FOURTEEN YEARS - FOUR
Riddled with corruption
FOURTEEN YEARS TRAVESTY
BLOG THREE a desperate plea for legal assistance.
FIRST ARBITRATION WITH AD
NOTE: the ELRC kept the SAME CASE NO as before. The ELRC LAWYERS MACROBERTINC claimed that the rearbitration meant that the process is governed by ‘de novo’ I.e. ‘as new’. Their interpretation of that, was ‘as if it never happened’. I argued that you cannot erase TIME and FACTS ARE FACTS and hence ‘de novo’ meant with new insight.
They did not respond.
So according to these lawyers the fact that Mr. DB presented the previous transcription as ‘evidence’ PROVES MY POINT. In that transcription is a statement made by Mr. S when stating that he could not find the alleged ‘fixed term contract’ that ALL THE OTHER FILES ARE IN THERE (referring to my Educator files which I had been told previously at Truro House that they were CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS and that I had no right to view them!!! In essence Mr. S had committed perjury. He withheld these application forms.
Mr AD completely ignored this fact!
When making my application to our esteemed CONSTITUTIONAL COURT 2023 (the basis of which was a violation of my right to a fair hearing) I quoted this anomaly as just ONE of the violations. The CC dismissed that case without explanation.
Image: Still taken from video performance @ Vantigoes Night Club 1992.
Arbitrator AD was rather elderly and appeared to have palsy in his left hand. Apart from taping the hearing he chose to write everything down. I found this extremely disturbing as he constantly had to say “Wait a minute….” as he tried to catch up with the pace of speech.
Mr DB (Education Dept. Rep) presented me with his bundle of papers. Within the bundle were FOUR APPLICATION FORMS: withholding these application forms in the first meeting amounts to perjury. Point ignored by the Arbitrator.
A) APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT AS A TEMPORARY/SUBSTITUTE EDUCATOR.
This was the form covered over by the secretary where I filled out only point 7 except for 7.5: period of employment.
In point 7.5. where it stated “period of employment’ she had written 18th May to INDEFINITE. Pointing out this anomaly fell on deaf ears.
As stated previously the Secretary (who back in 2011 requested not to be a witness as she ‘didn’t want to get into trouble’ - now WHAT did that mean?) claimed that this form would secure my salary.
When asked by the arbitrator if I had taken note of the heading of this form I simply replied ‘no’….and I was disbelieved POST hearing. I had not pointed out that the secretary had covered up this form with the Ed. Dept. application form.
Date of appointment TO INDEFINITE.
Somebody please define the word INDEFINITE to me, because at the next Arbitration meeting, a Department Employee who had been allowed to sit in on the entire afternoon session of this meeting told the Arbitrator that ‘indefinite’ meant that I had been held for a ‘special assignment’. First I ever heard of that.
In my Closing Argument I pointed out that declaring that I was held in the school for a ‘special assignment’ constituted a unilateral alteration of an agreement and was hence a breach of contract. Another point ignored by the Arbitrator!
I maintained that the word INDEFINITE cannot be adjusted to suit prevailing prejudices.
B) The second form was the Application for appointment in a vacant Government post which I had also filled in prior to the appointment. It was revealed in later Arbitration hearing that this form should only be filled out once the VACANT post had been advertised in the Gov. Gazette.
The Arbitrator completely ignored this fact.
I) There was NO VACANT LIFE SCIENCE POST IN THE SCHOOL. Another vital point completely ignored by the Arbitrator!
II) Once the Educator had returned from accouchement leave, she was not given back her classes. She was made to sit in the Library as the Library Assistant post had been vacant for four months and still had not been filled. Was she now to be declared ‘in excess’?? HOW does an employee (the Principal) simply adjust people’s lives without thought of consequence?
AS an ADDENDUM to this, I have forgotten to state that the Principal was PERMANENTLY REMOVED FROM OFFICE in MAY of 2010.
All that I was told about him was that he could not be summoned as a witness as he ‘was no longer employed by the Education Department..’ ???
Iii) It was also revealed that the Principal had NO AUTHORITY to offer me a PERMANENT POST in the school as stated by both Ed. Dept. witnesses in later Arbitration hearings.
The context and consequence of the LEGAL repercussions of this anomaly was COMPLETELY IGNORED by the Arbitrator Mr. AD.
It took me a while to join the dots post hearing RESEARCH that this CONSTITUTED AN ILLEGAL COMPONENT OF AN AGREEMENT AND, AS SUCH, MY APPOINTMENT FROM DAY ONE, WAS A BREACH OF CONTRACT.
When preparing my Heads of Argument for the Labour Courts 5 years later, i.e. 2020 I realised that, due to the IGNORING OF SALIENT LEGAL IRREGULARITIES, that there was an ORCHESTRATED ATTEMPT at a COVER UP! If not orchestrated, then there was GROSS INCOMPETENCE ON THE PART OF ARBITRATOR AD, not to mention the ‘uninterest’ of judges. I filed an Application entitled URGENT NOTICE regarding the revelation that my appointment was a breach of contract from day one. THIS WAS THE MOTIVATING POINT FOR THEM TO KEEP MY CASE OUT OF COURT.
C) The third form (which I had no idea existed) was an application to be ‘held’ in the vacant DEPUTY HEAD post with the same period of employment 18th May to INDEFINITE. It was claimed that this was the ‘special assignment’.
It was claimed that the word ‘indefinite’ meant that they did not know for how long this post would be vacant.
And exactly what was to be done with me once the post had been filled?
Is this not a BLATANT BREACH OF EMPLOYMENT PROCEDURE?
D) Also had no idea of the existence of this form. This was a form ‘holding me in a vacant deputy head post’
All four forms were signed by the Principal on 26th May 2009 except for this one which was filed the following day.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT FROM THIS POINT ONWARDS THAT ESSENTIALLY I WAS DEALING WITH AN EVOLVING ISSUE WHERE MORE AND MORE TRUTHS CAME TO LIGHT, I FELT TRAPPED BY THE TIME ALREADY INVESTED IN LEGAL PROCEDURE AND HENCE INCORPORATED THESE FINDINGS AS THE CASE PROGRESSED. I.E. I WAS DISCOVERING THESE TRUTHS IN REAL TIME.
I ALSO REQUESTED THAT IF THE ARBITRATOR WAS NOT ABLE TO AWARD ME MAXIMUM COMPENSATION OF A MINIMUM OF TWO YEARS, due to a breach of contract, THAT IT WOULD BE MUCH APPRECIATED THAT HE ESCALATED THIS CASE TO THE MAGISTRATE COURTS WHERE THERE WAS LESS RESTRICTION ON COMPENSATION. I made this statement not knowing if such action was even possible.
TIME IS NOT REFUNDABLE.
AND IT BECAME PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT THEY WERE PLAYING FOR AS MUCH TIME AS POSSIBLE.
I also maintain that, due to these time delaying tactics, that the TIME factor for making FUTURE applications be waivered, not to mention that the CONTINUIM of the case presented a unique scenario where emerging truths gathered significance.
I was also somewhat alarmed at the level of ‘vehemence’ or ‘determination’ of the Education Department to KEEP THIS CASE OUT OF COURT.
It was EVIDENT that something buried within this case was causing much agitation for Judges and Advocates representing the Education Department.
title: Beyond Good and Evil
year: 1988/9?
size: approx 1ooomm X 1000mm
Blog FIVE to follow!