Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Love Wang <love.wang6000@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.gambling
Subject: Re: Joe Fiala | Chairperson | EUPA Training Council
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:02:27 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 524
Message-ID: <917933d1-dec4-4a03-985d-a9dd7cb2bef2@ir9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
References: <15512840.291.1328237042249.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqnd19>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.48.147.39
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1329483838 820 127.0.0.1 (17 Feb 2012 13:03:58 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:03:58 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: ir9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=199.48.147.39; posting-account=iA185QoAAAAfOGB67Wod6QfN1m5Nkl-p
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-Google-Web-Client: true
X-Google-Header-Order: HUALENKRC
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/5.0,gzip(gfe)
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.gambling:4365
Joe Fiala of CEMU doesn't give a rats a** about union members - all he
cares about is the union leaders who are getting large wads of cash
from union members who think these tools do anything!
If the David Gordon Love (EUPA Training Council) online defamation
saga wasn't the huge item in Western Australian politics this week,
then what was? As we all know, David Love is the bloke who made an
(albeit unsuccessful) tilt with TAC auditor Helen McCarter in the
business world in the early 2000's.
It all started with a posting made by Kyle Kutasi (NECA) on Usenet.
Mr. Kutasi is of course the bloke who is described as a "racist,
sexist, homophobic nerd" by Anarchobase, and (successfully) filed in a
defamation proceeding as a former Liberal Party member. This is what
Japanese sounding Mr. Kutasi wrote:
> PLEASE TAKE NOTE MR. DAVID LOVE:
> MR. DAVID LOVE: I HAVE FOUND PUBLISHED ONLINE A LIST OF PRIVATE ADDRESSES
OF THE BOARD MEMBERS OF EUPA, WHICH HAVE BEEN TRACED TO AN INDIVIDUAL BY T
HE NAME OF STUART LOVE, WHO I ASSUME TO BE YOUR SON. PLEASE CEASE AND DESIS
T WITH THIS BEHAVIOUR WITH IMMEDIACY. WE HAVE TRACED THE DOCUMENT TO BEING
WRITTEN BY A UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA COMPUTER, AND HAVE CONTACTED T
HE UWA LAW SCHOOL FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. WE HAVE ALSO NOTIFIED THE LAW SO
CIETY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA AND WA POLICE FORCE.
> YOUR ANIMOSITY TOWARDS NECA IS ENOUGH. WE ARE ALREADY AWARE OF BOTH YOU A
ND MR JOE FIALA'S NARCISSISTIC DESIRE TO CAUSE MAXIMAL DAMAGE TO THE NECA B
RAND. WE ARE WELL AWARE OF YOUR ATTEMPTS TO BULLY GORDON DUFFY AND GARY FIT
ZGERALD FROM THE DTWD TO NOT ASSIGN CONSTRUCTION -TC THE ELECTROTECHNOLOGY
PORTFOLIO, DESPITE YOUR ORGANISATION'S INABILITY TO PROVIDE ANY POSITIVE RE
PRESENTATION FOR THE SECTOR IN THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, APART FROM YOU AND M
R JOE FIALA'S NARCISSISTIC DESIRE FOR POWER.
> ALTHOUGH WE UNDERSTAND YOU ARE DYING OF CANCER - PLEASE DEAL WITH IT WITH
OUT RESORTING TO NARCISSISTIC ATTEMPTS TO HURT OTHERS AROUND YOU. IF YOU SU
FFER FROM MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES, E.G. NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER - PL
EASE SEE A PSYCHIATRIST. DON'T CAUSE US AND OTHER EUPA PARTNERS ANY MORE PA
IN.
> PS: PLEASE NOTE THAT RAY HARRIS WILL BE COMING OFF THE EUPA BOARD
> THANK YOU.
