  Western industry was losing its competitive edge.  It took some time for other economies to address this issue.  Eventually, nations such as Great Britain decided to emulate what the Japanese were doing.  In 1982, Britain revised their BS5750 Standards, Quality, and International Competitiveness.  BS5750 was the precursor the first International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9000 series of standards for quality management systems which were released in 1987.  In America during the 1980’s the Total Quality Management (TQM) methodology, modelled from the U.S. Department of Defense techniques, addressed similar concerns.  In Deming’s book Out of the Crisis (1986), he formally presents a culmination of his lessons and instruction for organization’s to be competitive and survive in the new reality of delivering products and services if organizations are to survive and thrive in the competitive climate of (future) business.  The ISO 9001 standard is used by organizations to demonstrate their ability to provide product and services that meet customer and regulatory requirements, or put another way, to deliver “quality”.  Since the initial publication of ISO 9001:1987, the standard has been revised three times: ISO 9001:1994, ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 9001:2008.  The newest version ISO 9001:2015 is currently in its final stages of revisions is expected to be released in September 2015.  Technology in an ever more competitive business environment has been an important motivator for organizations to improve the way that they deliver products and services for customers.

Draft revisions of the ISO 9001:2015 standard have been circulating over the past months.   The revised standard is advertised as a format for the next generation that will apply for twenty-five years.  Some key changes to the ISO 9001:2015 (draft) standard are that organizations need to understand the context of their QMS along with establishing a systematic approach to risk.  Organizations will need to determine what strategic objectives their QMS is intended to achieve.  This is important because it now is incumbent on organization leadership and management to understand their QMS beyond only achieving certification itself as an objective.  Organizations cannot benefit simply through attaining certification, the system needs to be well led and managed to deliver its objectives.  ISO contends that “risk based thinking” has always been implicit to the ISO 9001 standard.  The continual improvement of processes through planning, auditing, analysis, and action has always been in respect to delivering products and services that met customer expectations in the most effective and efficient way possible.  However, it is more directly addressed in ISO 9001:2015.  ISO 9001:2015 will now require organizations to identify both risk and opportunities that impact the performance of their QMS as well as define actions to address the identified risks.

Both ISO 9001:2015 and the SOPK are grounded in system based thinking.  A system is composed of interrelated components such as company culture, product or service complexity, resources, and processes.  Quality is the optimization of performance for all of the components relative to the objectives of the system.  With respect to ISO 9001:2015, context is the business environment, such that leaders and managers of the organization consider both the external and internal influences that impact the organizations strategic objectives before they develop a quality management system. As the ISO 9001 standard is generic, how it is applied is specific to the organization’s products and/or services.  Quality is essentially optimizing the performance of the system that produces the output product or service.  The optimization of performance is mostly determined from outside the system by how the interdependencies are coordinated and managed.  In this respect, the greatest risk to quality is system management.  Appreciation of the system is management understanding that every decision is a risk because it determines the components which form the constraints or context which impact overall system performance.

Deming did not believe that traditional (western) management practices allowed optimum system performance to be realized.  He believed the traditional management paradigm needed to be transformed.  Likewise, each iteration of the ISO 9001 standard has placed greater emphasis on top management engagement and understanding for how their organization manages quality.  In parallel to the changes in ISO standards, there has been realization that workers in the information age should not be managed the same as workers from the industrial age.  While the ISO 9001 standard works well in team based, knowledge sharing work environments with appropriate training and development which support the delivery of customer focused products and services, ISO 9001:2015 does not mandate a particular management structure.  Deming listed fourteen points for transformation that leadership and management would need to practice for the benefits of incorporating a SOPK to be fully realized.

