2011 Directorship Nomination - ANZ Bank

2011 Directorship Nomination - ANZ Bank

Once again I am standing for election as a director of ANZ as a protest against the appalling treatment and bullying by ANZ of not only myself but others. My profile as published in ANZ Bank’s Notice of Meeting is heavily edited by ANZ so the following is an expansion of the related governance issues I want to make a stand on if elected as an ANZ director.

It is all very well to have an ethics and conduct statement, and framework but I believe the current ANZ directors have little regard for the proper application of the Ethics and Code of Conduct ANZ has stated.

ANZ have repeatedly attempted to demean my stand by stating that they undertook an “investigation” of my concerns. And yes ANZ did pay me an out of court settlement but only after years of hardline negotiation and with huge legal fees by all.

The AGM is my only avenue to vent my concerns [and reflect issues raised to me by many others.]

Never have ANZ come to me and asked “what do you want?”

The answer is simple - Justice - and this is not a monetary settlement. This is about recognition by ANZ of their failings and an attempt to right the wrongs they did to me and I suspect many others.

I knew that as soon as I took legal action against ANZ that my career was finished as I would be seen as a litigious employee.

Leading up to my legal action I worked within the so called ANZ personnel system designed to overcome such disputes, only to be told by the then Head of Human Capital Shane Freeman “see you in court”. At this point, late 2003, Freeman had not even read the key Whistleblower Statement but was blindly standing behind dishonest executives Sue Pelka and Peter Donald.

The key ANZ people who were involved in varying ways in my successful legal action against ANZ were;

1. Sue Pelka
2. Peter Donald
3. Shane Freeman
4. Tim L’Estrange

An outline of their key roles and or mismanagement were as follows;

1. Sue Pelka - A person without scruples and low ability. Pelka established and led a conspiracy to make it look like no work was available for me. This conspiracy involved a contractor [who became the Whistleblower], two subordinates and a senior executive of a major supplier of outsourced services to ANZ whose multimillion dollar contract Pelka controlled. Reference - Whistleblower Statement dated 17 October 2003. In 2009, the then ANZ Chairman personally advised me that Pelka was no longer with the ANZ.
2. Peter Donald - A truly dishonest and deceitful person - Sue Pelka’s boss -. I reported to Donald and the issues of concern were raised formally and repeatedly addressed to him. This included Pelka’s serial bullying and unacceptable actions toward me. My ongoing concerns were evidenced by discovered documents. Donald did nothing about my concerns but unknown to me at the time actively undermined my position. It was clear he supported Pelka in her efforts to undermine and discredit me. An example of Donald’s deceit [and there were many others including an amazing first and final warning which after my protest was ordered to be formally withdrawn when it was clear there was not evidence for Donald to issue such a warning] and dishonesty was Donald downgrading two consecutive performance appraisal without my knowledge. ANZ issued through their lawyers denials of Donald’s dishonesty. But the evidence is clear from discovered documents Donald was asked repeatedly in emails from me why when my agreed Performance Appraisal was so high, did I receive such a low bonus. It transpired Donald had downgraded my agreed Performance Appraisal without my knowledge and when challenged denied it. Shortly thereafter Donald made me redundant. This was clear retribution by Donald for being caught. I sent to the then head of ANZ human resources Shane Freeman all the hard copy emails as evidence of Donald’s dishonesty well prior to my retrenchment to support my allegation but nothing happened. Donald is a dishonest and deceitful person. Freeman is not much better. In 2009, the then ANZ Chairman personally advised me that Donald was no longer with the ANZ.
3. Shane Freeman - An executive operating only to protect the senior executives of ANZ with no sense of ethics or acting within or supporting the ANZ Values or Code of Conduct. When presented with overwhelming evidence of Peter Donald’s dishonesty and Sue Pelka’s conspiracy he refused to even read the Whistleblower’s statement or any of supporting the documents. When confronted with the overwhelming evidence of Donald and Pelka’s wrong doing his position was to state to me - “see you in court”. So much for Freeman having any sense of moral fibre or ethics.
4. Tim L’Estrange - Group General Counsel/Company Secretary - similar to Freeman with no sense of ethics and on the face of it dishonest. Three memorable events surround L’Estrange’s role.

Firstly, his illustrious letter of 8 November 2005 where he stated in response to receiving a copy of the Whistleblower’s Statement - “At the outset, let me say that ANZ takes these allegations seriously and is in the process of investigating them further.” At the second mediation session held on 31 May 2006 over six months later, when ANZ was asked by the mediator what they had done with the Whistleblower Statement they answered, “Nothing”. So much for L’Estrange’s earlier statement that ANZ “is in the process of investigating them further.” Either L’Estrange is incompetent or a liar or both.

Secondly, at my instigation and with the imprimatur of the then CEO. negotiations were undertaken for a non-legal settlement in August/September 2006 L’Estrange supposedly drafted a “Letter of Apology”. This letter [really drafted by Freehills per document properties] contained no admission of wrongdoing by ANZ for which they were apologising but rather was a letter acknowledging my work and contribution. ANZ never used the words “the” in respect of referenced wrongdoings but rather used the word “any” which may be construed as including being no wrongdoings. Weasel words.

Thirdly, in respect of a request for my job [or equivalent] back as part of the negotiated settlement, L’Estrange advised he explored this and it and advised it was not possible as there was “too much dirty water under the bridge“. In other words whilst I may have been fully justified in my objecting to ANZ’s behaviour toward me, and later initiating legal action, those that were aggrieved by my stand who remained inside the ANZ refused to accept that I could return. Retribution was clearly alive and living in ANZ.

When I challenged L’Estrange on his “dirty water” excuse as it clearly smacked of retribution he became flustered and backtracked by indicating there were no suitable positions. More weasel words from the lawyers.

It is to be remembered ANZ with vast resources fought me for many years over this matter. ANZ engaged Freehills a major legal firm with vast resources at great cost to the Shareholders of ANZ to so call defend the indefensible. Shane Freeman was behind this stupid decision. And other executives including Peter Marriott when this matter of injustice was brought to their attention turned a blind eye to it by indicating they trusted their peers on this matter. But their peers such as Freeman and L’Estrange had a vested interest in not having the matter properly investigated as they had acted so poorly in managing the issues.

Of course ANZ never wanted to properly investigate this matter including interview me or the Whistleblower as it would be too embarrassing and highlight the corruption and dishonesty existing within the ANZ ranks.

Any serious investigation would reveal the clear shortcomings of named individuals..

I spent over $250,000 on legal fees some of which was recovered. Finally ANZ made an offer that my counsel suggested I should accept. On balance I lost out badly financially but by taking the action I can now sleep at night with the knowledge that people such as Pelka and Donald were openly exposed.

Hopefully from the outline provided above and the identification again of those that acted badly toward me, others may learn a lesson. I too want to continue to make a difference and that is why by nominating as a director I can remind ANZ of past governance failures including Opes Prime and the need to properly apply the Values and Code of Conduct.

As a postscript as a result of this website ANZValues.com.au I receive many calls and emails from people related to ANZ and elsewhere who have experiences not dissimilar to mine. I encourage them to contact me, as I believe that ANZ and other major corporates who do not live and work by their Codes of Conduct and Ethics Statements need to be brought to account.

Thank you for supporting me.

Robert Reeves

December 2011