> WRITTEN FOR
> KYLE KUTASI
> THE NECA TEAM
This was followed by a posting of all of the EUPA Board's contact
details as political sabotage:
> David Gordon Love [Executive Director]
> Deborah Mavis Love
> Erika Love
> Stuart Love
> 146 Gildercliffe St, Scarborough WA 6019
> ---
> Kevin John Peachey [Project Officer]
> Michael John Peachey
> Rita Ann Peachey
> 35 Clarkson Rd, Bullsbrook WA 6084
> ---
> Serena Jane Panas [Administration]
> 50 Casilda Rd, Duncraig WA 6023
> ---
> Joe Daniel Fiala [Chairperson]
> Allison Faye Fiala
> 10 Macalister Gdns, Mirrabooka WA 6061
> ---
> Gerald Brian Upham [Union representative]
> Frederick Gerald Upham
> 11 Halwest Way, Alexander Heights WA 6064
> ---
> Harry McDonald [Electrical]
> Carmen Marie Mews
> 3 Rainer Mews, Willeton WA 6155
> ---
> John Phillips [Local government]
> ---
> Kevin Francis Poynton [Waste management]
> 68a Alderbury St, Floreat WA 6014
> ---
> Kim Schofield [Public sector]
> ---
> Neil Hooley [Water]
> 38a Raleigh Rd, Sorrento WA 6020
> ---
> Ray Harris [Electrotechnology]
> ---
> Toni Beverley Walkington [Public sector]
> 197 Washington St, Victoria Park WA 6100
> ---
> Gary Fitzgerald [DTWD]
> ---
> Geoffrey Thomas Wrigley [Oil & gas]
> Cheryl Anne Wrigley
> 7 Mayor Rd, Coogee WA 6166
On DroppedTheBomb, an anonymous user then stated:
> Let's play a little game. It's known as 2am Thursday. What the game consi
sts of is every week at 2am on Thursday, a "leak" will be made.
> Kay Lesley Gerard
> 38b Pearl Rd, Cloverdale WA 6105
> Gordon Duffy
> Gabriella Duffy
> 20 Burragah Way, Duncraig WA 6023
A female user named Hilary then responded:
> It's hilarious how if you search for "Joe Fiala CEPU" on Google - you get
this page as a first response: http://www.droppedthebomb.com/confession/JO
E-FIALA-%28CEPU-WA%29-IS-A-NARCISSISTIC-PSYCHOPATH/13552
A male, Gordon then comments:
> I love how the petition organiser here (https://www.change.org/petitions/
department-of-training-workforce-and-development-david-gordon-love-eupa-is-
dying-of-cancer#) had to say this:
> "David Love is a psychopath. This guy has some sort of serious narcissist
ic personality disorder."
> Then a lady named Beck responds:
> "People like David Love who are dying of cancer - do tend to behave narci
ssistic - didn't you know? Psychology 101. Cancer tends to bring out the ps
ychotic sides of a person's character. Mr. Love would be a classical exampl
e, perhaps."
Finally, a user named Jane then states:
You should check out JOO/GCLM/4/2012 filed with the Magistrates Court
of Western Australia on January 3, 2012. Doesn't exactly paint Mr.
David Love in the brightest light:
> 1 Mr. Love stated on Dec/2 he wouldn't receive/pay for $14,896 services l
eft on 0.5yr research contract (Aug/22-Feb/24), since:
> 1.1 "Casual employment" allowed for cessation whenever: Mr. Love failed t
o comply with ATO requirements for "casual employee" treatment, hence this
point was rescinded.
> 1.2 There'd been insufficient quality of work: Quality of work similarly
rescinded based on reference amount, length of document, originality of inf
ormation, appraisals from other TC's.
> 2 In a surprise jab, reasons in conciliation were altered to "unethical,
if not illegal" conduct, later explained to be use of proprietary universit
y databases to conduct private work.
> 2.1 WAIRC fees (29.6km * 2 @ $0.63 / km (ATO)=$37.30, and $50 applicati
on fee = $87.30) asked for in addition due to lack of want to conciliate
in good faith, and "put all cards on table". Respondent claimed this was ap
art of his "legal strategy".
> 2.2 Advised Respondent contemporaneously in conciliation "proprietary dat
abase" used datasets created by self; and no resources were used of the Uni
versity's to conduct work.
> 2.3 Mr. Love is aware of Uni contacts because he asked to apply for an Au
stralian Research Council grant. Mr. Love discarded the grant application b
efore any serious work was actually done.
> 2.4 Although Mr. Love knew university resource not used to conduct work,
when faced with difficulty finding data in public admin, Mr. Love requested
their "database" use, because "that's what I want - I don't care how you g
et it - just get it".
Mr. Love is being sued for $15,242.40 in total. I smell bankruptcy
here?
