Never mind what the law says, senior staff at the
Shire of York can do pretty much what they like—and have done so for years,
without fear of check or retribution
As we all know, local government in Western
Australia is administered—or supposedly administered—in accordance with the
Local Government Act 1995 and associated regulations.
You can look up the Act and regulations on the
website of the Department of Local Government and Communities (DLGC). The DLGC is the state government department
charged with enforcing the legislation and keeping a watchful eye on the activities
of local governments across the state.
Local governments play an important role in
providing employment for residents of their communities. The Shire of York is no exception. At present, it has a fluctuating
workforce of around 60. I say
‘fluctuating’, because as we have seen in recent times it happens now and then
that employees leave, get a payout and come back a few months later for another
nibble at the Shire of York cherry.
As an employer, the Shire of York, like all other
local governments in WA, is bound by principles set out in Section 5.40 of the
Act.
The principles most relevant to the issues raised
in this article are contained in sub-sections (a), (b), (c) and (e). These read as follows:
‘(a) employees are to be selected and promoted in
accordance with the principles of merit and equity; and
(b) no power with regard to matters affecting
employees is to be exercised on the basis of nepotism or patronage; and
(c) employees are to be treated fairly and
consistently; and…
(e) employees are to be provided with safe and
healthy working conditions in accordance with the Occupational Safety and
Health Act 1984…’
Clear?
Simple? Unambiguous? Easy
to understand? Not, apparently,
for the Shire of York.
Part
1. The Charmed Life of Christian
Tarou Chadwick
Many of you will know that my friend David
Taylor, who writes regularly for our sister blog at http://shireofyork6302.blogspot.com.au/,
has published an excellent article dealing with the appointment and criminal
record of Mr. Christian Chadwick, who is due shortly to front court in Northam
for offences committed in Grey Street several months ago.
If you haven’t read David’s article, I exhort you
to do so. He provides evidence to
show that in 2009 Mr. Chadwick, a New Zealand national, was convicted and sent
to prison for various violence, driving and drug offences.
The violence offences included threats to kill and
assaulting public officers. Among other merry japes, he threw a multanova
operator into Albany Highway in the belief that she had taken a photo of his
car.
Judge Robert Mazza of the District Court
described Mr. Chadwick’s conduct as ‘spectacularly dangerous’. He sentenced Mr.
Chadwick to three years in prison.
He also disqualified him from holding a driving licence for six months;
revoked his extraordinary licence; and fined him $2800.
The fact that Mr. Chadwick had an extraordinary
licence to be revoked indicates a history of traffic offences, perhaps
including ‘driving under the influence’.
A
mystery
In 2011, Mr. Chadwick was released from prison
and came with his partner and their children to York. Before long,
he was a depot worker with the Shire.
Here begins a tangled mystery, which I shall try
to unravel.
It is said that the job in the depot to which Mr.
Chadwick was appointed had previously been earmarked for a young man whom the
Shire was then employing as a trainee.
I'm told that once Mr Chadwick had joined the Shire workforce, there was no job for the young man in question, and he had to leave.
I'm told that once Mr Chadwick had joined the Shire workforce, there was no job for the young man in question, and he had to leave.
The job as advertised stipulated the possession
of a current driving licence.
Mr. Chadwick did not have a driving licence at the time.
No doubt the Shire supported an application to
the magistrate for an extraordinary licence, on the basis that Mr. Chadwick’s
job required him to drive.
Fairly early in the course of his employment, Mr.
Chadwick began a career of workplace bullying, involving taunts, unpleasant
practical jokes and threats of physical violence, resulting over time in the
departure of at least three employees.
One of those employees, Mr. Richard Smith, a
person of Aboriginal heritage, took the Shire to court for constructive unfair dismissal. He had left his job as a reaction
against a campaign of racist bullying launched by Mr. Chadwick.
I am reliably informed—not by Mr. Smith, whom I don’t
know and have never met—that his claim was settled out of court, resulting in a significant payout
by way of damages. I’m told the payout
was in the region of $50,000.
Later, Mr. Chadwick’s bullying caused another
worker to go on compensation leave for several months before receiving, quite
recently, a final payout from the Shire.
I’m told—not by the worker concerned, whom I don’t know and have never
met—that the payout in this case was somewhere between $40,000 and $50,000.
You might have thought that after this the Shire would have
sacked Mr. Chadwick. It did not.
As noted above, the Shire is required by
statute to maintain a safe and healthy workplace. Can any workplace be
considered safe and healthy that would tolerate Mr. Chadwick’s bullying?
I should add that Mr. Chadwick was not only a
bully himself, he also inspired others to do a bit of bullying on their own
account or to act as his accomplices.
What
the Shire knew
You may have wondered how and why Mr. Chadwick
was given a job at the depot in the first place. David’s article displays a letter dated 4 December 2014 from
former Acting CEO Graeme Simpson admitting (or boasting) that ‘…the Shire was
well aware of Mr. Chadwick’s past when his appointment was made’.
