PGS ASAs John Francas and Lars Mysen cannot Prove Defamation with Forgeries

EXPLAIN THE 25 OCTOBER 2013 MEMO PGS ASA: john.francas@pgs.com, lars.mysen@pgs.com DUENSING – KIPPEN (OLAF DUENSING and TIPPAYA MOONMANEE) WATSON FARLEY & WILLIAMS: NAulak@wfw.com,

PGS ASA: kristin.omreng@pgs.com,
gareth.jones@pgs.com, rune.olav.pedersen@pgs.com, gottfred.langseth@pgs.com,
berit.osnes@pgs.com, carlrichards1@googlemail.com

EXPLAIN THE 25 OCTOBER 2013 MEMO DUENSING – KIPPEN (OLAF DUENSING and TIPPAYA MOONMANEE) PGS ASA: john.francas@pgs.com, lars.mysen@pgs.com WATSON FARLEY & WILLIAMS: NAulak@wfw.com, PGS ASA: kristin.omreng@pgs.com,
gareth.jones@pgs.com, rune.olav.pedersen@pgs.com, gottfred.langseth@pgs.com,
berit.osnes@pgs.com, carlrichards1@googlemail.com

John Francas / PGS ASA have never cited a breach in the Confidentiality clauses of SDK – PGS Exploration (UK) Limited contracts (2010 & 2013) prohibiting disparaging parties. However, SDK cites several PGS ASA breaches in these agreements!

John Francas, PGS UK Head of Legal, Ignorance and the Fraud of Omission (4 October 2019)

What’s wrong with English contracts governed by the laws of England, PGS?

18 U.S. Code § 876.Mailing threatening communications
(b)Whoever, with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, so deposits, or causes to be delivered, as aforesaid, any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of the addressee or of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

NORWAY’S PGS ASA EXPORTS CORRUPTION and BRIBES DUENSING – KIPPEN in THAILAND because PGS ASA has NO Evidence of DEFAMATION in UK

EXPLAIN THE 25 OCTOBER 2013 MEMO DUENSING – KIPPEN (OLAF DUENSING and TIPPAYA MOONMANEE) PGS ASA: john.francas@pgs.com, lars.mysen@pgs.com WATSON FARLEY & WILLIAMS: NAulak@wfw.com, PGS ASA: kristin.omreng@pgs.com,
gareth.jones@pgs.com, rune.olav.pedersen@pgs.com, gottfred.langseth@pgs.com,
berit.osnes@pgs.com, carlrichards1@googlemail.com
EXPLAIN THE 25 OCTOBER 2013 MEMO DUENSING – KIPPEN (OLAF DUENSING and TIPPAYA MOONMANEE) PGS ASA: john.francas@pgs.com, lars.mysen@pgs.com WATSON FARLEY & WILLIAMS: NAulak@wfw.com, PGS ASA: kristin.omreng@pgs.com,
gareth.jones@pgs.com, rune.olav.pedersen@pgs.com, gottfred.langseth@pgs.com,
berit.osnes@pgs.com, carlrichards1@googlemail.com

USA FEDERAL LAW VIOLATIONS – RACKETEERING INFLUENCED and CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT (RICO)

18 U.S. Code § 912.Officer or employee of the United States
Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
EXPLAIN THE 25 OCTOBER 2013 MEMO DUENSING – KIPPEN (OLAF DUENSING and TIPPAYA MOONMANEE) PGS ASA: john.francas@pgs.com, lars.mysen@pgs.com WATSON FARLEY & WILLIAMS: NAulak@wfw.com, PGS ASA: kristin.omreng@pgs.com,
gareth.jones@pgs.com, rune.olav.pedersen@pgs.com, gottfred.langseth@pgs.com,
berit.osnes@pgs.com, carlrichards1@googlemail.com
EXPLAIN THE 25 OCTOBER 2013 MEMO DUENSING – KIPPEN (OLAF DUENSING and TIPPAYA MOONMANEE) PGS ASA: john.francas@pgs.com, lars.mysen@pgs.com WATSON FARLEY & WILLIAMS: NAulak@wfw.com, PGS ASA: kristin.omreng@pgs.com,
gareth.jones@pgs.com, rune.olav.pedersen@pgs.com, gottfred.langseth@pgs.com,
berit.osnes@pgs.com, carlrichards1@googlemail.com

DON’T LET NORWAY’S PGS ASA EXPORT CORRUPTION to THAILAND

PINTEREST KNOW NORWAY’s PGS and THAILANDS DUENSING – KIPPEN IN PICTURES
EXPLAIN THE 25 OCTOBER 2013 MEMO DUENSING – KIPPEN (OLAF DUENSING and TIPPAYA MOONMANEE)
Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Mob Gaslighting
EXPLAIN THE 25 OCTOBER 2013 MEMO DUENSING – KIPPEN (OLAF DUENSING and TIPPAYA MOONMANEE) PGS ASA: john.francas@pgs.com, lars.mysen@pgs.com WATSON FARLEY & WILLIAMS: NAulak@wfw.com, PGS ASA: kristin.omreng@pgs.com,
gareth.jones@pgs.com, rune.olav.pedersen@pgs.com, gottfred.langseth@pgs.com,
berit.osnes@pgs.com, carlrichards1@googlemail.com

PGS ASA and Duensing – Kippen Broke USA Federal Law and Illegally Copied SDK Passport to Stalk and Harass SDK and form an ILLEGAL FALSE CLAIM. PGS ASA want SDK to STOP Legally Protected WHISTLEBLOWING. PGS ASA wants SDK to Destroy Evidence of PGS ASA CRIMES!

###

Response to PGS ASA Notice of breach of Compromise Agreement

Discovery in Texas: Investigate and Prepare for Trial

PGS ASA: Explain the 25 Oct MEMO!

to:John Francas <John.Francas@pgs.com>
cc:lars.mysen@pgs.com,
GDPR <gdpr@pgs.com>,
rune.olav.pedersen@pgs.com,
gottfred.langseth@pgs.com,
gareth.jones@pgs.com,
kristin.omreng@pgs.com
date:Apr 23, 2020, 9:03 AM
subject:Re: Notice of breach of Compromise Agreement

The Thai Litigation Criminal Claim Leading to the Compromise Agreement Included Reference to an Unanswered “Open Letter to the PGS ASA Board of Directors.” The PGS ASA General Counsel, Lars Mysen, signed-off on the Thai Claim (s). PGS ASA Board of Directors (of a Norwegian Company) are the Plaintiffs

PGS ASA/John Francas,

This is acknowledgement that I received, by e-mail,  the Notice of breach of Compromise Agreement, dated 23 April 2020, (the “Thailand Extortion”)

The Thailand Extortion does not reference a physical address for legal correspondence, but only an e-mail address (Clause 3).  PGS ASA / John Francas were notified 3 July 2019 that I was not residing in Thailand.  Why has PGS ASA delivered firm copies of legal document to an address in Thailand?

Would you please send me notarized copies of the referenced Thailand Extortion that Steven D. Kalavity signed?

Also, please send details and legal credentials of the agent(s) representing PGS Exploration (UK) Limited for PGS ASAs claims in the USA/Texas.

Please send me acknowledgement and responses to the e-mails sent to PGS ASA agents following the delivery of the summons (13 September 2018) and the signing of the Thailand Extortion  ([11 November 2018 “Compromise Agreement”]).

As you know, I was employed by PGS ASAs USA subsidiary in Houston, Texas.

I would also like to receive copies of the employment contracts signed between myself and PGS Exploration (UK) Limited in 2010 and 2013 (advised by legal firm Watson, Farley & Williams (the “UK Legal Contracts“).

What is the status of the UK Legal Contracts in context to the Thailand Extortion?  Please also send me confirmation of PGS ASA employee, Gareth Jones, legal agency (employer) from 2013 – 2020?   

Please send a copy of my PGS ASA personnel file, which is the predicate behind all my online publications.

The Thailand Extortion is being prosecuted on behalf of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited directors, Gottfred Langseth, Christin Steen-Nilsen, and Rune Olav Pedersen. Please correct me if I am wrong, but PGS ASAs USA subsidiary, Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc., Houston, Texas has directors Gottfred Langseth, Christin Steen-Nilsen and Jon Erik Reinhardsen, who have legal fiduciary responsibilities for PGS ASA USA matters? 

Similarly, please send credentials and authorization of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited agent Duensing – Kippen to draft legal agreements for adjudication in the Federal Courts of Harris County, Texas, USA.

PGS ASA has not yet acknowledged my submitted [subject access request] 15 April 2020.  Please do so, and I would also like PGS ASA to respond to subsequent e-mail correspondence, especially the e-mail sent 22 April 2020.

Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail, as well.

Regards,

SDK

—————-

More PGA ASA Blackmail / Extortion ….

Dear Mr Kalavity

Notice of Breach of Compromise Agreement

Under the terms of a Compromise Agreement of Criminal Case between PGS Exploration (UK) (PGS) Limited and Steven D Kalavity dated 9 November 2011 (the “Compromise Agreement”), you agreed that you would not publish or cause to be published the Publication or similar content on any website, social media platform or any other digital or physical media including, without limitation, by email.

You breached the Compromise Agreement in 2018 and you received notices to that effect pursuant to Clause 3 of the Compromise Agreement on 30 April 2019 and 7 May 2019 instructing you to remove or amend such material. You did not do so. As such PGS are taking civil and criminal proceedings against you in Thailand, as we are entitled to do under Clause 6 of the Compromise Agreement. Note that in the event PGS prevail in such proceedings against you, you will be liable to PGS on an indemnity basis for PGS’s full legal costs. This will be enforced against you as a debt.

You have published the Publication and more similar content in breach of Clause 2 of the Compromise agreement on your websites www.marineseismicsurvey.com and www.nopgs.org.

This email constitutes notice in accordance with our obligations under Clause 3 of the Compromise Agreement. PGS hereby notifies you in accordance with Clause 3 of the Compromise Agreement that publishing of the material on
www.marineseismicsurvey.com and www.nopgs.org is a breach of Clause 2 of the Compromise Agreement and must be removed from those websites. You have three (3) days to comply with this notice by removing the material or amending it so that it does not mention PGS or its Affiliates or employees.

Under Clause 4 of the Compromise Agreement you agreed to pay a penalty of USD $50,000, which shall constitute a debt from you to PGS. In the event that the material has not been removed by 2 pm UK time on 26 April 2020, PGS shall without further notice to you instigate debt recovery proceedings against you for all penalty sums due to PGS occasioned by this and your previous violations of Clause 2. Such proceedings may include bankruptcy proceedings available to PGS under relevant applicable laws.

In addition to proceedings against you in Thailand, we reserve the right to issue further proceedings against you in Texas for breach of contract in accordance with our rights under Clause 6 of the Compromise Agreement. Note that in the event PGS prevail in these further proceedings against you, you will be liable to PGS on an indemnity basis for PGS’s full legal costs. This, again, will be enforced against you as a debt.

For and on behalf of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited

###

Response to PGS ASA Notice of breach of Compromise Agreement

PGS ASA: Explain the 25 Oct MEMO!

to:John Francas <John.Francas@pgs.com>
cc:lars.mysen@pgs.com,
GDPR <gdpr@pgs.com>,
rune.olav.pedersen@pgs.com,
gottfred.langseth@pgs.com,
gareth.jones@pgs.com,
kristin.omreng@pgs.com
date:Apr 23, 2020, 9:03 AM
subject:Re: Notice of breach of Compromise Agreement

The Thai Litigation Criminal Claim Leading to the Compromise Agreement Included Reference to an Unanswered “Open Letter to the PGS ASA Board of Directors.” The PGS ASA General Counsel, Lars Mysen, signed-off on the Thai Claim (s). PGS ASA Board of Directors (of a Norwegian Company) are the Plaintiffs

PGS ASA/John Francas,

This is acknowledgement that I received, by e-mail,  the Notice of breach of Compromise Agreement, dated 23 April 2020, (the “Thailand Extortion”)

The Thailand Extortion does not reference a physical address for legal correspondence, but only an e-mail address (Clause 3).  PGS ASA / John Francas were notified 3 July 2019 that I was not residing in Thailand.  Why has PGS ASA delivered firm copies of legal document to an address in Thailand?

Would you please send me notarized copies of the referenced Thailand Extortion that Steven D. Kalavity signed?

Also, please send details and legal credentials of the agent(s) representing PGS Exploration (UK) Limited for PGS ASAs claims in the USA/Texas.

Please send me acknowledgement and responses to the e-mails sent to PGS ASA agents following the delivery of the summons (13 September 2018) and the signing of the Thailand Extortion  ([11 November 2018 “Compromise Agreement”]).

As you know, I was employed by PGS ASAs USA subsidiary in Houston, Texas.

I would also like to receive copies of the employment contracts signed between myself and PGS Exploration (UK) Limited in 2010 and 2013 (advised by legal firm Watson, Farley & Williams (the “UK Legal Contracts“).

What is the status of the UK Legal Contracts in context to the Thailand Extortion?  Please also send me confirmation of PGS ASA employee, Gareth Jones, legal agency (employer) from 2013 – 2020?   

Please send a copy of my PGS ASA personnel file, which is the predicate behind all my online publications.

The Thailand Extortion is being prosecuted on behalf of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited directors, Gottfred Langseth, Christin Steen-Nilsen, and Rune Olav Pedersen. Please correct me if I am wrong, but PGS ASAs USA subsidiary, Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc., Houston, Texas has directors Gottfred Langseth, Christin Steen-Nilsen and Jon Erik Reinhardsen, who have legal fiduciary responsibilities for PGS ASA USA matters? 

Similarly, please send credentials and authorization of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited agent Duensing – Kippen to draft legal agreements for adjudication in the Federal Courts of Harris County, Texas, USA.

PGS ASA has not yet acknowledged my submitted [subject access request] 15 April 2020.  Please do so, and I would also like PGS ASA to respond to subsequent e-mail correspondence, especially the e-mail sent 22 April 2020.

Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail, as well.

Regards,

SDK

—————-

Dear Mr Kalavity

Notice of Breach of Compromise Agreement

Under the terms of a Compromise Agreement of Criminal Case between PGS Exploration (UK) (PGS) Limited and Steven D Kalavity dated 9 November 2011 (the “Compromise Agreement”), you agreed that you would not publish or cause to be published the Publication or similar content on any website, social media platform or any other digital or physical media including, without limitation, by email.

You breached the Compromise Agreement in 2018 and you received notices to that effect pursuant to Clause 3 of the Compromise Agreement on 30 April 2019 and 7 May 2019 instructing you to remove or amend such material. You did not do so. As such PGS are taking civil and criminal proceedings against you in Thailand, as we are entitled to do under Clause 6 of the Compromise Agreement. Note that in the event PGS prevail in such proceedings against you, you will be liable to PGS on an indemnity basis for PGS’s full legal costs. This will be enforced against you as a debt.

You have published the Publication and more similar content in breach of Clause 2 of the Compromise agreement on your websites www.marineseismicsurvey.com and www.nopgs.org.

This email constitutes notice in accordance with our obligations under Clause 3 of the Compromise Agreement. PGS hereby notifies you in accordance with Clause 3 of the Compromise Agreement that publishing of the material on
www.marineseismicsurvey.com and www.nopgs.org is a breach of Clause 2 of the Compromise Agreement and must be removed from those websites. You have three (3) days to comply with this notice by removing the material or amending it so that it does not mention PGS or its Affiliates or employees.

Under Clause 4 of the Compromise Agreement you agreed to pay a penalty of USD $50,000, which shall constitute a debt from you to PGS. In the event that the material has not been removed by 2 pm UK time on 26 April 2020, PGS shall without further notice to you instigate debt recovery proceedings against you for all penalty sums due to PGS occasioned by this and your previous violations of Clause 2. Such proceedings may include bankruptcy proceedings available to PGS under relevant applicable laws.

In addition to proceedings against you in Thailand, we reserve the right to issue further proceedings against you in Texas for breach of contract in accordance with our rights under Clause 6 of the Compromise Agreement. Note that in the event PGS prevail in these further proceedings against you, you will be liable to PGS on an indemnity basis for PGS’s full legal costs. This, again, will be enforced against you as a debt.

For and on behalf of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited

###

Irresponsible PGS ASA Refuses to Acknowledge Receipt of Subject Access Request

to:GDPR <gdpr@pgs.com>,
John Francas <john.francas@pgs.com>,
lars.mysen@pgs.com
cc:NAulak@wfw.com,
berit.osnes@pgs.com,
gareth.jones@pgs.com,
gottfred.langseth@pgs.com,
rune.olav.pedersen@pgs.com,
rob.adams@pgs.com,
nathan.oliver@pgs.com
date:Apr 22, 2020, 4:59 PM
subject:Fwd: GDPR 2020 Subject Access Request

RE: Steven D. Kalavity

       GDPR

PGS GDPR DPO,

I submitted a subject access request 15 April 2020 that has not been acknowledged.

Could PGS ASA please acknowledge?