I contacted the WAIRC (raised in 2.1) for more information, and they
directed me to case No. U 199 of 2011:
> I (Jeremy) worked for the EUPA Training Council (which primarily reports
to the Department of Training and Workforce Development DTWD, and is of ABN
76 710 050 832 ELECTRICAL UTILITIES AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION TRAINING COU
NCIL INC) as a researcher, beginning Monday 22 August 2011, intended until
Friday 24 February 2012, pending a one month probationary period remunerate
d at $35/hr, paid fortnightly, with the employment offer delineated it "equ
ates approximately $69,000 per annum". On successful completion, this hourl
y rate was boosted to $40/hr. This employment ceased after being dismissed
at approximately 9:20am on Friday December 2 2011.
> Dismissal was on the grounds, as delineated on Friday December 2:
> - Work done was "unusable" and that the Managing Director had paid the "b
est part of twenty thousand dollars" for "nothing": In response, I (Jeremy)
suggested that non-delivery was not possible, because checks were made in
the first week essentially every second day; and subsequently, every week,
along with fortnight submissions. If the MD was disappointed with the resul
t, that the onus was on him to ensure the requisite quality was met, and in
struction given earlier to remedy.
> - That "when requested a wall to be painted in green, received a red wall
instead", in particular, development of such tools as the web site, in lie
u: In response, I (Jeremy) delineated, and came to agreement with the MD, t
hat the e-scan had been "completed" for the electrotechnology, electricity
supply, gas supply, waste, water, and local government - and that the short
fall, was only for corrective services, public safety, and public sector -
of which I was asked by the MD specifically to spend 1 day on, and hence th
e quality of those sections reflected the singular day effort. On the follo
wing Monday 28 November, I approached the MD to obtain a clarification give
n the inconsistency from the completion of the various e-scans and the "you
've given me nothing", with the MD stating that on Thursday, he intentional
ly delayed a while before speaking to me, because he understood he was "ang
ry", and that with several points, he had "retreated" - with the exception
of the three e-scans (below).
> - That even the three documents produced over my (Jeremy's) weekend "wasn
't what I [David] wanted": Although my (Jeremy) copy was asked to be delete
d by the MD, we desire to obtain discovery of these documents, which would
tend to show that the quality of the work, met, if not exceeded that, of wo
rk over the weekend (which is unpaid for, and further to the required work)
- with appropriate referencing, gathering of secondary data facts, and pri
ma facie analysis.
> - Publishing changes on the web site without prior approval: I (Jeremy) h
ave obtained permission, asked, but on numerous occasions, the MD has forgo
tten that approval was given (or it was given without him knowing what the
consequence was). Commonly, prior discussions later raised with the MD, wou
ld be responded in "no, I don't remember - could you refresh my memory?", w
hich goes to propensity to recount facts correctly. In any circumstance, th
is is just a minor misunderstanding, and doesn't warrant the termination of
contract.
> - That the terms of "casual employment" are such that, the Managing Direc
tor, can, at his own discretion, terminate the employment at his own will:
My response to him was that I had felt "exploited" as a result of not knowi
ng what "casual employment" constituted. However, the terms of employment w
ere delineated as between a fixed period (Monday 22 August 2011 - Friday 24
February 2012, for 26 working weeks), with the "maximum 38 hour working we
ek" delineated by the MD as meaning "that's all I [David] can pay you; you
can work more, but that's up to you". Furthermore, if the employment agreem
ent was such that the termination could occur at any time, the "probationar
y period" thus becomes moot, and could constitute a misleading and deceptiv
e clause of agreement (and its presence suggests that termination can only
be made during the probationary period). It is also notable, following the
probationary period, remuneration was bumped up from $35/hr (+9%) to $40/hr
.
> - That the "contractual" arrangement had no veracity, as a result of the
fact that it wasn't written: This is a question of law that is disputed, as
being wrong.
> Prior, on Thursday November 24, the Managing Director requested my pay ch
eck to not be put through on Wednesday November 23, which was reinstated on
Friday November 25. On Thursday November 24, the MD brought up:
> - Utilizing organizational time to do other organization's work: The resp
onse provided was that this was based on hearsay evidence from a colleague,
and that direct evidence would tend to directly contradict this (namely, t
hat an employee, if desiring to work on another organization's work, wouldn
't tend to turn the direction of the computer screen, as to be directly in
view of a person who walked into the room). It is believed, given the MD ha
dn't raised prior issues with me, and that the first time he did was on Thu
rsday November 24, that this fact lies, within his interpretation, as the p
innacle issue; given that I'd departed the organization at Wednesday Novemb
er 23 at 4.30pm, and that only Kevin (my colleague) and the MD discussing w
ere the only between events.
