FAQ’s

Update:6/12/07

Q1. Why did you develop this Site?

A1. I wanted the community to be aware of the issues involved in an individual taking on a major institution such as the ANZ Bank along with exposing the truth about how the ANZ Bank operates when it sets out to defend itself. The formal legal action I commenced is outlined in the Amended Statement of Claim. The Topics and Articles on this site contain detailed information of the events that transpired while I worked for the ANZ and up to the present day.

As I have stated on the Home Page even if one person is assisted by this Site in overcoming their workplace concerns I will have achieved my objective.

Update:6/12/07

Q2. Aren’t you just acting as a disgruntled ex-employee?

A2. Yes at one level I may be labeled a disgruntled ex-employee. However I suggest you look beyond my personal concerns and examine the actions of the ANZ and particularly their Senior Executives.

At a more general level I consider it unacceptable for anyone to be allowed to lie and cheat within their workplace and get away with it. Let’s be very clear that within the Topics and Articles you will find hard evidence of serial dishonesty. The Whistleblower Statement alone raises a number of very serious governance issues. And it should be noted that I am in no way involved in the events as outlined in the Whistleblower Statement other than being the target of the conspiracy.

ANZ have had this evidence of dishonesty and unethical practices for years and have chosen to do nothing with it. I find it unacceptable as a Shareholder of ANZ that ANZ Executives set such an appalling example when these breaches of ANZ Values were and are widely known by staff and management.

My view is that if such a poor example is set by senior management then more junior management and staff will undoubtedly follow. This is particularly so when “safety valves” such as the employee Formal Complaint process is a sham and that whistleblowing is not taken seriously.

Further, ANZ People Capital under Shane Freeman failed miserably on a number of fronts when they were provided with evidence of wrongdoing. Please see the ANZ Culture Synopsis for a series of episodes that have led me to use the term ANZ Corrupt Culture.

Update:6/12/07

Q3. What do you hope to achieve?

A3. At an operational level I want ANZ Bank to recognize that they have major shortcomings in their management processes. These processes relate to both human resource management and administration management activities. I am unable to comment on the core banking activities.

At a tactical level I believe the ANZ needs to seriously address it governance processes such that they properly meet the objective for which they were established. Further, specific executives should be held accountable for the outcomes associated with such processes.

At a strategic level I want both the ANZ and the broader community to agree that unethical behavior is unacceptable and that significant sanctions should be imposed on those responsible when it is found. Remembering that unethical behavior is generally not illegal exposure of wrongdoing may be all that is required to remedy the situation. However within the work environment where individuals may properly undertake their roles, for those individuals to be undermined by corrupt practices including apparent indemnification by those above, is very destructive to both the individual and eventually the organization. The Board must take responsibility at this level including having and oversight of instances of corrupt events so as they may properly gauge the health of their organization.

Update:6/12/07

Q4. What has this action cost you?

A4. In monetary terms it has cost me nearly $230,000 in legal fees of which I recovered $155,000 from ANZ Shareholders. The non-monetary costs are incalculable and include periods of depression and stress. I also received $356,471.56 made up of a principal amount of $220,000 plus interest. The details of these amounts are available at Legal Costs and Settlement Details.

Update:6/12/07

Q5. Now that you have achieved a settlement was the effort worth it?

A5. When I commenced the legal action I had the option of walking away from what I knew were systemic wrongdoings by senior people in the ANZ. I felt very aggrieved by the treatment I had received particularly when it was based on known dishonesty which was not being addressed by management.

In my 30 year professional career I had never run across such blatantly perverse and corrupt management practices. I knew if I walked away I could not live with knowing the “ANZ system” and people who perpetrated the wrongdoings would continue with apparent impunity. Given I had provided ANZ with an extraordinary work effort with no recognition whatsoever, for the ANZ to effectively destroy me professionally was unacceptable as I knew that leaving ANZ after only 3 years under a retrenchment at age 53 was not good..

Whilst the ANZ is keen to highlight that an offer of compromise is not admitting liability, the question must be asked why did the ANZ pay anything. I encourage you to read the Whistleblower Statement and place yourself in my position knowing that for three years earlier you had tolerated with systemic abuse.

Yes it was worth the effort – I sleep at night now.

Update:6/12/07

Q6. You mentioned your extraordinary work effort for the ANZ. How can you objectively confirm that yours was an extraordinary effort?

A6. My three years at the ANZ consisted of working as a contractor from March 2000 to mid November 2000. From November 2000 to July 2003 I was a full time employee at Senior Manager level. From November 2000 as well as my substantive Senior Manager role I undertook a second substantive role which was the project leadership of two CAS [Common Administration System] Business Streams. This seconded CAS work was to last until August 2001. I fulfilled the two substantive roles until late February 2001 when a fixed term contractor – David Colliver – was engaged to fill my substantive Senior Manager role until August 2001.

In January 2002 an independent KPMG Report on my CAS Stream plans judged them as being “heroic” and “unrealistic” and attempting to better worlds best practice. In August 2001 my teams achieved the planned result on time and on budget. In July 2002 an independent PIR [Post Implementation Review] of my CAS work indicated that the team should be commended. I was “rewarded” by losing my job in September 2001.

The CAS Streams I led were the only ones to go in on time and on budget. I also undertook two fulltime roles for three months while delivering the “heroic” and “unrealistic” CAS outcome. An extraordinary effort by any measure.

In September 2001 I was offered retrenchment but pointed out other work was available on sub-projects on a new project Viking. I undertook leadership of a Viking sub-project project until January 2003. This sub- project produced greater than stretch target outcomes plus a $5million windfall in recovering Fringe Benefit Taxes that had been overpaid through poor accounting systems.