We must learn our limits. We are all something, but none of us are everything. — Blaise Pascal

Key to optimizing system performance is management understanding variation.  Processes are optimized when the output product or service shows no variation.  (No variation can never really happen in the delivery of products or services because there is always some variation in the system and process components that impact output.)  Special cause variation are one-off assignable events, like accidentally dropping a glass.  Common cause variation is sometimes referred to as the noise or natural pattern and are historical and quantifiable process variation.  If 1% of the glasses emerging from the glass making machine come out of specification, this would be common cause.  Special causes can become common causes if different workers accidentally drop glasses over time to the extent that it could statistically predicted that a certain percentage of glasses will be dropped and become out of specification.  The challenge for managers is identifying whether the variation is common cause or special cause and then improving the process accordingly.  Shewhart’s control charts would establish the limits to be within specification and it would also be expected that 1% would be outside specification.  The significance in understanding the cause of the out of specification glass is especially relevant to the worker.  Managers often rate workers poor performance based on common cause variations.  Deming has demonstrated this with his Red Bead Experiment.  What he concluded was that the system is responsible for over 85% of the out of specification production.  Blaming worker performance based on the random outcome of management designed processes is demoralizing and can actually negatively impact production.  In reality, workers have substantially less impact on the system performance. If a worker fails because of performance, over 85% of the blame is due to system management.  The concept of variation applies to auditing and managing ISO 9001 as well as the SOPK.  However, the SOPK reinforces why transformation is required.  In traditional management performance issues are not being addressed properly because system thinking is not in place.  Deming also identified “seven diseases” that impede organization transformation.

In order to properly understand the big picture, everyone should fear becoming mentally clouded and obsessed with one small section of truth. – Xunzi

Knowledge is the most important element of the SOPK in my view.  Deming cautions that we cannot mistake information for knowledge.  A room full of books holds a lot of information.  But, only after the information is organized and accessible to be used does it become a library of knowledge.  The study of knowledge is directed to improving the system.  There needs to be understanding of the historical components of the system to be able to form the basis to change the certain components of the system and also predict the impact of the change and expected improvement.  In the information age that we are living in now substantial amounts of important information often remain unshared and therefore unknown and inaccessible in forming evidence based decisions that reduce risks.  Losing experienced workers is essentially tantamount to losing access to knowledge.  The key to reducing risks and uncertainty as well as improving the basis of decision making is to organize and make accessible organization knowledge.  Silo organizations must be transformed into organizations where knowledge is no longer hoarded but easily shared.  In complex organizations decision makers need to have confidence that they are referencing the most current and high fidelity knowledge to form decisions.  Improved decision making processes is what risk based thinking boils down to.

Organization success and sustainability in the information age comes down to improving business performance for competitive advantage.  Traditional management paradigms of command and control structures over individual workers impede knowledge flow and process improvement.  To improve organization performance requires systems thinking which challenges the notions of the super or terrible worker being at the core of organization success or failure.  System thinking involves all workers coordinating and optimizing processes.  Performance is driven by effective and efficient processes.  Stop blaming workers for the poorly designed processes which they have no control over and concentrate on continually improving processes with worker contribution and job satisfaction and productivity will rise.  Deming believed that a transformation from traditional management paradigms was necessary for sustainability.  ISO 9001:2015 embraces many of the SOPK concepts.  Integrated understanding of how the system works along with what the objective of the system are is fundamental to improving performance.  Being able to recognize the causes of variation in processes will guide improvement of the system.  Improvement needs to be guided by historical and contextual knowledge of process performance and constraints which will inform decision making and reduce risks.  Deming was correct that business in the information age needs to be managed differently it was during the industrial age.  Managing the scale and complexity of organizations and the goods and services which they provide requires a new type of management based on systems thinking.  Deming proposed a transformation to a system of profound knowledge to achieve quality.  ISO 9001:2015 is comprised of the combined knowledge of many of the great thinkers of quality.  How an organizations QMS is managed is of paramount importance to realize improved performance.  Using the SOPK as a guide, an struggling economy known for producing poor quality goods and services transformed to a leading economy praised and copied for its high quality.  It is time that we revisited the methods and lessons which contributed to this transformation once again.

Improve quality, you automatically improve productivity. — W. Edwards Deming