Skip | Print | e-mail

Graemea & CYF New Zealand

Graeme Axford documents his Employment dispute with Child Youth & Family, (CYF) New Zealand

Home | CYF Employment | Statement | Disclaimer | Links | Blogs | Video's | Photos

Table of Content  Page 18 of 28

Last Letter to CYF

I believe I can prove Child Youth and Family services have the appearance of breaching the State Service Commissions Code of Conduct. That what I claim and can prove will lead people to the same conclusion as me. That staff appear not to have shown integrity and brought the department into disrepute among many other things that are in breach of the SSC Code of Conduct.

I also believe CYF have shown blatant discrimination and the organization itself is breaching some basic principles of law and safety standards by their own admission. First I need to start at the beginning. Here is a bit of background to the events and how I first go involved with CYF.

This all started when I applied for a position advertised at the Greymouth office of Child Youth and Family. Over 6 months later things are not resolved and there is still more questions then answers. Here are just some examples of many to show you what I am talking about.

Given that a previously concealed document has surfaced after 6 months revealing new Facts about what the first interview panel really discussed about my first job application I have written this response based on that and other things as follows:

Concealing facts.
On Wednesday December 20, 2006 I received an email from Pam Walkinshaw (Acting Operations Manager) which contained attachments. I could see one was the 1st interview schedule dated 21 July 2006. I was unaware of its existence to this point when I should have been as it raises some new interesting issues.

Considering Paula Attrill (Regional Director Southern) and Shona Hickey from (Human resources) flew into Greymouth on October 12 for a meeting with me I would have thought then would have been the time to make me aware of these notes existence. Given the meeting was about the first interview and other things it would seem to have been very relevant.

These new notes are different to the feedback I received from Christine McKenna Greymouth (site manager). The new notes clearly mention these facts about a family member in CYF care and my dyslexia issues. If CYF have nothing to hide why only now have I found out these notes existed? Especially given CYF realizes an investigation could be coming up and I would have found out about what CYF was trying to hide anyway. Maybe they are trying to save face now?

Finding out about the notes and what the interview panel really discussed makes CYF look dishonest and creates mistrust given CYF have not been up front from the beginning as they should have been. It brings the department into disrepute and shows a lack of integrity in my view and this is only one of many examples of late.

Niece under CYF care.
The newer previously concealed notes also mention my niece being in CYF care and how this might reflect on the department or me. I have a simple answer for that one.

Given John Banks was minister of police with what was quoted as a congenitally criminal father as reviewed by Michael Bassett yet this did not reflect on John's ability. Did this well known fact one of John's family members had a connection to crime affect the way in which he was perceived by the community or impact on his developing career when he was chosen as minister of police?

I think not, so my niece being in CYF care locally should not reflect on me either. Work and Income which is part of the MSD whom CYF come under, employ peoples whose family members are on benefits and they face the same issues as CYF in this town. They simply lock files so only the call center or a manager can access the files it he/she sees the need to access them.

Given I am a client and advocate for others and myself dealing with work and Income shows how if people are professional declare conflicts of interest it is manageable. While CYF try and put a spin on it hoping I believe they are worried about how if they employed me this might affect my career I say rubbish, it says more about their office staff inability to cope and having problems with me purely because of my family associations.

That's simply is not fair or professional of CYF to hold this against me.
IRD, the police, Corrections all face the same issues in this town so get real and take a good look at yourselves as you clearly have the problem with this and not me. If asked and it's appropriate I tell people my niece is in your care. Most of my clients already no that anyway it's not like I try to hide it. Given this is a small town that is hardly a secret.

Interview panel
The issues here are the interview panel I had two members out of the three for both interviews. The problem with this is given my right to question if I had been discriminated against in the first interview some might consider having 2/3rds of that panel back again to re-interview me a confect of interest.