To my mind, that letter, along with Mr.
Chadwick’s charmed life as a Shire employee, reveals an astonishing degree of
contempt for the York community on the part of the Shire administration.
Mr. Simpson must surely have known that a person
of Mr. Chadwick’s character and criminal antecedents might represent a danger
to his fellow-workers.
He must have known that Mr. Chadwick’s driving
history indicated not only his contempt for the law, but also that he had the
potential while driving Shire vehicles to endanger other road users in York.
That knowledge must also have occupied the minds
of senior staff responsible for employing Mr. Chadwick when he emerged from
prison.
So—how did this improbable chain of events come
to pass? Who got Mr. Chadwick on
to the Shire payroll? Why has Mr.
Chadwick enjoyed an undeserved level of security in his job, notwithstanding a
pattern of misconduct that should have led to his early dismissal?
To put the matter more simply—who’s been protecting
him, and why?
‘Aunty’
Tyhscha to the rescue?
I won’t pretend I can give definitive answers to
those questions. Instead, here are
some disturbing allegations, none of them new, to which I invite the Shire to
respond.
1. It
is alleged that the Deputy CEO, Tyhscha Cochrane, was instrumental in ensuring
that Mr. Chadwick got the job and that despite the danger he posed to workmates
and the general public was allowed to keep it.
2. It
is alleged that Ms Cochrane insisted on Mr. Chadwick remaining in the job, even
when other senior staff had expressed the opinion that perhaps it would be
better to let him go.
3. It
is alleged that Ms Cochrane has maintained, since well before he went to
prison, a long-standing relationship with Mr. Chadwick and his partner.
I have not been able to pin down the precise
nature and extent of this alleged relationship. Some have suggested that Mr. Chadwick’s partner is a member
of Ms Cochrane’s extended family, which might account for Mr. Chadwick’s customarily
addressing and referring to Ms Cochrane as ‘Aunty Tyhscha’. I suppose he might be a nephew or cousin of Ms Cochrane's, though his New Zealand origin seems to make this a little unlikely.
Either possibility would raise the spectre of nepotism—i.e. misusing
one’s authority and influence to give preference to family members.
On the other hand, if the alleged relationship is
simply one of friendship, based for example on shared interests or an exchange
of past favours, that would raise the spectre of patronage—i.e. misusing one’s
authority and influence to confer benefits on one’s friends.
No
comeback
What puzzles me, though, is why, if the above
allegations are true, Ms Cochrane as a very senior officer of the Shire would
stick out her neck so far for somebody as low in the food chain as Mr. Chadwick. Surely she would be worried about
exposure, leading to disgrace and loss of her highly paid job? Wouldn’t she have to resign?
Relax.
Why should she worry? There’s no comeback for senior members of the
Shire administration. They are
untouchable.
The supposed local government watchdog has made
it plain over many years that it doesn’t give the proverbial hasty act of
copulation about what senior shire administrators get up to at public expense.
They can employ close relatives who like
themselves have no qualifications relevant to their jobs; persecute ratepayers
who annoy them; dish out preferential treatment to family members and friends, or
cover up wrongdoing by falsifying public records—and the high priests of
probity at the DLGC will never so much as bat an eyelid.
As for the Shire Council, it’s been hypnotized
for decades into believing that no matter how badly staff members behave, it is
powerless to intervene. It’s true
that only the CEO can exert discipline over the staff. In the past, the Council has tended to
forget, or failed to care, that it can insist on the CEO bringing errant staff
into line.
And as we know to our cost, CEOs in York almost
invariably come down on the side of their staff, regardless of right and wrong.
If the allegations concerning Deputy CEO Cochrane
and Mr. Chadwick are true—and of course they may not be—she should be asked to
resign. In that case, if she
refuses, she should be fired.
As for Mr. Chadwick, I’m told the Shire no longer
employs him. It appears that he
threatened or assaulted yet another workmate recently and was told—at last!—to take
his skill set elsewhere.
Part
2. Booze, cannabis, and crack cocaine
Mr. Chadwick is not only a serial bully and
convicted traffic hooligan. It
seems he has other dubious claims to fame.
Thanks to some public-spirited individuals, I
recently obtained sets of contemporaneous notes taken at Shire staff meetings
held respectively on 3 September 2014 and and 3 February 2015.
The purpose of both meetings was to consider the
situation of the Shire worker mentioned earlier as having been forced by Mr.
Chadwick’s bullying to take leave on worker’s compensation.
I have no doubt the notes are genuine. However, to protect the identity of my
sources, I will not be posting them as photos on this blog.
Meeting
on 3 September 2014
Members of Shire staff present at this meeting,
in addition to the victimised Shire worker, were Acting CEO Michael Keeble;
Human Resources Officer, Gail Maziuk; and Depot Supervisor, Peter Moore.
One of the topics raised at the meeting was that
of the consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs on Shire premises. It was
alleged that workers usually remained at the depot drinking alcohol for a
couple of hours after work.