I would like to reference the Response to Access Request Dated 11 June 2018 (the “Access Request”) dated 16 July 2018 and signed by John Francas, Head of Legal, UK, Africa, and Middle East for PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (the “Fraudulent Letter”)

It seems that PGS intentionally provided material misrepresentations and also withheld material information from the data subject in this Fraudulent Letter.  Please clarify if the data subject has misinterpreted the Fraudulent Letter.

———————–

The Fraudulent Letter states:

You should also note that under the terms of the settlement agreement between you and PGS dated 5 December 2013 (the “Settlement Agreement”) you agreed not to further pursue your grievance or any analogous or substantially similar or other grievance against PGS and that PGS, nor any other company in the PGS group, shall have any further obligation to you in respect to such grievances.

———————–

The majority of my online publications do not repeat the issues of the 20 September 2013 grievance (thegrievance”) which is referenced in the Settlement Agreement. I would appreciate it if PGS ASA would specifically reference the contents of the grievance, to avoid ambiguity, since the grievance is quite long.  However, as PGS ASA can reference from the copy of the grievance being processed by PGS, the Form of Grievance introduction states:

———————–

In response to the fore-mentioned meeting and the Investigation for Possible Implementation of a Performance Improvement Plan, I am initiating the grievance procedure due to my belief that PGS Contract Sales – Africa has breached in practice and principle UK labor laws, PGS Core Values, PGS UK Personnel Handbook practices, as well as established best practices as presented through PGS contracted training and development courses.

It is my contention that Contract Sales – Africa work environment is unsafe/unhealthy.

Further, the Contract Sales – Africa Manager has breached his trust and authority through exercising negative behaviors consistent with workplace bullying, harassment, discrimination, defamation and negligence.

———————–

The topic of most of my online publications have been in regard to the documents and processes which supported and led to my signing the Settlement AgreementThe grievance presented to PGS ASA executive management was protected disclosures, or whistleblowing, according to the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA):     

———————–

PIDA

Part IV A Protected disclosures

43A Meaning of “protected disclosure”.

In this Act a “protected disclosure” means a qualifying disclosure (as defined by section 43B) which is made by a worker in accordance with any of sections 43C to 43H.

43B Disclosures qualifying for protection.

(1) In this Part a “qualifying disclosure” means any disclosure of information which, in the reasonable belief of the worker making the disclosure, tends to show one or more of the following—

(a)that a criminal offence has been committed, is being committed or is likely to be committed,

(b)that a person has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation to which he is subject,

(c)that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur,

(d)that the health or safety of any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered,

(e)that the environment has been, is being or is likely to be damaged, or

(f)that information tending to show any matter falling within any one of the preceding paragraphs has been, is being or is likely to be deliberately concealed.

———————–

In October 2014, I submitted a subject access request (the “2014 SAR”) so that I could obtain the personal data that PGS was processing in my name.  Firm copies of e-mail records and the contents of my PGS professional personnel file (“personnel file”) was mailed from Weybridge, England to my residence (at the time) in Houston, Texas, USA. 

It was immediately recognized by me, the data subject, that several of the documents within the personnel file being processed are defamatory forgeries that are not legally verifiable.  No one can verify them as authentic, because the documents are not signed by the data subject nor supported by accompanying documentation evidence.  (I challenge PGS data processor, John Francas, a lawyer, to authenticate to the standard required by a court of law (England) the documents that were delivered to me.  Also, the dates on the documents indicate that they were processed to support the Settlement Agreement.  In other words, illegal documents were used to process the Settlement Agreement.  This revelation of more (alleged) criminal activity has been the topic of most of the queries e-mailed to PGS agents and content which I have published online.  This content is also protected disclosure, but not the same protected disclosure that was revealed within the grievance.

———————–

PGS references the 2014 SAR within the Fraudulent Letter:

We [PGS] have determined that applicable law allows us to deny your request on the basis that processing of your personal data, if any, that may have occurred since your previous request on 10 October 2014 (the “2014 SAR”) would have only been performed in order to seek privileged legal advice in respect to your various direct and indirect communication with or about PGS and/or its employees. Accordingly, we are denying your request under the Data Protection Act 2018, Schedule 2, paragraph 19(a).

In any event, we consider your request manifestly unfounded or excessive under GDPR Article 12(5)(b). In particular they are repetitive given the 2014 SAR and subsequent persistent requests in email correspondence in December 2014 and repeated requests in June 2018 in the days following the Access Request. It is our view that PGS provided you with a substantive response and documents in respect to the 2014 SAR.

———————–

It should be emphasized, again, that my repeated requests are a derivative of PGS ignoring my direct or indirect communications with or about PGS and/or its employees.  PGS has had multiple opportunities to answer simple questions, but irresponsibly refuse to do so, as with the Fraudulent Letter that answers nothing and instead makes continued online publications and queries inevitable.

Of course, PGS is aware that I rejected their citing Data Protection Act 2018, Schedule 2, paragraph 19(a) as a reason for denying a responsible response to my several queries stemming from the 2014 SAR response.  If PGS actually read and acknowledged the contents of my online publications, PGS would understand that I believe that PGS continues to utter forged defamatory documents (criminal behavior) as my personal data. 

———————–

Data Protection Act 2018, Schedule 2, paragraph 19(a) – Legal Professional Privilege

19 The listed GDPR provisions do not apply to personal data that consists of –

Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege or, in Scotland, confidentiality of communications, could be maintained in legal proceedings.

One of the exceptions to the attorney-client privilege is the crime-fraud exception.  This exception applies when communications are made in the furtherance of a crime or fraud.  In other words, the attorney-client privilege is not a shield to be used by either the attorney or the client to pursue or cover up criminal activity, including acts contributing to the obstruction or perversion of justice.

———————–

With regard to the 2014 SAR, during November – December 2014, following the receipt of the data received from PGS, I wrote several e-mails stating my concerns about the integrity of the data that PGS processed in my name.  On 22 December 2014, PGS sent a response letter to me by post and e-mail (the Extortion Letter):

———————–

Data Processing Queries – PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (the “Company”)

I am writing further your e-mail correspondence of 5, 6, and 20 December 2014.

Please be aware that, to the extent that your queries and comments relate to issues which were not raised in your grievance of 20 September 2013, the Company is willing to take reasonable and proportionate steps to accommodate your requests.

———————–

Instead, a copy of your email of 5 December has been placed on your personnel file (and is held also in our email and document database), and the points you have raised about the data we hold are accordingly held together with your other personal data. We regard this as a satisfactory and proportionate approach to our obligation to ensure that personal data held about you is accurate.

———————–

The only point which we think might possibly not be clear from that material would be the identities of those who have had access to your hard copy personnel file. The people who have had access to the hard copy personnel file (a copy of which was provided to you) are myself, Laura Haswell, Gareth Jones, Anna Stokle and Simon Cather, all in our capacities as your management and HR employees of the Company.

———————–

You should also be aware that, to the extent the Company incurs losses by reason of further breaches of your agreement not to pursue matters raised in that grievance, its rights are reserved to (among other remedies) bring damages claims against you for breach of contract in respect of those losses.

———————–

The Extortion Letter similarly misrepresented my concerns with the content received from the 2014 SAR as relating to the issues raised within the grievance.  I was now raising issues with how the grievance was settled.  The grievance itself claimed that PGS ASA was breaking the law and in breach of employment contract and PGS (UK) policy, which was whistleblowing.  Upon receiving the copies of data being processed in my name by PGS, I now believed that defamatory forged documents were illegally used to process the Settlement Agreement.  PGS stating that they would process the Dispute E-mail as a satisfactory and proportionate approach to our obligation to ensure that personal data held about you is accurate” is acknowledging that inaccurate data was processed to support the Settlement Agreement.  However, I did not regard that simply processing correct data after weaponized fraudulent data was used to affect a termination under false pretenses was a proportionate remedy.  Not only did PGS process inaccurate (defamatory) data, but so did all the lawyers involved in using the inaccurate data.  This implied a criminal conspiracy to defraud a whistleblower and terminate him illegally with a fraudulent Settlement Agreement.  PGS’ solution was neither acceptable nor proportionate to the data subject and victim of crimes! 

