The Fairwork Commission has republished my Unfair Dismissal decision. Deputy President Lake has altered none of it. I’m oddly pleased about this, because a) I added the PDF to my welcome page on or around the same date, which means I can publicly undermine his ‘reasoning’ without being a big old hypocrite – my complaint to Justice Hatcher resulted in the temporary removal of the decision – and b) his decision is damning…for him.
In my opinion.
I strongly feel that he isn’t aware of how poorly he comes across. In fact, therein lies a kind of irony when you consider his reference to supposed ad hominem attacks on my part. Much of his criticism of me is reminiscent of the same mud slinging he accused me of engaging in. Me; the ‘unreliable narrator’, who cried loudly and put forth ‘obtuse’ arguments.
When I received the decision, it was my birthday. I’d submitted the Unfair Dismissal application exactly a year prior. Birthdays are a construct to me at this point, but having two in a row tainted by institutional degeneracy is just rude. I immediately realised that he’d put my suicide attempts in the tagline and republished my suicide note in full. I fell apart. I don’t remember a great deal after this. I know I wanted to die. I know I sent emails to the Commission and messages to my dad and best friend. I took off in my car, because I didn’t want to be hospitalised. The delivery of this highly distressing decision without adequate safeguards was irresponsible.
This, alongside other negligent conduct, lends credence to my belief that the executives from Services Australia involved in the dismissal, my accusers and Deputy President Lake had no regard for my psychological safety. I’m very fortunate that my support system intervened once again, but I feel immense guilt over the emotional impact my frequent suicidality has had on my loved ones. Ensuring I could organise a support person to be with me when I received the decision should have been instinctual.
I’d like to believe that receiving this news on my birthday was an unfortunate coincidence, but people have suggested to me that it may have actually been deliberate. My date of birth did feature in two documents before the commission, but I wont allow my thought process to dwell in that possibility.
The appeal refusal decision was also delivered in a similarly negligent manner, but I had prepared myself for it to be unsuccessful, which meant that I was less impacted. In this case, I spent only four days in bed, as opposed to the suicidal ideation and a week of pure catatonia that occurred after the original decision was handed down.
One can only speculate about Deputy President Lake’s overall intent and apparent disregard for my psychological safety, but I did find some interesting information about him. Now, I will preface this by saying that I understand having a formal law degree is not a requirement of being a commission member, but it appears that his background is not in law; before his appointment to the Fairwork Commission in 2019, he specialised in public sector and corporate HR.
Do with that information what you will. Speculate. It’s fun.
Interestingly, according to the transcript of his induction into the Fairwork Commission, Deputy President Lake holds a BA in Psychology and a MA in clinical psychology. I found this particularly irksome, given his continued dismissal of my diagnosed cognitive disabilities. But then I remembered that my generation of women exited the uterus with unofficial FBI qualifications, so I did some research and dug around in my own weird brain, because I remembered something pertinent.
I could not find any evidence that Deputy President Lake ever practiced psychology, but if he is in his mid 60’s, I suspect that he may hold outdated beliefs. Here’s where my hyperfixation into the history of psychology is relevant. Assuming that he retained his degrees when the DSM III was in issue, which is when behaviourism dominated the 1980’s curriculum, this may partially explain why he seemed to conflate my ADHD symptoms with poor character. The DSM prior to this listed homosexuality as a mental illness and this was the same decade as the AID’s crisis, where the label GRID was initially used and the term ‘Gay Cancer’ was thrown around. It’s safe to say that many of the belief systems in this time period were downright egregious.
If anyone happens upon this post and has made it this far, you might think that I’m making a lot of assumptions and connections where there are none. I mean, Deputy President Lake yielded to this particular method, so when in Rome right? But I promise there is actual substance to my timeline. According to the Australian Government Directory, he is set to finish his term in February 2027 and Deputy Presidents can only hold their position until the age of 65. That would put Lake at 64, meaning his birth year would be 1962. If he attended uni at 18, studied for 6 years to obtain his bachelors and masters, he would have graduated around 1986, when ADHD was inherently stigmatised.
I’m relieved that he might be close to retirement and we will have a party. With a piñata.
The individuals who bungled everything, who consistently asserted that their mental health was being impacted by my reaction to their negligence and coercive behaviour were protected by the Commission. No independent evidence was ever presented to corroborate such grievances, yet they were believed. I provided a plethora of medical documentation as proof of my need for additional support and the very real deterioration caused by their consistent mistreatment, but my harm was minimised. My concern is that Deputy President Lake’s findings will encourage the individuals in question to continue victimising vulnerable APS staff and customers.
Much of what I’m alleging exists in evidence that I can’t release. I can prove some of it, however my hope is that this becomes a broader public issue, that others will petition the Commision and Services Australia for transparency.
Failing that, I suspect that most individuals with an ounce of discernment can see where Deputy President Lake contradicts himself in his own decision. That’s a decent starting off point. Then, once I’ve proven that someone with his level of authority was willing to misrepresent and misstate the evidence, the petty side of me hopes that everything else will unravel for this soon to be retiree.
*Naturally I can’t locate the transcript of his induction but I specifically recall feeling shocked when I read about his background.