At the minimum I think Christine McKenna at the least should not have been there so I could have had two new members and the issues preceding the interview I was concerned about resolved before the second interview took place. I sent the first interview panel a 5 page letter to which I have never had a response and I think I was then and still entitled to one and my issues raised answered in the interest of transparency. (6 months later and still no answers)

The two members at both interviews were, Christine McKenna Site Manager, and Val Henry, Iwi representative.

I also wrote to the CEO Peter Hughes mentioning the Greymouth office was under considerable stress and things were taking to long, children missing out on visits because of lack of staff etc… Christine McKenna could have taken this as a personal attack. It would have been helpful if I had a meeting with Christine and Val for reassurance that it was not going to be held against me, or they withdrew from the panel for the second interview to avoid any suggestion of not being impartial given the past events.

The second interview could be seen as a lynching squad given the feedback in regards to Christine McKenna and Val Henry. They should have declared a conflict of interest given our past dealings.

The new member brought in Chris Pickering said he never read my file before the second interview. I believe this as he was shocked to find I had a family member in CYF care during the interview when it was discussed. However Chris knew there was a possibility I was not attending the interview so rang on both Friday 3rd and then again on Sunday 5th November to make sure I was still attending. I think Chris knowing there was some kind of problem should have postponed the interview until things were resolved which would have been prudent and fair and shown good faith.

Here is a fact, I have never before wanted to bring a support person to anything before let alone an interview and that fact I was going to for the first time ever says a lot. At all the meeting with CYF I come on my own even though I could bring someone along… When my support person pulled out of coming to the second interview because of CYF noncompliance CYF took full advantage of this unsettling fact and let the interview go ahead anyway to their favour.

Chris the fact is I was an unwilling but trapped interviewee as I have outlined I think that is morally wrong and makes CYF look corrupt or dishonest in there dealings with me. I challenge you to prove me wrong.

Can Chris prove Christine and Val did not have a negative slant and attitude on things unbeknown to him? That the balance of the panel was not favorable given recent events and both members clearly influenced his view point. Take a look at the feedback which I believe answers that question for itself. I will explain later.

I do realize that both Christine and Val might take offence to my comments and see it as a personal attack but CYF left themselves open to this by their own actions. The fact Pam Walkinshaw never considered these possibilities and thus sought to avoid them is worrying.

Why has Christine avoided any meetings with me about these issues if she has not got a problem with me or anything to hide? I no CYF will come up with an excuse for that one but I have to ask anyway.

I had also complained about Pamela Walkinshaw response which clearly support and aligned herself with the first interview panel's feedback and did not attempt to address the issues in my 5 page letter to her passed on by Judy Larking. So much for transparency! Only when I threatened to go to the media did meetings happen but little in the way of answers came forth.

You all question if I am analytical and have investigation skills I hope this response answers that question for its self and there is a lot more coming. If Pam or anyone else can question my abilities why not I theirs and I hope this gives you all involved and reading this some idea of how it feels. Maybe then you might treat me with some respect and a in a more positive tenor. As the interview panel does not thick I challenge behavior, how's that!

The common similarities between the interview feedbacks I can agree on.
The panel also noted that you did not appear to have experience in working with children and young people and that you did not identify your ability to work with the parents, family/whanau of children and young people at risk.

I don't feel that statement is accurate, most of my time as an advocate has been spent with people over the age of 15. This is because unless the youth are independent they are represented by guardians.

With the mentoring programs and youth group I have been involved with the age group which is 13-18 so you could say that 13 and under is the group I have had the least experience with. I have worked with families and parents after all, is advocacy not about people? Do CYF really believe I have not had experience with parents and families in that role? Ring my references and see if you want the truth, but there lies the problem you don't want to hear it?

These excuses CYF come up for not wanting to employ me could be overcome by experience; training and supervision after all you don't have to have had children to work in a daycare or as a nanny. I would think the same applies to this.

As for the other excuses about my lack of understanding towards the statutory Social worker role. The fact is I have no experience or real idea about what it's like being a statutory social worker and until I work as one I am not likely to find out either. Once I read the policy manuals and worked in that environment I am sure it will become clearer. The catch is I need the job to get the experience and until I get the experience will not get offered a job. So CYF are really saying get lost we won't help. Have you not heard of learning on the job most people do it that's why they have generic courses for social workers as the skills and knowledge are transferable either way? I am not aware of any statutory Social worker courses and think that speaks for itself. Doctors do internships why not Social Workers.

Everything I do CYF seem hell bent on taking the negative opinion as given in this example for the meeting in Greymouth Monday 11 December 2006:

Graeme advised that he had downloaded 40 editions of a Social Work Now magazine to try and understand the role of a statutory social worker. Chris spoke of his concern if Graeme felt reading the books would teach him the skills.

Instead of criticising me Chris, why did you not ask if I learnt anything new or let me know that he appereciated the fact that I took the initiative? Is the glass half empty or half full Chris?

Here is another example of CYF being over the top rather negatively to justify their agenda when I believe it's not needed or called for.

My providers

Graeme was also told that Val, an Iwi representative on the Panel had voiced disappointment that Graeme had not been able to evidence his knowledge base and bicultural understanding more, particularly given the Provider he had completed his qualification with.

These comments from Val which I consider to be offensive and out of order to take a pot- shot at my provider. However both Pam and Chris questioned the quality of my training and in my view subsequently tried to bring my providers and qualifications into disrepute.. They see the problem but not the cause, it isn't my training its my disability coming into play.

I have also been advised if these comments were aimed at my last provider it could be considered culturally offensive to drag them into question over this when there is clearly no need. Given taking pot-shots at my providers seem to be the latest trend by CYF it looks to me Val is aligning herself and going along with this agenda.  Back to Why a Complaints Authority is needed.

CYF are riding the wave of negativity and all the parties involved by their own statements seems to have jumped on that bandwagon as the Idioms goes.

Its clear the negative influence was around during the interview as I could dissect that feedback and give many other possible interpretations or spin all based on what frame of mind someone is in and all could be right, with none being wrong. The interview methods seem so subjective one could say there no definitive answers.

I have seen people marked higher because someone liked them and another low for the opposite reason. This confession comes from a seasoned HR person well respected and experienced. Having said that I think the marks at the second interview were right on, I think the comments were a little off for the reasons I out lined above.

An example to this comment is CYF1025 Interview Summary/Cand.1/Page 3 of 12..
The scenario showed a reliance on others to complete the overall task, as opposed to Graeme himself undertaking it; and demonstrated an underlying distrust of government agencies in that agency were to be worked round, rather than worked with.

I don't feel I can own that statement. You can work round policy with the agencies support. I worked with everyone involved to get to a point the person was not disadvantaged or we risked compromising others policy. My idea was a win-win for all and in no way did I ever suggest I had a mistrust of the government agencies involved in my view. My idea was called ingenious and got around the need for lengthy reviews, appeals and need to change policy.

The statement "getting round something" does not imply that its wrong loopholes can be good providing it keeps within the law, integrity and good faith practices of the department. When that department lawyers and policy makers agree and support the idea, how can that be wrong or show mistrust?

I am up front about what I do. Whoever came up with this warped interpretation of what I said seem to be suffering from transference.
In my current dealings locally with the West Coast Unemployed and Workers Rights Center we have a very good cooperative approach with government agencies. I suggest you read the Messenger Newspaper article dated 13 September 2006 which will verify that fact, I believe I sent CYF a copy.

So yes I did work around but also with the agency, do you think for one second it could have been done any other way? Come on get real and stop dreaming.

The reliance on others that the panel raised, was to have someone to check the grammar and the spelling of my document before they whent off for printing or storage, saving me a few hours if not days work.

This is because of my dyslexia and as I have not had this checked hope you can see the advantages of me getting things done this way.