> - That he had an issue with the level of noise: After conferring with Kev
in (colleague), it was decided that this was likely due to a single convers
ation (in particular), several weeks ago, which was directly work related,
although "didn't seem to be going anywhere". On Monday, 28 November, Kevin
brought up that he had been disappointed about the lower levels of conferen
ce, and that he had hoped the workplace could still involve chitter chatter
to "make the workplace fun".
> - That the work could not be understood by stakeholders, as it contained
jargonacious and loquacious language: Of which I (Jeremy) responded that I
would work on between Tuesday November 29, and intended on submitting on Fr
iday December 2. This was never even read.
> I (Jeremy) also brought up, in response, contemporaneously in response to
being dismissed, on Friday December 2:
> - That I (Jeremy) felt there had been a history with the employer (David
Love), given that the person I was replacing (Lee Pritchard), also underwen
t a "forced resignation" (as delineated by Kevin), suggesting that the empl
oyer think about reaching an amicable solution rather than resolving to the
courts.
> I (Jeremy) am seeking for compensation of and/or reinstatement of employm
ent for the remaining months. The pay check is up to date until November 23
. Including the Christmas exclusion of December 23-January 3, is $3,040 due
December 7, $3,040 due December 21, $912 due January 4 (pro rata for 3 day
s, December 22, January 3 and 4), $3,040 due January 18, $3,040 due Februar
y 1, $3,040 due February 15, and $608 due February 17 (pro rata for 2 days)
. This amounts to $16,720.
> The payable amount from Fri 25/11 to the end of contract is $14,896.1 The
rgues that the arrangement was contractual, and there is thus breach of con
tract. Even if it is construed there is casual employment, it is argued tha
d, and can be demonstrated by constructive facts.
nt was casual (as stated on Fri 2/12). The right is reserved to dispute thi
s classification. The plaintiff is willing to accept this point uncontested
, such that the WAIRC is directed employment was contractual, and thus ultr
a vires to its jurisdiction. The matter can then be contested in Court for
contractual breach. Where contest is made employment was casual, WAIRC cost
s will be requested.
> Kindly requested is also that non-disputed facts are agreed to:
> - Monday, 15 August 2011
> Job interview, followed with acceptance. Asked if prefer contract or empl
ould involve early at-whim dismissal). Asked if had ABN, replied not, but w
ould obtain one. Stated would start on casual employee, and change to contr
act as necessary. Job offer sent via e-mail, accepted by telephone call bac
k. Never billed as casual, super not paid into superannuation account, PAYG
payroll tax not withheld, did not provide pay slips, did not deduct studen
t loan repayments, TFN not filed with ATO, only 4 invoices issued over cont
> Requisite standard of recent university graduate, non- specialized knowle
dge within industries, well known (and later confirmed within your knowledg
e, on Thursday, November 24)
> - Monday, 22 August 2011
> Start of job, with intended finish date of Friday 24 February, delineated
> - Monday, 22 August 2011 to Friday, 2 September 2011
> 2-week completion and check for the electricity supply e-scan. The amount
of $1,824 ($16,720-$1,824=$14,896) was invoiced until Thu 1/12.
> - Monday, 5 September 2011 to Friday, 16 September 2011
> 2-week completion and check for the gas supply e-scan
> - Friday, 16 September 2011
> Discoverable evidence showing bill on 16/9 for electricity supply and gas
supply e-scans
> - Monday, 19 September 2011
> Review of performance, along with upgrade of remuneration from $35/hr to
$40/hr
> - Monday, 19 September 2011 to Friday, 23 September 2011
> 1-week work on electro technology e-scan
> - Monday, 26 September 2011 to Wednesday, 28 September 2011
> 3-day completion for the center of excellence non-e- scan work task
> - Wednesday, 28 September 2011
> Discoverable evidence showing bill on 28/9 for electro technology e-scan
and center of excellence work task
> - Thursday, 29 September 2011 to Thursday 6 October 2011
ing DTWD opinion on antagonistic organization, NECA (a competitor)
> - Friday, 7 October 2011
> 1-day work on public sector, public safety, local government and correcti
ve services. It is notable these 4 sectors were never billed.