Mr. Keeble declared that the alcohol issue would
be resolved by making the depot alcohol free. This was already on the go. Workers had been given one week
to drink the contents of the depot refrigerator (!). After that, no more alcohol would be allowed on the
premises.
In fact, said Mr. Keeble, he intended to
introduce without undue delay a regime of random drug and alcohol testing.
At some point, one of the participants alleged
that Christian Chadwick was a user of crack cocaine as well as cannabis. Mr.
Chadwick’s behaviour, he said, could become more hazardous to himself and others if he continued
using crack.
Ms Mazuik asked both Mr. Keeble and Mr. Moore if
they knew about drug use at the depot.
Both said yes, they did know. It isn’t clear from the notes how long they had known about
it or if Ms Maziuk herself had known that it was going on.
However, Mr. Keeble said he had not known about
the drinking at the depot after work.
As comments on the blog have made clear, Mr.
Keeble’s promise to introduce drug and alcohol testing was not fulfilled.
It has been alleged that it was Ms Maziuk who
killed it, by threatening Mr. Keeble with worker unrest if such a regime were
to be introduced. If she did, that
would hardly be the action of a responsible HR Officer.
(It has also been alleged that Ms Maziuk’s
conduct towards Mr. Keeble was a factor in the latter’s decision to resign as
Acting CEO.)
Perhaps Ms Maziuk shared the view expressed by an
official of the Australian Services Union that alcohol and drug testing risks
breaching workers’ privacy.
Much more important than workers’ privacy is
workplace and public safety. This
is especially the case at a time when drugs far more dangerous than cannabis,
like crack and ice, are freely and cheaply available even in small rural communities
like York.
Meeting
on 3 February 2015
At this meeting, lasting just over an hour, the
Shire was represented by Gail Mazuik; Depot Supervisor Peter Murray; and Alan
Rourke, Works Manager. The
victimised worker was also present, as were a psychologist, a rehabilitation
provider and an injury management consultant from LGIS.
Mr. Keeble’s replacement as Acting CEO, Graeme
Simpson, did not attend.
The psychologist brought up the issue of
Christian’s drug use. Ms Maziuk
said— somewhat surprisingly, since she had had five months to investigate it—that
that was ‘only an allegation’.
The psychologist then asked if the Shire had a
drug policy. Mr. Rourke said there
was no Shire policy for drugs or for alcohol. The Works Supervisor had authority to send people off site
if they appeared to be ‘under the influence’. He said any drug and alcohol policy adopted by the Shire
would have to be approved by Council.
The discussion turned to the continuing
consumption of alcoholic beverages at the depot. According to the Depot Supervisor, drinking after work now
only took place on pay night, i.e. once a fortnight. Mr. Rourke said the CEO (presumably Mr. Simpson) had decreed
that drinking on the premises could take place, provided it was not to excess,
on pay night, at Christmas and at ‘send offs’.
Some
questions for Gail Maziuk
Somebody should ask Ms Maziuk:
1.
As HR Officer, does she agree
that the appointment and continuing employment of Christian Tarou Chadwick was
not, and has proved not to be, in the best interests of his workmates, of the
Shire or of the York community in general?
2.
If she does not agree, how
then would she justify keeping him on the Shire payroll after his bullying
activities had led to legal action followed by significant payouts from the
Shire’s insurers?
3.
It is alleged that she
conspired or acted in concert with DCEO Tyscha Cochrane to protect Mr. Chadwick
from the consequences of his wrongdoing.
Is that true?
4.
Are other employees, involved
with Mr. Chadwick in harassing workmates, still employed by the Shire? If so, have they been disciplined or
counselled?
5.
She would (or should) have
known that Mr. Chadwick had been convicted of drug offences before coming to
work for the Shire. How did she
deal with allegations made in September 2014 that he was currently a user of
cannabis and crack cocaine? What
efforts if any did she make to check if the allegations were true?
6.
Is it true that she opposed
Acting CEO Keeble’s endeavours to institute a regime of random drug and alcohol
testing? If so, what were her
reasons for opposing it?
7.
What is her present attitude
to random drug testing, bearing in mind that many businesses in WA, and more
than a few local governments, have adopted it?
8.
It has been alleged that Ms
Maziuk has taken a prominent role in organising staff complaints about members
of the public who ask embarrassing questions about the Shire. Is that true? In her view, is it proper, and if so why, for an HR Officer
to act as a spokesperson for staff, an organiser of staff protests or a
representative of a staff trade union?
9.
What qualifications does she
have, or is she studying to obtain, to carry out the duties of a Human
Resources Officer or any other senior position in local government?
Readers, please understand how unlikely it is that
these questions will ever be asked of Ms Maziuk, let alone answered. The point and purpose of asking such
questions is to reveal truths and correct misapprehensions. For that to happen, people have to care
about the truth. A good many
so-called ‘ordinary’ people do care, but from the standard bureaucratic point
of view they count for nothing except as donors of gravy to the local
government gravy train.
Mercedes, anyone?