I did not come to these conclusions immediately after receiving the 2014 SAR response contents.  However, I did immediately believe that PGS was in breach of the Settlement AgreementHowever, I hadn’t yet imagined the broader conspiracy and what it implied.  The binding nature of settlement agreements made legal redress problematic.  On 3 July 2015, I published on the LinkedIn™ Pulse platform, An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data”PGS never invoked the Confidentiality clauses within the Settlement Agreement prohibiting the publication of disparaging content.  I believed that this was protected public disclosure.  On 24 August 2015, I submitted a report to UK ActionFraud (police).  I continued to publish on the LinkedIn™ Pulse platform.  On 6 September 2015, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign was published on the LinkedIn™ Pulse platform, followed on 20 September 2015 with, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign II, that actually presented documented evidence that PGS was uttering forged documents as my personal data.  (These articles now are published on marineseismicsurvey.com.)  Again, PGS didn’t invoke the Confidentiality clauses of disparaging content which I was trying to provoke.  In October 2015, I moved from the USA to Thailand.

I continued to publish protected disclosure on the LinkedIn™ Pulse platform.  On 20 April 2016, I submitted another SAR (the “2016 SAR”) to the PGS Compliance Hotline composed of PGS General Counsel, Rune Olav Pedersen; PGS Senior Vice President Global Human Resources, Terje Bjølseth; and Vice President Compliance and Internal Audit, Silke Hitschkes.  My intentions for notifying the PGS Compliance Hotline were to formally present my concerns regarding the integrity of the data PGS was processing in my name so that it would be processed, but also to provoke a response to my publications on the LinkedIn™ Pulse platform.  I especially wanted PGS compliance comment confirm the contents published within the 20 September 2015 article where evidence to support my allegations was presented.  PGS issued the following statement on 20 May 2016:

———————–

Mr. Kalavity

PGS has followed up your complaint through the Compliance Hotline in accordance with our procedures.  No deviations from PGS’ procedures or guidelines were uncovered and none of the documents placed in your employee folder was found to contain false or misleading information about you.  No evidence found indicate that you were defrauded.  The case dealing with your complaint is hereby closed.

———————–

PGS provided no evidence nor an investigation report to back-up this ridiculous statement.  PGS also did not reference nor comment on any of the content posted on the LinkedIn™ Pulse platform, the Extortion Letter, nor referenced the Dispute E-mail.  On 24 May 2016, I published a response to the PGS Hotline in the form of a blog post, The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of FraudThe title accuses PGS of criminal behavior.  PGS refused to address simple concerns and questions.  I continued to post articles on the LinkedIn™ Pulse platform, post queries in the PGS’ LinkedIn™comment space, as well as send e-mails to PGS Compliance Team members.  In August 2016, I was restricted from LinkedIn™.  PGS had complained that I defamed them.  PGS irresponsible misrepresentation of protected disclosure with defamation.  PGS never invoked the contractual non-disparagement clauses of the Settlement Agreement.  I always considered my published content as protected public disclosure and rejected PGS’ claim that the publications were “defamation.”  Further, many of the publications are identified as “whistleblowing.”  Regardless, in-house counsel for a company should understand what is legally considered protected public disclosure.  The Settlement Agreement is governed by the laws of England, hence PIDA is referenced. 

Copies of the e-mails sent to PGS Compliance Hotline from April – September 2016 were intentionally provided to PGS with the 2018 SAR.  The Fraudulent Letter intentionally omits reference to 2016 SAR. Retaliating against whistleblowing, most notably through acts contributing to the obstruction or perversion of justice, is what PGS has done consistently since forming the Settlement Agreement.  There was something even more sinister and egregious withheld from the PGS’ 2018 SAR response.  On 13 September 2018, PGS delivered a court summons for a criminal defamation claim while I was traveling outside Thailand to/in the USA.  The summons was in the Thai language.  The summons was to address a criminal defamation complaint.  PGS had never once commented on any content that I had published prior Thai law firm, Duensing – Kippen delivering the summons on behalf of PGS.  Duensing – Kippen delivered the firm copies of the summons and claims to the address of my wife and family where I stayed.  I never had provided either my e-mail address or physical address to Duensing – Kippen.  I had to rush back to Thailand and see what was distressing my family.  PGS violated GDPR and transferred my personal data outside the EEA to Thailand law firm Duensing – Kippen without my consent.  This included a copy of my USA passport, which is also a crime under USA Federal law. 

My personal data had been provided to PGS for the explicit purpose of identification to process the 2018 SAR.  The claim was prepared by PGS 10 July 2018.  The 2018 SAR response is dated 16 July 2018.  PGS had acknowledged receipt of the 2018 SAR on 18 June 2018.  PGS had already processed my personal data, likely illegally, and did not disclose this within their 2018 SAR response.  Further, PGS illegally stalked my travels using the illegally obtained personal data. PGS illegally provided my USA passport data to Duensing – Kippen, who also illegally copied my USA passport without my consent to advance a fraud.  The summons was received by me in the USA, which again is USA Federal Wire Fraud.  I am also convinced this entire organized crime enterprise facilitated by PGS violates the USA Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO), and will advance this to the extent which I am capable.  PGS has perverted the course of justice through denying me due process facilitated through the bribery of corrupt lawyers.  When I returned to Thailand, I had to confront these allegations with very little time to consider and prepare.  Nevertheless, I e-mailed several e-mails to PGS asking so many questions.  Many of these e-mails were written from the USA, as well. 

I want PGS to stop their perverting the course of justice and finally address the issues and questions which have been asked since the fraud initiated whilst in Weybridge, England June 2013.  I am demanding that PGS provide me with the purported Thailand arrest warrants that they sponsored through Duensing – Kippen.  I also want all of the original data supporting the claims processed in England prior to their translation into the Thai language.  There is no way that PGS could process a legal claim of defamation without authenticating the data and processes that created the contents of my professional personnel file.  Also, any legal claim would need to be composed of the full-body of publications that were published when the claim was formed, including articles that had been delivered to PGS Compliance from April – September 2016.  Finally, most of my publications were published on nopgs.com.  This site was taken down in December 2018 and evidence destroyed while Kingdom of Thailand and USA Federal litigation was pending, per the signed 11 November 2018 Duensing – Kippen agreement.  PGS and Duensing – Kippen need to explain what happened to nopgs.com?

Regards,

SDK

Lars Mysen, Norway ‘s PGS ASA General Counsel, Perverts the Course of Justice

PGS ASA Refuse to even Acknowledge a General Data Protection Requirement (GDPR) Subject Access Request (SAR). Personal Data Integrity is a Human Right that PGS ASA and Equinor Violate Daily.

Silence is Consent

Norway’s Whistleblower Protection Laws are Worthless if the Country Remains a Major Exporter of Corruption Misusing Oil Revenue to Bribe and Protect the Entitled Corporate Executive Class while Depriving the Working Class Globally and Creating an Impoverished Underclass. Corrupt Corporate Boards of Directors and Executives are allowed to not Invoke Contractual Confidentiality non-Disparagement Clauses that Protect Brand Reputation and Enhance Value. Their Silence is a Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Arrogance of the Self-Entitled who are allowed to Reside Above the law, Free from Justice and Exempted from Due Process. It’s a Travesty and Norwegians and all People Should Revolt against these Charlatan’s and Boycott Equinor, Telenor, and PGS ASA! Anything Connected to Criminal Cunt, Jon Erik Reinhardsen is Corrupt at its Core. Investigate Jon Erik Reinhardsen. Explain the 13 October 2013 Memo, Jon Erik Reinhardsen, you Gutless and Corrupt Mother-F**ker. Too Scared to Invoke the Confidentiality non-Disparagement Terms and Conditions of PGS ASAs Fraudulent Contracts! In a Fair Fight, Child Abusing and Elderly Terrorizing Cowards like Jon Erik Reinhardsen would be Sucking their Testicles through a Straw!

I would be ashamed to be an employee or investor of PGS ASA. In Nazi Germany, citizens feared the sadistic regime. The laws supported the unconscionable brutality toward the helpless. This is not the case with Norway or PGS ASA. There are laws and core values attached to citizenship and employment that admonish workplace bullying and harassment. What is the excuse for employees aiding and abetting Hitlerian sociopaths and criminals? How can so many be so weak? Real power is on the side of doing the right thing and helping the righteous. SDK has been astounded by what moral cowards his former co-workers and hosts were are. What depth of evil would defend these pieces of shit who knowingly withheld a medical report, bullied and harassed a foreign worker with no ties to the community? PGS ASA Board of Directors are criminals and cowards who couldn’t even fathom the hardship they cause much less live it. They all probably thought that they were so clever and entitled only to learn what complete dumb fucks they really were from a USA citizen not willing to be their punching bag. Common sense tells every cognoscente person can see that PGS ASA harbors criminals. Why would a person of honor and healthy self-esteem allow themselves to be disparaged and not to invoke the contractual Confidentiality non-disparagement clauses explicitly in place to stop such publications? Ethical leadership would never allow their employees to be disparaged if the possessed a legal instrument to stop it. There is a one-year limit on filing for defamation from the date content is first published. SDK first posted 3 July 2015.

