Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Department of Industrial Relations (DIR).

*Department of Industrial Relations (DIR).

A letter was sent to Jeff Shaw as Minister for Industrial Relations requesting him to enforce the Industrial Relations Act and the Taxi Industry (Contract Drivers) Contract Determination 1984. [B1-2] The letter claimed there was widespread industry victimisation of drivers and many breaches of the award that had been brought to theMinister's attention in earlier correspondence but still not acted upon. The reply from the DIG of the DIR, Helen Bauer, referred to a review of the Compliance function of the DIR as "on-going" (i.e.stationary?). Further the letter conceded the DIR could not determine The number of prosecutions under the legislation. This was a typical response of an identical request of mine also sent to the Honourable Jeff Shaw, QC. As you can see from paragraph three of this DIR reply there is the clear implication of negligence by the DIR and a failure to enforce the law since 1940. [63]

I made a complaint against a well-known `repeat offender' bailor (who has been convicted by Courts and Commissions for many breaches of Industrial Relations Acts and the Contract Determination. My correspondence also indicated what I consider the unacceptable behaviour of the DIR Inspector. [El-2] I received a response to my original complaint from Jeff Shaw Min. for IR. [E3-4]. I responded with another attempt to reiterate my original complaint and demonstration of existing practical inadequacy in the industry because the way the law is written makes it difficult for drivers to achieve justice. [E5-6] The final response from the Acting DIRDirector-General McDonald totally inadequate.[E7]

I appealed directly to the Minister to address through new legislation the iniquities of The Taxi Industry (Contract Drivers) Contract Determination 1984 which has denied employment justice for 20,000 bailee taxi drivers. [Fl-2]. The reply demonstrated the changed legal position following the Interim Variation (of TheDetermination) and a promise by the Honourable Jeff Shaw QC concerning compliance measures for the Determination in regards shift payment options and protection from victimisation.[F3]

I wrote an earlier warning which included another desperate attempt to obtain some assistance from Jeff Shaw to prevent further damage to taxi workers (bailees) resulting from the TWU leadership's apparent collaboration with the employer group (TIA). [G1-2]. The reply conveyed a promise by the Attorney General for "an education campaign to ensure that the parties comply with the terms of the [interim] variation.". Yet, the Attorney General could not bring himself to prevent a mockery of the law by using his power (under "special circumstances" and "in the public interest") to intervene in front of Connor CC during the sell-out. [G3] Following the damage down in the Industrial Commission to driver's legal rights, I made another request to the Attorney General Jeff Shaw that he fulfil his stated promise and enforce the law of the land. [H1]. The reply from the Director General Warwick McDonald is virtually an admission that the DIR is unwilling to prosecute breaches of the law and expects the TWU to "police" cases of victimisation..[H2]

I wrote a letter to Bob Carr concerning driver victimisation.[I-1] I included a statutory declaration concerning victimisation by abailor. [I2-3] Three ludicrous replies came from the DIR and the Premier's Office [I4-6]. [J1-2] is a complaint concerning my unfair dismissal and victimisation by another lawless bailor. [J3] is ananother roundabout response by the DIR. [K1-2] is a specific complaint against a bailor. [K3-4] is the evidence of his unlawful pressure. (K5] is an attempt in vain to obtain some assistance from the honest union leadership. [KG] is a nice response from the DIR but down the track failed to solve the problem. [L1-2] is the complaintas suggested by the DIR as per [J3]. [L3] is a justifiable reply from the Ombudsman and [L4] is another hopeless promise by the DirectorGeneral of the DIR impregnated with very incorrect information, as well as contrary to promise made by him earlier referred in [K6].(See also [PH 6]).

Source: Sydney Taxi Corruption

No comments: