Transcript of the Fair Work Decision in Hazledine vs Wakerley
Karren Hazledine made this Freedom of Information request to Attorney-General's Department
This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.
Dear Attorney-General's Department,
Please provide a copy of the transcripts for the Fair Works Decision in Hazledine vs Wakerley and Hazledine vs Giddings and Hazledine vs AJG.
This information is in the interest of the public. A full bench made a decision not to proceed with a legitimate Fair Work victimisation Case, with sufficient evidence of discrimination, victimisation, harrassement, sexual harrasment and a sexually hostile environment.
That decision was made on the basis Ms Hazledine was double dipping. Ms Hazledine was seeking disciplinary action against the individuals. In addition, given her losses the amount paid will prove that there was no dipole dipping, Ms Hazledine suffered a severe breakdown and Mr Wakerley has intentionally and with malice defamed Ms Hazledine whilst she was trying to recover. This led to further decay in Ms Hazledines health and well being.
This was supported by Mr Ben Giidings, who was the companies Human Resources Manager.
Both men should be held accountable instead hold senior positions where they can continue to victimise.
Please provide the transcripts.
L
Yours faithfully,
Karren Hazledine.
UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Ms Hazledine
Freedom of Information Request FOI18/263
I refer to your request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) for access to documents.
The purpose of this email is to advise you that part of your request has been transferred to another agency.
Under section 16(1) of the FOI Act, a department can transfer part of a request if the requested document is not in the possession of the department but is in the possession of another agency or if the subject matter of the document is more closely connected with the functions of another agency.
Accordingly, on 11 December 2018, the department transferred the following part of your request to the Federal Court:
'a copy of the transcripts for the Fair Works Decision in Hazledine vs AJG.'
In addition, the transcripts of the Full Bench proceedings in C2016/4915 - Hazledine vs Wakerley and Hazledine vs Giddings are publicly available at the following links:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/documen...
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/documen...
We received your request on 3 December 2018 and the 30 day statutory period for processing your request commenced from the day after that date. The transfer of your request does not affect the due date for completion of your request. You should therefore expect a decision from the Federal Court by 2 January 2019. However, the statutory period of 30 days may be extended if agency needs to consult third parties or for other reasons. The Federal Court will advise you if this happens.
Given the transcripts for Hazledine vs Wakerley and Hazledine vs Giddings which you have requested are available in the above links, we ask that you please withdraw your request. If we do not hear from you by COB 18 December 2018 we will take your request to have been withdrawn.
If you have any questions, please contact the Attorney-General's Department FOI team by telephone on (02) 6141 6666 or by email [AGD request email].
Yours sincerely
FOI Case Officer
Freedom of Information and Parliamentary | Strategy and Governance Branch Attorney-General’s Department
T: 02 6141 6666| E: [AGD request email]
-----Original Message-----
From: Karren Hazledine [mailto:[FOI #5140 email]]
Sent: Monday, 3 December 2018 6:51 PM
To: FOI Requests
Subject: CM: Freedom of Information request - Transcript of the Fair Work Decision in Hazledine vs Wakerley
Dear Attorney-General's Department,
Please provide a copy of the transcripts for the Fair Works Decision in Hazledine vs Wakerley and Hazledine vs Giddings and Hazledine vs AJG.
This information is in the interest of the public. A full bench made a decision not to proceed with a legitimate Fair Work victimisation Case, with sufficient evidence of discrimination, victimisation, harrassement, sexual harrasment and a sexually hostile environment.
That decision was made on the basis Ms Hazledine was double dipping. Ms Hazledine was seeking disciplinary action against the individuals. In addition, given her losses the amount paid will prove that there was no dipole dipping, Ms Hazledine suffered a severe breakdown and Mr Wakerley has intentionally and with malice defamed Ms Hazledine whilst she was trying to recover. This led to further decay in Ms Hazledines health and well being.
This was supported by Mr Ben Giidings, who was the companies Human Resources Manager.
Both men should be held accountable instead hold senior positions where they can continue to victimise.
Please provide the transcripts.
L
Yours faithfully,
Karren Hazledine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #5140 email]
Is [AGD request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information requests to Attorney-General's Department? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/change_re...
This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
If you have received this transmission in error please
notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete all
copies. If this e-mail or any attachments have been sent
to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver
of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect
of information in the e-mail or attachments.
When you make a request for documents or an inquiry about privacy matters, the Attorney-General’s Department will only collect your personal information where it is reasonably necessary for, or directly related to, our functions under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 or the Privacy Act 1988.
We may collect your name, email address and telephone number so that we can contact you about your request under the Freedom of Information Act for access to documents or access to, or correction of, personal information; or a complaint you have made or your request for access to, or correction of, personal information under the Privacy Act.
If your request concerns your personal information, we will collect the minimum amount of evidence necessary to verify your identity. The handling of your personal information is protected by the Privacy Act 1988 and our privacy policy is available at http://www.ag.gov.au/Pages/Privacystatem....
If you have an enquiry or complaint about your privacy, please contact the Privacy Contact Officer on 02 6141 2660 or via e-mail [email address].
Locutus Sum left an annotation ()
I have said that this application was refused but my reason is a bit complicated. The applicant was involved in a law suit. The suit was heard by a court. The applicant wants a transcript of the proceedings and applied to the Attorney General's Department for a copy of the transcript. The application was made under the Freedom of Information Act. The Attorney General's Department has decided that the application should really be to the Federal Court because the Court will have the information the applicant wants. The Attorney General's Department does not keep the information. So far, this is not a refusal. But FOI Act says that a person cannot get information under the FOI Act if the information (like the court transcript) is available for a fee from the authority. There are arrangements that the Federal Court has to charge a fee form providing transcripts, so the applicant's FOI application will be (or would have been) refused.