They are all part of the evil! PGS ASA Board of Directors and management throw the law and core values out the window! PGS ASA bribed my solicitor, for God’s sake! PGS ASA broke the law! These people are such incredible cowards and criminals. And they re defended? Because of the internet, their cowardice, inhumanity, lack of true integrity and true professionalism will follow them. It is SDKs hope that some should go to prison. Followers who say nothing have made the decision to abandon ethical conduct and hurt people. They have chosen evil. But, SDK assures you, evil will lose!

Since 2016, it seemed clear that PGS ASA bribed lawyers to utter the forged documents to support a fraudulent settlement contract. SDK publications wanted to be so over the top that PGS ASA would have to invoke the terms and conditions of the contractual non-disparagement clauses. PGS ASA knows that they would have a lot of explaining to do in the English court of law and they avoid it. Once SDK started publishing images like the one below suggesting that there was a criminal conspiracy and lawyers were bribed to utter forged documents and illegally terminated a whistleblower for PGS ASA, a person claiming to be “Carl Richards”, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited Secretary, finally became alarmed and wrote an e-mail to boycottpgs@gmail.com. This was the e-mail provided for communicating about content on the NoPGS.com website where content was mostly published.

###

PGS ASA GDPR – JOHN “F**KHEAD” FRANCAS SDK Subject Access Request (SAR)

PGS ASA has transferred SDK Personal Data Outside EEA and Sponsored Litigation using SDK Processed / Translated Personal Data in Thailand without Consent

PGS ASA CEO & President, Rune Olav Pedersen, PGS ASA CFO & EVP, Gottfred Langseth, and PGS ASA Chief Accountant, Christin Steen-Nilsen serve as Directors for PGS ASA UK Subsidiary, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, Surrey, England KT13 0NY. The Directors sponsored litigation in Thailand against a former contracted foreign worker whistleblower.

SDK is a USA citizen and no longer lives in Thailand. PGS ASA has been aware that I reside outside Thailand and returned to the USA since July 2019, as confirmed in e-mail records from PGS UK Head of Legal, John Francas. Further, the referenced 11 November 2018 agreement has been disputed. However, the 11 November 2018 agreement does not declare a physical address for delivering legal notices. The document states an e-mail address. International personal data transfer is also regulated. SDK is not at liberty to stay in Thailand at the discretion of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited arbitrary and capricious”legal” decision making. Apparently, abiding by English law is too restrictive for PGS Exploration (UK) Limited.

Nonetheless, PGS ASA have continued to deliver firm copy “legal documents” through a hired Thai law firm, Duensing – Kippen. PGS ASA has delivered these threatening (extortion / blackmail) “legal notices” to SDK relatives. PGS ASA is intentionally terrorizing old people and children! PGS ASA has never responsibly sent their complaints to SDK directly by e-mail in English. Common sense dictates this would be the most effective approach if PGS ASA was truly concerned about SDK online legally protected public disclosures. The laws of England govern the terms and conditions of the 05 December 2013 termination settlement contract, which is referenced within PGS ASA 16 July 2018 SAR response to the data subject, SDK. This is the agreement SDK choses to abide by for the 15 April 2020 submitted SAR. The 5 December 2013 is also regarded as a fraudulent piece of shit, but according to PGS ASA 16 July 2018 SAR response, this contract remains valid.

————————————————–

Records show that PGS ASA / PGS Exploration (UK) Limited was processing / transferring SDK personal data to Thailand (outside the EEA) while processing an SDK 18 Jun 2018 submitted subject access request (SAR). PGS ASA / PGS Exploration (UK) Limited never disclosed nor received consent for this personal data transfer outside the EEA. Further, this sensitive personal data transfer included a photocopy of SDKs USA passport details that was explicitly provided to PGS ASA only to confirm the identity of the data subject for the SAR processing. PGS ASA knowingly withheld information about transferring subject data (SDK) outside the EEA when they had the legal responsibility to disclose (fraud). However, PGS ASA also broke USA Federal law. Photocopying a USA passport without consent is illegal under USA Federal law.

What Documents are Illegal to Photocopy?

PGS ASA also provided knowing misrepresentations with respect to SDKs data request that explicitly highlighted the processing of SDK e-mails sent to the PGS ASA Compliance Hotline that were never responded to. These e-mails to PGS ASA Compliance provided whistleblowing. SDK asked why these e-mails were never responded to? Copies of these communications were provided to PGS ASA Data Protection Officer (Daphne Bjerke). The response to the 18 June 2018 SDK SAR did not acknowledge the 2016 SAR, but highlighted the 2014 SAR response. Most publications referenced in the Criminal Defamation claim(s) filed in Thailand are in regard SDK disputing the integrity of the contents received from PGS ASA from the 2014 SAR. SDK has contended / published claims with evidence that PGS ASA is uttering forged defamatory unverified / unsigned documents as SDK personal data.

PGS ASA continues to defraud and defame the data subject, SDK. The reason that SDK has submitted a subject access request to PGS ASA in June 2018 is because PGS Exploration (UK) Limited Secretary Carl Richards had resigned 25 May 2018. Also, the General Data Protection Requirement (GDPR) had just replaced the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). Before resigning, Secretary Carl Richards had written threats about filing a criminal defamation suit against SDK as a private person. This would mean that Carl Richards was processing SDK personal data, or at least acknowledging SDK online published protected disclosures – whistleblowing. John Francas replaced Carl Richards and Daphne Bjerke was appointed PGS ASA Data Protection Agency. Daphne Bjerke and John Francas engaged in fraud to protect corrupt PGS ASA Board of Directors and Executives. From the 2014 SAR, SDK discovered that PGS ASA was uttering forged defamatory documents to support an illegally proffered settlement contract. PGS ASA refuses to comment on the unsigned and unverified forgeries which bribed lawyers processed to illegally terminate a foreign worker whistleblower.

PGS ASA continues to defraud and defame the data subject, SDK. The reason that SDK has submitted a subject access request to PGS ASA in June 2018 is because PGS Exploration (UK) Limited Secretary Carl Richards had resigned 25 May 2018. Also, the General Data Protection Requirement (GDPR) had just replaced the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). Before resigning, Secretary Carl Richards had written threats about filing a criminal defamation suit against SDK as a private person. This would mean that Carl Richards was processing SDK personal data, or at least acknowledging SDK online published protected disclosures – whistleblowing. John Francas replaced Carl Richards and Daphne Bjerke was appointed PGS ASA Data Protection Agency. Daphne Bjerke and John Francas engaged in fraud to protect corrupt PGS ASA Board of Directors and Executives. From the 2014 SAR, SDK discovered that PGS ASA was uttering forged defamatory documents to support an illegally proffered settlement contract. PGS ASA refuses to comment on the unsigned and unverified forgeries which bribed lawyers processed to illegally terminate a foreign worker whistleblower.

SDK submitted a subject access request (SAR) 11 June 2018. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited Secretary, Carl Richards had began blackmailing SDK. Carl Richards was explicit that he was operating independent of his duties as an agent of PGS ASA (Misrepresentation – Fraud). Carl Richards resigned from PGS ASA 25 May 2018. John Francas became the In-house solicitor. SDK requested any personal data that had been processed since his SDK 2014 SAR where he discovered that PGS ASA was uttering forged documents that were used to support a fraudulent termination settlement contract. PGS ASA illegally terminated a foreign worker whistleblower through using forged documents. I sent several complaints to the PGS ASA Compliance in 2016. These complaints were ignored. In 2018, SDK submitted another SAR when the new General Data Protection Requirement came into effect. PGS ASA lied and said that no SDK data was being processed, when it shows that PGS ASA had prepared their illegal blackmail legal claim on 10 July 2018. PGS ASA illegally transferred personal data outside the EEA without consent. PGS ASA also broke USA Federal law by copying and transferring a USA Passport without consent. SDK had provided personal identification data to PGS ASA to process the SAR.

————————————————–

###

Kristin Omreng, PGS ASA SVP Global Human Resources Legacy of Corruption

Why doesn’t Kristin Omreng Invoke the Contractual Confidentiality Clauses that Prohibit Disparaging Publications and Protect her Reputation? Isn’t it Irresponsible for Kristin Omreng not to?

Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign II : A Bully Targets Reprise (20 September 2015)
PGS ASA has not acknowledged receipt of the 15 Apr 2020 subject access request (SAR). According to John Francas, PGS ASA UK Head of Legal, hired Thailand law firm Duensing – Kippen (Olaf Duensing and Tippaya Moonmanee) there is a criminal arrest warrant issued for me if I enter Thailand. The contract signed in Thailand by SDK and PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, approved by PGS ASA General Counsel, Lars Mysen, has a resolution venue in US Federal Court, Harris County, Texas where Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. is located.
The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of Fraud (24 May 2016)

TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL: Perception Corruption Index is meaningless for Narcissistic Organizations (pdf)

FIRE THE PGS ASA and EQUINOR CORRUPT BOARD OF DIRECTORS WHOSE OBJECTIVE IS TO SUPPRESS THE TRUTH.

Subject Access Request (SAR) following PGS ASA hired Thailand law firm Duensing – Kippen filed a criminal defamation claim against SDK delivered to Thai relative home while he was in the USA. The claim references Harris County, Texas, USA as dispute settlement venue. SDK is requesting English language version of claims. PGS ASA also stated an arrest warrant was issued that would prohibit my safe travel into Thailand. I want copies of these legal documents.

Norway’s Equinor and PGS ASA have participated in International Corruption and Human Rights Abuses While Promoting Accused (Known) Criminals to Lead! Hopefully, the USA Federal Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) will put these Criminals in Prison where they belong.

PGS ASA and Equinor Board of Directors and Executives Cover-up Corruption by NOT Invoking the Contractual Confidentiality Terms and Conditions non-disparagement clauses. This Damages PGS ASA and Equinor Value and Reputation, Conceals Corruption, and Injures the Whistleblower, SDK.

DIRECTOR’S SILENCE IS IRRESPONSIBLE and ALLOWS CORRUPTION TO THRIVE. IT PERVERTS the COURSE OF JUSTICE, WHICH is CRIMINAL!

The Crimes of Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen (4 November 2016)
PGS ASA transferred SDK personal data outside the EEA to Thailand and USA. I have contended that PGS ASA has been processing forged defamatory SDK personal data since 5 Dec 2014. PGS ASA has misrepresented the integrity of this data since that time. None of the relevant data used to process my termination settlement contract, signed 5 Dec 2013, bares my signature and is unverifiable. There is no way the Kristin Omreng or PGS ASA can claim this data is fair and accurate. PGS ASA needs to explain the 25 October 2013 Memo signed by former PGS ASA SVP Global Human Resources and PGS ASA EVP Per Arild Reksnes who processed this document to affect SDKs (illegal) termination. PGS ASA also must address the 20 Sep 2013 grievance document which is referenced within the 5 Dec 2013 termination settlement contract. Were SDKs legally guaranteed grievance procedures followed?

PGS ASA / EQUINOR WANT TO DE-PUBLISH INFORMATION – NOT CLARIFY IT

PGS ASA is processing unverifiable forged documents within SDKs (crime victim and whistleblower) professional personnel file. SDK has not signed any supporting documents for the 05 Dec 2013 termination settlement contract. The documents reference events which never took place and documents that do not exist. They were illegally created to terminate a foreign worker whistleblower under false pretenses and protect executives who had broken the law. And still, several low integrity PGS ASA employee’s protect and participate in criminal behavior to harm an innocent whistleblower and allow the criminals to remain unaccountable. Disgusting and unprofessional behavior.

NORWAY’S PGS ASA, EQUINOR, and TELENOR DO NOT FOLLOW THE NORWEGIAN CODE OF PRACTICE FOR CORPORATE GOVERNANCE or the LAW. THEY ARE CORRUPT. IRRESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP REFUSES TO ANSWER THE MOST SIMPLE COMPLIANCE and GOVERNANCE QUESTIONS AND ALLOW PGS ASA, EQUINOR and TELENOR BRANDS TO BE DIMINISHED.

PGS ASA Data Protection Officer Daphne Bjerke continues to ignore fundamental compliance and legal obligations and process knowing false and inaccurate SDK personal data. This a human rights violation in addition to a continued violence against a USA citizen and his family. None of the documents being processed by co-conspirator and criminal Daphne Bjerke is verifiable and true and authentic. Yet, Bjerke and many other PGS ASA, Watson Farley & Williams, Duensing – Kippen and Landau Law employees are being bribed to breach the PGS Code of Conduct, PGS Core Values and laws to protect corrupt executives.

PGS ASA hired legal firm Watson Farley & Williams to advise on the termination settlement contract agreement between PGS ASA and SDK. PGS ASA, Watson Farley & Williams and Philip Landau (Landau Law) all uttered forged documents (a crime) to support a fraudulent termination settlement contract on false pretenses. PGS ASA, Watson Farley & Williams and Philip Landau also withheld material information: a occupational health nurse medical that confirmed PGS ASA workplace mobbing was health harming. This report was intentionally withheld during negotiations to allow perpetrators to escape accountability. This further placed SDK and his family in danger. These criminal acts were premeditated and evil and intended to harm the health as well as the professional and financial well-being of a law abiding USA citizen and whistleblower. PGS ASA, Watson Farley & Williams and Philip Landau have defrauded the oil and gas industry investors and employees and placed the health and safety of workers at risks through protecting violent corruption.