> - Wednesday, 12 October 2011
> Discoverable evidence showing bill on 12/10 for electro technology e-scan
> - Monday, 10 October 2011 to Friday, 21 October 2011
> 2-week completion of waste sector
> - Monday, 24 October 2011 to Friday, 4 November 2011
> 2-week completion of water sector
> - Wednesday, 9 November 2011
> Discoverable evidence showing bill on 9/11 for waste and water e-scan
> - Monday, October 31 2011
> Deadline for the executive summaries by DTWD, which should have tended to
have been based on the e-scans produced (but yet, no disapproval expressed
yet)
> - Monday, 7 November 2011
> Advised final completion of all e-scans
> - Monday, 7 November 2011 to Tuesday, 22 November 2011
> - Wednesday, 23 November 2011
> Earliest notification of issue, in relation to the lack of delineation of
been contained for electro technology, gas, waste, water, and local governm
as spent on.
> Although it can be argued, due to busyness, Wednesday, 23 November 2011 w
as the first time David actually reviewed work; this is five business days
off from the DTWD deadline.
> - Wednesday, 23 November 2011 to Friday, 25 November 2011
> 3-day completion of local government e-scan. It is notable local governme
nt was never shown on a bill.
> - Wednesday, 23 November 2011
> Discoverable evidence showing bill on 23/11 for public sector e-scan. It
ossibly be seen as unconscionable conduct.
> - Wednesday, November 23
> Had amicable conversation with David before leaving. Only discussion Davi
d had in between was with colleague (Kevin Peachey). Kevin recalls conversa
tion causing anger was likely relating to reference made to questions asked
eveloped over a single weekend, with only a few hours).
> - Thursday, November 24
> Was advised is angry in the morning, several hours later, am asked immedi
ference to earlier conversation is made). Though settled e-scan is there fo
r all sectors, except public sector, public safety and corrective services
> - Friday, November 25
> 1-day and weekend completion of the 3 e-scans for public sector, public s
afety and corrective services
> - Monday, 28 November 2011
> After having a discussion, where David recalls being angry, come to amica
ble recognition e-scan is there; only need is to simplify English to reduce
loquacious language.
> - Monday, 28 November 2011 to Thursday, December 1 2011
> Simplified English. It is notable this remedial work was never received o
r analyzed.
> - Thursday, December 1 2011
> - Friday, December 2 2011
> Termination of employment at 9.20am, along with hand back of keys
> - Friday, February 24 2012
> Intended completion date
> Facts that are suggested to be agreed upon, as inferred from the timeline
, are:
within 2 weeks each, an e-scan and report produced in 3 days each, and 3 e
-scans produced all within a 2 day period
> Disputed questions of law:
affords the reasonable right of ongoing employment for the fixed term, if e
xpressly stipulated
egular basis, with no set roster or routine, only retained on an as needs b
asis. Factors that point to non-casual employment include:
> o Numbers of hours work per week is 38 hours, full time o A roster system
is not published in a week advance
> o The employment pattern is regular and systematic
> o Reasonable expectation of continued employment
> o Employer requires notice of absence
> o Starting and finishing time was designated at 9am to 4.30pm
uation was not paid to a superfund, taxation obligations were not upheld by
onstitute a legal agreement
ly stated by the court, as a result of constructive reliance on such agreem
ent
> Disputed questions of fact:
be reasonably expected of an employee, of the same caliber
> o Will be argued consideration should be given to the number of reference
s given, the length of documents, the originality of information (i.e. not
plagiarized)
> o Will be argued that the quality of work by the other training councils
should provide indicia of what is reasonable
> o Will be argued that statements of other training councils, notably, Jan
eted (1) so quickly; (2) with such rigorous referencing; and (3) in such st
ylish design; noting that it took her T/C 4 weeks in 2010 to develop each e
-scan, though an entire team of 3 people were working on it
t, delineation of this on Seek.com.au and/or the job offer, would have caus
ed a reasonable person to turn down the offer
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.culture.australian/wAu6nSk07UY/discus
sion
|
|