The Charlotte Kok Files

The Editor cites statute

Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) Section 340 – Protection of Workplace Rights,

Protection

 (1)  A person must not take adverse action against another person:

 (a)  because the other person:
 (i)  has a workplace right; or
 (ii)  has, or has not, exercised a workplace right; or
 (iii)  proposes or proposes not to, or has at any time proposed or proposed
not to, exercise a workplace right; or

 (b)  to prevent the exercise of a workplace right by the other person.

Note:  This subsection is a civil remedy provision.

 (2)  A person must not take adverse action against another person (the second person ) because a third person has exercised, or proposes or has at any time proposed to exercise, a workplace right for the second person’s benefit, or for the benefit of a class of persons to which the second person belongs.

The records will show that you never provided feedback, let alone “coaching”, “mentoring” or any “support” – as you have claimed – prior to terminating your Bids and Tenders Manager. There is a complete absence of emails, Teams messages, Outlook invitations, documents – or even informal correspondence or conversations – evidencing such efforts.

There is similarly no record that “senior colleagues” or “peers” expressed such concern that warranted their direct intervention into his performance – which would be highly inappropriate, would you not agree, given that the B&T Manager reported to you and not to them?

Charlotte Kok: Of course full support was given to the little shit my Bids and Tenders Manager.

I documented every conversation, Outlook invitation, Teams message, and verbal communication, carefully tracking my utter disappointment with his sub-par performance. Even his peers, Partners of Findex-Crowe and colleagues had to step in to correct his abysmal mediocrity and poor attitude.

Isn’t it strange – none of it can be found?

A comprehensive search of all electronic systems reveals no such correspondence.

No invitations.
No documented feedback.
No trace of escalation.

CK: And?

Either:

1. These events did not occur; or
2. Every record of them – without exception – has been erased

CK: I’m not sure I like the direction of this conversation. What are you suggesting?

Nothing at all.

Only that, in the absence of evidence, the Court is not invited to speculate – it is invited to infer.

Editor’s note

Section 361 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) provides:

(1) If:
  (a) in an application in relation to a contravention of this Part, it is alleged that a person took, or is taking, action for a particular reason or with a particular intent; and
  (b) taking that action for that reason or with that intent would constitute a contravention of this Part;

it is presumed, in proceedings arising from the application, that the action was, or is being, taken for that reason or with that intent, unless the person proves otherwise.

The statute is, in this respect, unusually… accommodating.

It does not require the applicant to prove intent. It assumes it.

Unless the respondent can prove otherwise.

This statute recognises the fact that retaliation is not only practised, but commonplace, by managers in Australia.

Shame on you, Charlotte.

Not for the decision – those are made, and unmade, everyday.
Not even for the outcome – others have endured worse and recovered.

But for the method.

For the quiet rewriting of events.
For the invention of “support” where none existed.
For the retrospective assembly of a narrative designed not to reflect reality – but to survive scrutiny.

And shame on Findex – Crowe.

Who did not ask the obvious questions.
Who did not look for the obvious evidence.
Who did not require the most basic of things – proof.

Who instead provided cover.
Ran interference.
Allowed process to replace truth.

And to those around you — the “peers”, the “senior colleagues”, the silent observers —

Who lent their names, their silence, or their indifference – albeit after the fact – to a version of events that could not withstand even cursory examination.

You were not bystanders.

You were participants.

The position is already clear.

It was known.
It was tolerated.
And it was endorsed.

Editor’s closing remarks

When an employee engages in such conduct, she brings disrepute to the organisation she represents.

When the organisation, in turn, aids and abets such conduct, the disrepute is rightly attributed.

Workplace retaliation is illegal, Findex – Crowe.