My writing, sentence structures general grammar, spelling is not good as this letter will convey and show you now, understand what I am getting at can be hard work for people having to read what I write. A wrong word in the right place can cause all sorts of problems if people are aware of my disability.

Example:
I will submit the report aurally, annually or anally they all look the same to me, if I proof read this myself.

Can you not see that because of my disability, I would need help? Have you ever tried to read and understand 500 pages of judge made law or 1000 pages of reviews? Can you not see the problems I would have with that given a shorter timeframe.

This shows a lack of understanding about my disability and you marked me down for that. How can that be fair?

The team of people I called in and needed went through the legislation; recheck policy for all agencies involved and judge made law also review any similar cases. Given the short timeframe it was needed I had done most of the work already but needed to recheck and tidy it all up and reference it more clearly to show how my idea would work for all. Then it went of to a legal and policy team of experts for final approval and amendment.

Anything less would be sloppy in my view and create more delays or problems. It would also be doing the client a disservice. How would whoever made this comment suggest I should have done it then. I would like to no and want a reply please as they clearly seem to think there was another way. After over 8 years of doing this myself if there is another better way I would like to know please… Do tell. I am happy to learn.

So just to be clear I am not challenging the way the panel perceived my answer as I can not tell you or vise versa how to think or what each others reality should be. I am saying there are a number of options anyone could come up with and given a totally different perspective or mood all interpretations could have some merit. Again is the glass half full or empty. At the first interview I was told there are no right answers just answers I am weighted against.

If the panel had bothered to check my references they would see a government agency staff member was a referee which makes a mockery of the panel's comments in light of this fact. No government agency I work with would agree with the interview panels comment maybe CYF and I should go visit them together and find out.

As I have to go public, I will not be using government agency staff as reference/referees owing to the fact they can not get involved being??? I will be publicly outspoken which could make this political. (SSC Code of Conduct forbids this) Not that I would have asked them to anyway. My new reference/referees will however be happy to speak out as they have no such restrictions I am aware off.…

Let's look at one more example for the feedback.
CYF1025 Interview Summary/Cand.1/Page 5 of 12

I passed a female client over to another colleague as she came in often to see only me. While I made an excuse for this to happen rather then challenge the client about it was for good reason. I am not a counsellor and you don't cut what you can not heal neither. The NASW Code of Ethics states misrepresentation of your abilities or skills is prohibited. The client was already receiving counseling so why would I want to go there. I also felt it would have been completely unsafe and inappropriate for me to do so especially given the gender difference and I was on my own for a brief time. The fact I did pass her on shows I could see the possible underlying problems.

Given the clients attachment issues that client would have seen a challenging or questioning of her behavior as rejection, which would have put her in an unsafe place. As I was unsure of the motivation of the client and only assuming why would I want to create a problem when it's possible I could have been wrong?

Only in hindsight after she stopped coming up did we assume I was right.
So yes while I was not honest about the reasons for passing her over to another colleague and made the excuse “I was out of my depth with her case” but someone else in the organization had more experience then me.

When I did talked with the client's counselor sometime later she said I did the right thing in her view, and thank me.

As an advocate we work with what people bring to us and they only challenge we make is if they deliberately lie we can not help. The only time we challenge or investigate is if it pertains to our core business, example people running out of money and finding out they are spending what they get on substances. We find out where the money is going then send them to the right agency with the skills and resources to deal with the addiction and underpinning issues.

I don't think the interview panel really understands my role as an advocate. Also most advocates I no don't have supervision especially if you can not afford them in what is essentially a voluntary organization. We get very limited funding. Our role is more administrative, eg policies, budgets, reviews, and support for these things. We really deal with in-depth emotional, counseling, addiction, behavioral unless it involved the presenting problem. E.g. change behavior on substance abuse because you're blowing your money, its unhealthy and illegal.

It causes distress and affects the self and others. The advice them of support groups but never undertake a role for which we are nether qualified or experienced to do. That would be dangerous, unprofessional and outright stupid. Nether do we force change upon people or go places they don't want to as far as there problems.

We are only open 15 hours a week and most staff work 3 hours each a week.
How can we do and be all CYF expect to everyone given the time and money we have. While a CYF supervisor start at $45:000 our budget is nothing like that for all of us and most of the money I am aware of goes on power, rent and phone. How would CYF suggest we do things as clearly you think you no better? Could I suggest a meeting and you can explain it to our group?

So I don't agree with the panels perception of my answer but I do agree I did not explain this thinking had someone of asked it would have been forthcoming.

Some of the examples for the interview panel were from my time at Invercargill. Christchurch, advise given to other advocacy groups and consulting in cases for different areas. Apart from my social work training and mentoring, youth groups roles I don't have a supervisor for the advocacy practice at the moment and may never get one given funding is getting harder to come by.

I have noticed in the feedback it says:

The panel did their best to provide prompts to help Graeme and Graeme was unable to expand his answers again. He was unable to state ???

which I agree with. The thing is, I stated that my dyslexia gets worse with stress as my condition is cognitive. Considering the way I have been treated as explained in this and many other emails and letters to CYF, the fact that my support people who I never usually bring pulled out and I felt CYF were setting me up.

This result was to be expected. However in normal circumstances there would have been better and clearer answers. The second interview is in no way truly reflects my abilities.

Example score
Fist interview: Self Confidence: 4
Second interview: Self Confidence 1.5
Difference between first and second interview score 2.5 points
If someone's self confidence is down do you not think that affects there performance. That one fact among the many says it all.

Summary
First, the interesting thing is, I used a lot of examples form the first interview for the second but when you look at the point's difference and way it has been interpreted second time round its amazingly bad. I dropped overall 12.5 points. Having said that the points did reflect how I felt but the comments I am some what dubious about but it does reflect an underlying theme.

Second, Given CYF comments about my lack of experience with a younger age group and lack of analytical and investigations skills in hindsight things seem interesting. Can you not see them skills at work now?

The first interview was on 1 July 2006 and the second on 6 November it was unlikely I could have gained this experience during that short interval CYF stated I was lacking between the interviews. Do you think that much could change in 5 months and I suddenly become experienced enough in that timeframe? Get real.

This simple fact makes me believe CYF wanted the second interview to cover their bases.
The needed excuses to justify not employing me and resisting the mainstream program. They have no interest in having me there because of my family connection they can not handle. They don't want someone like me with a disability in their office which is discrimination. The only way they could get around all this is to re-interview at the worst possible time and conditions which they setup and did nothing to avoid when they could have.

In advocacy we don't go in depth as CYF interview or investigations do so only work with and from what people bring to us to look at. That's why I don't probe to deep for the scenario or role-plays. However it could be learnt with a little training and observation along with case review. The fact is I am teachable and quick on the uptake when provided with the right environment and my own methods of learning.

I should also point out my interview styles are built around the boundaries and restraints of an advocate and in my long term memory which is like an autopilot for me. My disability affects my working and short term memory so I would need to learn how CYF conduct there interview, types of questions, boundaries and commit that to long term memory before I could change my methods.

What part of cognitive brain damage does CYF not understand and how this affects my analytical thinking and investigation skills. Read the Seabrook Mackenzie (educational psychologist) report it is all there plain to see.