PGS ASA, Watson Farley & Willaims and Philip Landau w/ LZW/Landau Law are lying and gaslighting. They are following the false narrative of the forged defamatory documents being processed within the PGS ASA SDK personnel file. Landau has been provided with correct information and knows the 25 Oct 2013 Memo is an inaccurate defamatory forgery. All lawyers have lied about what documents were processed to support the signed 5 Dec 2013 PGS ASA UK and SDK termination settlement agreement. Watson Farley & Williams also lied to UK Border Agency and UK Information Commissioner’s Office stating that the Tier 2 status was not considered. Underlying performance issues would likely mean that a Tier 2 visa would not be granted and no settlement would need to include international relocation expenses. Also, everyone was aware that a grievance was the principal issue. Why aren’t all of these employment lawyers and HR people following UK law and PGS grievance procedures?
PGS ASA hired legal firm Watson Farley & Williams to advise on the termination settlement contract agreement between PGS ASA and SDK. PGS ASA, Watson Farley & Williams and Philip Landau (Landau Law) all uttered forged documents (a crime) to support a fraudulent termination settlement contract on false pretenses. The 5 Dec 2013 termination settlement contract references a 20 Sep 2013 submitted workplace grievance. However, the forged 25 Oct 2013 Conclusion to Grievance Meeting Memo does not even reference the grievance? PGS ASA, Watson Farley & Williams and Philip Landau also withheld a material medical report during negotiations placing SDK and his family in danger. These criminal acts were premeditated and evil and intended to harm to health, professional, and financial well-being of a law abiding USA citizen and whistleblower. PGS ASA, Watson Farley & Williams and Philip Landau have defrauded the oil and gas industry and employees.
Watson Farley & Williams serve as legal advisers to PGS ASA. Watson Farley & Williams advised and helped SDK and family process the Tier 2 visa and dependent family visas so that we could legally work and live in the England in both 2010 and when they were renewed 15 Jul 2013 for three years. Tier 2 visas are issued for employers who cannot fill positions through the local labor market. Tier 2 visas are not legally issues to poor performing foreign workers. With this SDK personal data, WFW also represented PGS AA in the termination settlement discussions which were predicated around my claim that PGS ASA Investigation into possible Performance Improvement Plan was illegal and defamatory. WFW and Landau were bribed by PGS ASA to ignore the whistleblowing and be a co-conspirator in fraud and human rights abuses. This is why PGS ASA, WFW and Landau Law do not invoke the Confidentiality clauses prohibiting disparaging publications governed by the laws of England.
The main theme of the SDK was submitted grievance is that PGS ASA was misusing their performance management system and defaming SDK through sharing unprivileged and non-compliant information as part of their illegal harassment campaign. For (Criminal Cunt) Philip Landau to allow (Criminal Pussy) Rhodri Thomas to state their were “underlying performance issues” when their was no documents to support a claim means that Landau Law and WFW were also defaming and defrauding SDK. Neither have any evidence to support this claim. Of course, all criminals involved in this conspiracy to illegally terminate a foreign worker whistleblower, defraud the UK Information Commissioner’s Office in violation of Contractual terms and conditions which cited the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) , and also defraud the UK Border Agency know this. They all knew that they were participating in illegal behavior. This is why no one accused of crimes within my blog post articles invoke the non-disparagement clauses in the employment contracts. They do not want to explain what they did. Fortunately, UK ActionFraud (police) are dysfunctional in matters of fraud and white collar crime. SDK has submitted several complaints to both ICO and the UK police since 2014 when SDK discovered the fraud.
Experienced PGS ASA Human Resources personnel and Watson Farley & Williams and Landau, Zeffert & Weir employment law solicitors processed documents with no employee (SDK) signature. This is not an oversight, but an intentional uttering of forged documents to defame and defraud a foreign worker whistleblower. PGS ASA obviously paid several of their own personnel as well as WFW and Landau Law lawyers to commit these crimes to physically, financially and professionally injure a foreign worker whistleblower and his family. Only morally bankrupt low integrity opportunistic nonprofessionals would protect criminals like this. PGS ASA and WFW seem to have an ample supply of corrupt pieces of professional shit working for them.
Duensing – Kippen notified SDK by e-mail that warrant for his arrest had been issued in Thailand for criminal defamation. This warrant was confirmed by PGS ASA UK lawyer, John Francas. SDK had never received any of the claims. PGS ASA has never cited a breach in contractual Confidentiality terms and conditions which define the legal relationship between SDK and PGS ASA. The Confidentiality terms prohibit parties from disparaging each other. PGS ASA filing a criminal defamation claim in Thailand is a breach of these agreement.
Kristin Omreng has taken over the position once held by criminal Terje Bjolseth, PGS ASA SVP Global Human Resources. Bjolseth was a recipient of the 20 Sep 2013 submitted workplace grievance by SDK. Bjolseth did not manage the grievance process legally. Bjolseth violent criminal behavior placed the health and safety of foreign worker (USA) SDK and his family in jeopardy.
Fiduciary Negligence: As PGS ASA UK Secretary and lawyer credentialed to practice in England, Carl Richards never cited a breach in the SDK – PGS ASA Confidentiality terms and conditions non-disparagement clauses within contracts governed by the laws of England protecting whistleblowing. Instead, Richards threatened his illegal litigation in Thailand. This cowardly criminal piece of shit has never written to SDK again following his blackmail in Thailand, assisted by Rune Olav Pedersen, Christin Steen-Nilsen and Gottfred Langseth who never had even written one-single comment to SDK. PGS ASA put the reputation of the company in the hands of Olaf Duensing and Tippaya Moonmanee. Is either one licensed to practice law in England or the USA?
Fiduciary Negligence: As PGS ASA EVP, Per Arild Reknes never cited a breach in the SDK – PGS ASA Confidentiality terms and conditions non-disparagement clauses within contracts governed by the laws of England protecting whistleblowing. Reksnes has never defended his reputation and finally retired in disgrace without comment. Reknes never disputed that he is a criminal piece of shit.
Fiduciary Negligence: As SDK hired solicitor, Philip Landau, Landau Law, never commented nor complained about my publications nor cited a breach in the SDK – PGS ASA Confidentiality terms and conditions non-disparagement clauses within contracts governed by the laws of England protecting whistleblowing.
Fiduciary Negligence: As PGS ASA General Counsel, Rune Olav Pedersen never cited a breach in the SDK – PGS ASA Confidentiality terms and conditions non-disparagement clauses within contracts governed by the laws of England protecting whistleblowing.
Fiduciary Negligence: As PGS ASA CEO & President or PGS UK Director, Reinhardsen never cited a breach in the SDK – PGS ASA Confidentiality terms and conditions non-disparagement clauses within contracts governed by the laws of England protecting whistleblowing.
Fiduciary Negligence: As Equinor / StatOil Chairman of the Board of Directors, Reinhardsen has never cited a breach in the SDK – PGS ASA Confidentiality terms and conditions non-disparagement clauses within contracts governed by the laws of England protecting whistleblowing. Reinhardsen has never defended the reputation of StatOil / Equinor nor PGS ASA. Reinhardsen just collects money for watching ships he “captains” sink in value.
vThe disparaging image (above) depicting accused criminal PGS ASA SVP Global HR, Terje Bjolseth has never been cited in any legal complaint from PGS ASA. It was never cited within PGS ASA hired Thailand legal firm Duensing – Kippen. SDK has been publishing disparaging content specifically highlighting PGS ASA executives since 3 July 2015. Why did PGS ASA wait until September 2018 to file a Criminal Defamation Claim in THAILAND ? The contracts signed between SDK and PGS ASA and governed by the laws of England contain non-disparagement clauses with whistleblower protection. PGS ASA has never investigated SDK whistleblowing claims and multiple emails to PGS Compliance were ignored prior to September 2018. Many employee’s of PGS ASA, Watson Farley and Williams, and Landau Law are implicated in the criminal conspiracy that SDK publications expose. Kristin Omreng is either stupid or understands she is a co-conspirator of multiple international crimes. SDK has always wanted the truth and mostly requested a fair third-party (police) investigation.
When Human Resources is Corrupt (10-August-2015)
Petroleum Geo-Services #PGS #CEO #Pedersen and the Management of Gang Rape (24 October 2017)

###

Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign II : A Bully Targets Reprise (20 September 2015)

Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign II – A Bully Targets Reprise

Just the Facts – Reputation Matters

You worry more about yourself then what goes on around you. Do me a favor, will you? Sit back and take a real hard look. Look at the victims and try to have a little empathy. It might do you some good. That’s what we’re all here for, to serve these people. Now if you can’t see it that way, maybe you ought to look for some other kind of job. I’m sure the department can spare you.

Police Sergeant Joe Friday, “Dragnet” TV Series (photo)

The most powerful predictor for bad behavior turns out to be when people won’t talk about bad behavior.

Dr. Roger Miles, Tracing the True Origins of Bad Behavior: New Ways to Predict Conduct Risk Exposure

I published a hit piece about my former employer on LinkedIn, Petroleum Geo-Services CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign.  Why would anyone do that?  I will assure you that it was in response to the many “hits” I have taken from my former employer.  The main difference is that my hit piece was transparent and honest.  Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) hits have been clandestine, intentional, and deceptive attacks intended to harm me and my family.  The fore-mentioned article was not the first piece where individuals were named.  I had done this before on July 4th when I wrote, An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data”.   I have also written about more general marine seismic industry articles that have been fairly well received, such as The Rise and Fall of the 3D Streamer Fleet.  In addition, I host the LinkedIn group, Marine Seismic Survey where I keep myself and members abreast of the industry news and developments (Please join).  I had refrained from posting actual evidence which supports the allegations that I have made.  I have progressively up-ticked my contentions to entice some reaction from PGS, just in case executives would want to react to avoid an exposé posting.  I have not received any requests to stop publishing my pieces by anyone, including those within PGS.  The simple truth is that what I have published is indeed true.  I know it.  Many know it.  As time passes and the truth is no longer disputed what will remain, at the very least, is a chronological record of non-action and apathy by PGS executives.

PGS is the multinational corporation with the executive management and communication teams.  Their projects have high profile risk exposure.  PGS should be able – no, be required – to defend the integrity of their CEO and executive management, and especially the reputation of the company, without the aid of outside voices and commentary.  A company that had confidence in its ethical conduct could have quickly quashed such allegations, but more likely would never have had allegations to quash in the first place.  The non-response from PGS points to a corrupt and silo’d organization where the right-hand doesn’t know what the left-hand is doing.  PGS does not know how to respond to the fast pace and transparency that social media presents.  Perhaps, PGS executives may think that no one reads or believes LinkedIn posted articles.  I can assure PGS executives that they are incorrect.  More likely is that PGS executives are worried that they do.  And how beneficial is doubt, anyhow?  Doubt is uncertainty, and uncertainty is risk.  PGS may not think that such articles will impact their reputation.  PGS executives are wrong about that, too.  It quite evidently has impacted current employees of PGS and will likely impact future employee perception, as well as customers and investors.  Some, like me, will feel betrayed.  No matter which side the reader may take, there can be no denying that some exceptional problem exists. What normal workplace behavior would make a former loyal employee of over fourteen years to even contemplate writing such an article in the first place?  How could such a thing be helpful?   Only if it were true and vindicating.  PGS has had quite enough time to address the issues written about and have chosen not to say anything.  Therefore, I have decided to provide some firm document (shortened and redacted) evidence which supports my claims, not because of PGS, but rather to satisfy those more skeptical readers.   Reputation matters.