In 2002 my two performance ratings were documented as relatively high but were deceitfully downgraded without my knowledge. This fraud was reported to Shane Freeman Group General Manager People Capital.

Update:6/12/07

Q7. You have been extremely candid in the information you have placed on the site. Aren’t you concerned about legal action to stop you from publishing what you have?

A7. I have nothing to hide with respect to my dealing with the ANZ issues. I have been threatened with defamation by the ANZ a number of times and have even challenged them to take action or shut up and stop bullying me. They did not respond. All my allegations are supported by documents. I understand I am precluded from providing the documents as they are either ANZ work documents or documents made available under discovery. If you have a concern regarding the existence of these documents I suggest you request a copy directly from ANZ. The Amended Statement of Claim and the Whistleblower Statement are Federal Court table documents and are publicly available. The other correspondence from Tim L’Estrange and John McFarlane was between us after I had ceased my employment. Given the nature of their comments I considered it appropriate to publish these to support my contention that ANZ has a Corrupt Culture. I propose to publish letters to the ANZ Directors. Given ANZ is a public company I consider it appropriate that the events surrounding my case a widely known ands the misuse of Shareholder funds in defending the indefensible should be known to all. I have frequently challenged the ANZ to refute my allegations and they have refused to do so. The ANZ defense documents gave little to no insight into why their executives undertook the actions they did other than to deny any wrongdoing.

Update:6/12/07

Q8. What do you want ANZ to do now?

A8. Firstly I want ANZ to properly investigate the issues commencing in November 2000 related to the work program I was given along with the April 2001 Strategic Sourcing Budget and the premature indications of my retrenchment.

I believe the only way for this investigation to be undertaken is for me to work with an appropriately qualified ANZ representative and primarily using the documents available and establish what really occurred.

Secondly once a thorough investigation has occurred two elements should be judged. The first element is establishing ANZ’s position on the facts as they are then known and secondly from my perspective recognizing either that my allegations are wrong and need to be withdrawn or modified. This second process may involve exposing ANZ management to new allegations whereby statements made in late 2003 that ANZ had “fully investigated” my concerns may prove to be wrong. Management recklessly supporting or making such statements which had the impact of prolonging the legal proceedings should also be sanctioned.

This last element goes to the heart of ANZ overcoming what appears to be a Corrupt Culture. ANZ need to admit it failed, make management changes so these failure are not repeated and move on.

Recognition of the issues is the key element to any resolution. Justice must not only be done but seen to be done and those involved need to be held accountable for their actions.

Thirdly, once the status of wrongdoing is agreed – and I do not see that that should be difficult when one properly analysis the facts as many documents are available to determine what the facts are – we seek to make good the position. Firstly I would publicly recognize where my allegations were wrongly based. Equally I would expect ANZ to also publicly recognize where they have transgressed their Values.

Further ANZ should be then seeking to install proper management mechanisms that ensure a repeat of events such as mine. Given my experiences with ANZ’s most senior executives I have a concern they know how to do this and this is why I am seeking a Directorship role. From that position it may be possible to have an influencing aspect of this important governance issue.

Ideally a real apology from ANZ would be readily accepted along with an analysis of the real cost to me of undertaking this campaign whereby I am properly recompensed.

Finally, I believe that those that perpetrated these events be required to reimburse Shareholders based on the Conduct Clause in their respective employment contracts which relates to ANZ employees indemnifying ANZ for their dishonesty.

Update:10/12/07

Q9. What caused you to take the very serious step of taking legal action?

A9. During my employment I endured many disturbing events that alone may have appeared innocuous.

On 3 July 2003 when I was about to be retrenched, I reflected upon the appalling treatment I received whilst at ANZ and wrote to John McFarlane indicating what I believed to be a serious breakdown in ANZ Values. I indicated events of “dishonesty, bullying, misconduct, mismanagement, unfair treatment and abrogation of responsibility” had occurred over the three years I was engaged with ANZ.

I requested that he “properly investigate, judge and remedy” the situation.

Little did I know that at exactly the same time I wrote this letter Sue Pelka was undertaking the unbelievable events as noted in the Whistleblower Statement. I received the Whistleblowers Statement in late October 2003.

Shane Freeman responded on behalf of John McFarlane on 21 July 2003. Freeman addressed none of the issues I raised merely suggesting it was “time to move on”. I was grossly insulted by such a suggestion but it transpired that Freeman’s performance in this matter was incompetent.

In the meantime I telephoned Freeman where he requested I outline what I wanted as a satisfactory outcome.

On 8 August 2003 I again wrote to McFarlane outlining before I “move on” five elements that constituted a satisfactory outcome. The five elements were: 1. A letter of apology, 2. Reimbursement of legal cost – then around $8,000, 3. A relativity payment based on the treatment of me as a contractor rather than as an employee calculated on the net differential of my gross salary and the daily contractor rate over the employed time, 4. Compensation for hurt, humiliation etc over the unresolved Formal Complaint, and 5. Reinstatement to an appropriate position in ANZ.

I later met with Freeman who dismissed my concerns and offered me $25,000 to move on. I rejected this offer.

When I received the Whistleblower Statement it gave me an added incentive to take legal action. Before I took this very serious step in November 2003 I approached the ANZ Chairman under the Serious Complaints Policy.

This approach culminated in an advice from the Acting Group General Manager Audit dated 23 March 2004 which indicated that the matters should be “dealt with under the Bank’s HR Policy and Process”.

I was back to square one whereby Shane Freeman had already rejected my concerns and refused to even read the Whistleblower Statement when offered in late 2003. The next step was issuing proceedings.