In the second interview feedback it states:

In the Role of a statutory social worker and remit of Child, Youth & Family Services Graeme was able to name only one function of the agency, i.e. Care and Protection, and made reference to having heard much about the work of the organization from the media adding that most of what he had read was negative. Graeme did not share any in-depth knowledge or experience relating to empowering families, facilitating change for families, strengths based practice, and children and young people did not feature as significant to the role in any part of his discussion. Page 10

This might come as a shock but I am unaware of any positive cases in the media, why don't you "www.google.com" it yourself and see if any comes up. I have read a lot of negative things like reports off the CYF WebPages, Ministers of parliament comments (cross section) I looked at www.panic.co.nz, www.menz.org.nz etc… Some of my tutors used to work for what is now known as CYF and did not speak that highly of the organization. I am personally unaware of any children being returned once uplifted or empowering families, strengths based practice etc…

I am not saying that it does not happend, what I am saying is I did not hear about it. Enlighten me please, so unless you expected me to make something up (which I won't) I stand by what I said for that reason.

That, however, does not mean I am against CYF or don't want to work for you. What it does show is I am honest and just won't say what the panel what's to hear. By the way care and protection is two not one?

Given most peoples involved with CYF is based on negative events (that I am aware of) it's unlike praise would be forthcoming from the clients.

Given the privacy restriction CYF have to comply with I am aware that often CYF can not put there side to the public if mistruths are spread.

In the press (Monday, 23 October 2006) there was an article that claimed Eight staff a week quit CYF" that does not look good for CYF and they could not find a new CEO after the last one resigned.

CYF also offered a recruitment incentive payment of $7,000 to join Child and I gather that didn't work either.
Need I remind you all about Article stating Paper shows govt concern over CYF dated Apr 24, 2006. Need I go on as I have a very long list that is a matter of public record? Should I go on, so don't blame me for point out the obvious and telling it like it is?

I don't know if CYF live in a dream world or are privileged to information we don't get to see but I don't see anything I have come across CYF can be proud off or say they do well at the moment. My own case and how I have been treated seems to highlight the complaints we get about CYF.

People who come to the West Coast Unemployed and Workers Rights Center for help with CYF matters do so out of "sure bloody frustration" I am beginning to see how they get to that point. So I hope CYF understand this perspective in fact I am unaware of any positive outcomes. CYF are not immune to making mistakes even locally.

I can quantify that statement if you want to get into specifics which would involve you meeting the clients in person with me because of the privacy Act. I am sure I can get them to agree with that as CYF seem evasive at times. So given all this to date I am still unaware of any positive outcomes it could be true that we only hear the bad news I can do nothing to change that.

Overview of education and work experience to date:

His social work placement experience was undertaken with adult clients attending a Maori Alcohol and Drug Resource Centre … with mainly adults.
Ref CYF1025 Interview Summary/Cand.1/Page 10 of 12

I never ever worked for such an organization read my CV and take a look at my references. Also the youth group and mentoring programs I was involved with is not mentioned again on my CV and references. Considering I have had two interviews I would have thought you would get it right by now and no me better.

Talk about getting the facts to fit your argument rather then the truth!
One more point it was the MSD who paid for my training as a Social Worker as they seen the abilities in me which is ironic considering CYF comes under the MSD now.

I have tried being nice and clearly it has not worked and to date all ways maintained my professionalism to spite CYF actions and insults. That is all about to change. If you can question my abilities and attitudes that works both ways.

I know the CYF game plan if I go public you will sling off at my skills based on the interview results and try and make me look like an unemployable qualified substandard Social Worker. I no CYF will do this under the guise of having to defend there position in light of my claims GO FOR IT... I did pick up on the hit quite clearly and prepared for it. You never know who might come out of the woodwork when this happens. Don't say I did not warn you.

These bullying underhanded tactics will not work with me and only strengthens my resolve to keep fighting for justice and equality. I can see how CYF attitudes can piss their clients off which are so entrenched you can not see it for yourselves.

I have a number of examples of CYF not listening or answering or following thorough on things. Example EEO policy both Judy Larking and Kerry Collins said I would get from Paula and HR a reply and information for the purposes of clarification to her letter when she was away. Where is that information 5 months later?

CYF hearing what they want to hear but not listening to what's being said example Judy Larking email subject: " Mr Axford's concerns regarding West Coast Interview " and my response at odds with her recollection dated Friday 3/11/2006

CYF not following through on the things like the written transcript signing in time for second interview. The list could go on and gets worse as it goes. In case you have not noticed I am straight-up with people.

CYF seem to have overlooked my abilities and strengths they are so busy on this rampage of doom and gloom they can not see the benefits. CYF argument has gone from deformation to defecation in my view. Incase you have not noticed they are fighting words. I will not give up trying to get a mainstream opening at the Greymouth office until the day I die. Even then I will continue the battle from the grave if need be. In case you missed that hint I am not about to give up because your argument is unjust, based on prejudice, injustice and discrimination in my view. Now I have laid down the gauntlet bring it on.

I am going to setup a webpage about my experiences with CYF and go more public.
I will publish all the emails and would like to I invite CYF to respond and I will add that unedited or changed. Unlike CYF I don't do sneaky underhand things and I give people the right of reply once I given them all the facts as I see them.

I don't see that there is any other way and considering CYF have made it clear I will not be employed there at all I have lost nothing nor ruined my chances of employment as I never had any. I will be turning up to parliament once again to lunch my webpage and bring publicity to my cause. It looks like I have the support of some MP's who might meet me on the doorstep.

I believe I can and have justified my claims about CYF breaching the SSC code of Conduct as outline in the beginning statements. Where to from here CYF?

I feel CYF excuses for refusing to employ me almost amount to defamation of but now I liken it to defecation.

It has now been 6 months Mr Hughes and we seem to be going round in circles and things have got worse not better. CYF have ruled out mainstream or me ever working there due to a skills deficiency as they see it and I still think that is blatant discrimination. Any issue CYF come up with I am sure we can work around it CYF have the will to do so which they don't yet.

I am more then happy to pass my concerns onto an outside agency to handle if CYF are unable to resolve the ongoing issues. However in the mean time the webpage stays up and I will go more public in the interim.

I think CYF should apologize for the way I have been treated, insulted and fogged off and not told all the facts, let alone the excuses. If CYF put as much energy into trying to make mainstream and option in the Greymouth office we would all be happy and spent out time more wisely.

If I remember rightly from the media CYF had a habit of denying responsibility and owning up to their mistakes. It would be nice to think CYF have gone beyond that now.

I see one glimmer of hope from the meeting in Greymouth on Monday 11 December 2006 with Pam and Chris

"Graeme described his learning style and thinking processes which was helpful to hear."

Again why did CYF not read the Seabrook Mackenzie (educational psychologist) report its all in there to see. It goes to show they have not learnt from their past mistakes.

I would also like to suggest Mr Hughes that I work with Christine Stevenson to resolve the issues. Its time to either makeup or put up as either way I am going to bring things to a head once and for all. CYF have wasted enough time playing their games.

I guess I had better explain why I believe CYF are breaching the law.
CYF Greymouth are and have been by Paula Attril own admission under considerable stress which led to delays in processing application and employing people whom they need sooner rather then later to ease the load. It's ironic that an office who needs to employ more people was to busy to do so if my understanding is correct.

I suggest CYF take a look at their obligations under the OSH Act " workplace stress " and do something about it sooner rather then later and stop making excuses for failings. People under stress can make more mistakes and get sick more often it's not healthy for the office, staff or clients having this happening. Trying to ignore it does not help either Mr Hughes and Ruth Dyson...

Considering the work life balance campaign is on at the moment if think this is rather ironic as CYF are a government agency. What's that saying do as I say not as I do LOL. It would seem if the stresses are that high CYF are not only breaching the law but in damager of being taken to the cleaners by OSH or staff in the employment court.
I am waiting for a reply.
Graeme Axford

Table of Content  Page 18 of 28

 

Iwi Representation Answer :Back   ^ UP ^   Next: CYF Final Answer

copyright © Graeme Axford  |  site hosting by snap.net.nz