My reputation matters to me and my family.  I worked with PGS for over fourteen continuous years, as well as a couple of years before that.  I am a U.S. citizen.  PGS first moved me to Houston from Las Cruces, New Mexico.  Prior to my work in the seismic industry, I had worked at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico as a data processor/analyst supporting aeronautical and space test projects.  My attraction to the seismic industry was especially the opportunity of global travel and interaction with different nationalities and cultures along with the geophysics.  One did not have exposure to such diversity while working with sensitive U.S. National security data.  PGS certainly delivered on that desire of mine.  For most of my years with PGS I lived and worked abroad.  I will not provide a full résumé, because the issues brought-up are mostly about character and integrity.  But, it is important to frame the basis of my sentiments.  I worked with PGS on ocean bottom and streamer vessels globally and then in offices in Luanda, Angola and Lagos, Nigeria.  I did this while residing in Thailand on five-week rotations.  Weary of the rotations and time away from family, I sought to work in the Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia office (KL).  PGS moved me and my family to KL.  However, my interest was to grow beyond seismic data processing.  PGS then moved me and my family from KL to Weybridge, England to work with the Marine Contract Sales – Africa group.  These were international moves which required indigenous Company sponsorship and appropriate visas for all of the members of my family to live and for me to work there.  PGS finally paid for me and my family to move from Weybridge to Houston after my employment with the company ended.  Through the years, my connections had been fragmented and diverse.  In some respects, I returned to Houston as a foreigner, having only had rare visits.  My main professional connections to Houston – or anywhere – had been through my former employer, PGS.  PGS was also acutely aware of these conditions. Since my time back in Houston, I have volunteered at and attended many Geophysical Society of Houston events and technical talks, among other things. 

All I know is that first you’ve got to get mad. You’ve got to say, ‘I’m a HUMAN BEING, God damn it! My life has VALUE!’ So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell, ‘I’M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!’

News Anchor Howard Beale, “Network” movie

The common mistake that bullies make is assuming that because someone is nice that he or she is weak. Those traits have nothing to do with each other. In fact, it takes considerable strength and character to be a good person.

Mary Elizabeth Williams

There are seminal events that define how we arrive to certain points.  The event that defines the history leading to this article began during the 2013 European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE) conference in London.  I especially enjoyed attending the talks and conferences and had been on the schedule to attend this event on behalf of Marine Contract Sales – Africa for months.  Then a day or two before my boss, Edward Von Abendorff (Eddy to most), did not want me to go.  He especially did not seem to like me enjoying my job.  I assured him that all the work was in order and that I had planned accordingly and otherwise had worked early and would stay late, but really wanted to go.  I only was allowed to attend one day of the event, and even attended a PGS topic talk while there.  The next day was tense as one problem was searched for after another by the VP.  Finally, out the blue, I was called to a meeting hosted by David Nicholson, EAME HR Manager, Simon Cather, Regional President, Marine Contract – Africa, and my boss, Eddy.  In this meeting a litany of accusations were made about my performance.  Eddy had never introduced these issues between us, as normally competent managers would, but had to have the support of David and Simon.  I have since found that this is a standard bullying tactic – the “ambush meeting” and is discussed by U.S. researcher and workplace bully expert and founder of the Workplace Bullying Institute, Dr. Gary Namie.  One may also read about this bully tactic meeting in The Workplace Bully ‘Ambush’ Meeting.This “ambush” set the wheels in motion to my unintended departure from PGS.  The conversation after the ambush started with my e-mail chain below (A,B,C):

A)

B)

C)

It is clear that I did not agree with the meeting content and allegations.  The intentional withholding and subsequent deception regarding the meeting minutes was a significant lie.  What happened was the corrupt executives were trying shift the process to be a performance issue when they had, at that time, no qualified basis or evidence to support their desires.  The meeting was not declared to be a performance meeting before hand and otherwise no legitimate evidence of support were provided.  The idea that meetings can turn from informal to formal at whim is also troubling.  I had never heard or experienced any honest business carrying on this way before.  What the conspirators did was delay and then compose a letter with “investigation into performance” in it to replace the meeting minutes for my action – clearly an intimidation tactic.  I did not accept the renaming and continued to press the grievance process forward.  The letter mentioned some, but not all of the baseless allegations made during the original meeting.  Even after the letter, there were additional meetings and intentional delays.  However, I was never presented with the minutes of these meetings to qualify agreement or disagreement.  I never signed anything.  The grievance about the 13 June 2013 was actually delivered 20 September 2013 following one delay tactic after another.   A few excerpts from my (lengthy) grievance can be read below.  This document was removed from my personnel record:

The grievance implicated the ambushers who conducted the initial meeting.  The grievance contained evidence to counter the unsubstantiated allegations that PGS Marine Contract – Africa management and HR made revealing their abuse/misuse of the performance management system (lies / no evidence).  The document also addressed and chronicled pervasive and intentional – abusive – workplace bullying, referencing PGS policy, UK law, and current literature.  PGS offered me an exit agreement prior to the grievance hearing, which I dismissed out of principle.  However, the delay tactics continued and I eventually decided to consider the leave agreement.  The grievance was parked, to use a phrase in a different e-mail.  During this time, I took a week of consecutive sick days off because I was sick.  I did not have any prior record of abusing leave in all my 14 years of work.  However, PGS management requested that I see an occupational health and safety nurse.  So, I did.  I received partial content of the draft report and had asked for the final report.  PGS management was interested in my exit.  I never saw the final report and recommendation which had been excluded from the draft.  Leaving such a toxic environment as soon as possible was foremost on my mind for my health and that of my family.  The purpose of the subsequent leave agreement was to not pursue or discuss the points brought-up in the grievance any further and part ways.  The initial allegations had been left unsubstantiated and unproven, there was never any concession and nothing was ever signed by me other than the leaving agreement.  Ten months passed after I left employment with PGS and I made a subject access request (SAR) citing the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).   This is how I learned that my personnel file records were falsified/forged and other information was omitted.  The meeting minutes which I had requested and been denied were in my file, unsigned and not verified.  The minutes, unbelievably, even appear in transcript form.  These minutes contained the reiteration of the unsubstantiated allegations.  But, why were they there when I was told that the meeting was informal and no minutes were distributed?  This is an unsigned and unauthenticated – falsified – document – one of many.

If this had indeed been a valid performance meeting, then why would PGS be requesting my family visa’s be extended for another 3 years?   UK Border was told that my services were required.  Further, my continued employment displaced a capable and competent UK citizen or someone else without “performance” issues.  This letter is dated 15 July 2013.  The meeting occurred 13 June 2013.

The most disturbing document is the memo signed by Per Arild Reksnes, EVP PGS Marine Contract (now EVP Operations) and Terje Bjølseth, SVP HR.  This memo (below) is a forgery.  There are several detectable problems.  The Memo is addressed to my attention, but it was never received by me while I was employed with PGS.  David Nicholson and Simon Cather were not present at the meeting.  Edward Von Abendorff was my immediate supervisor and is not a recipient.  These three individuals were the object of my grievance.  The colleague who accompanied me to the meeting is not copied.  The date matches the day when we began to discuss the leaving agreement and also leave the grievance parked.  There was no conclusion to the process.  In the references, there was no 11 September 2013 meeting.  That was an original schedule date for the presentation of the grievance mentioned in the letter (which was provided in lieu of the 13 Jun 15 meeting minutes which were withheld), but that day was postponed.  I never wrote a letter 29 September 2013 that I can remember or that PGS can provide.  I never saw this memo until I received a copy of my personnel file through the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) Subject Access Request (SAR) last November in Houston.  The contents tries to imply performance issues.  But, none of the performance issues had even been substantiated and no performance plan was formally discussed much less put into place.  The grievance offset plans to forward unsubstantiated performance nonsense.

During the SAR process, I requested the copy of the occupational health and safety report and was told no report existed.  Similarly, the Information Commissioner’s Office caseworker was told the same thing (lying to ICO).  I was able to get a copy of the report through a separate subject access request.  Another example of lying and withholding information.  There was a recommendation to be evaluated again after two weeks.  The final report and recommendation was withheld from me during my employment.

We are asked to approve small credit card purchases through signature.  Yet, these important career-ending documents are not signed by me?  Of course they are false.  Signatures and authentication are important in all business record transactions, including internal ISO / OHSAS audits, as well as contracts which I have been involved with directly.  I would never had accepted such documents. The issue which is difficult to get past is why individuals who are compensated very well and have power would even engage in this sort of activity to illegally compromise an individual’s personnel records and then report them as factually accurate to compliance organizations.  I believe that once the individual’s knew that I knew how they operated they wanted to avoid a fair fight and take responsibility for the bad behavior and lies which would have revealed their practices.  This fraud was to satisfy psychopathic egos and protect the perpetrators.  The amount of PGS resources and money misused for their bully operation is not insignificant, and included at least a percentage factor of an annual salary, solicitors to bind the leaving agreement, the visa processing, and family relocation from the UK to the USA.  How much is a career worth?  The average bank robbery nets only $4330 USD according to a US News article, and everyone easily accepts bank robbery as a crime.  That amount would only just cover the family plane tickets.  Of course, such an amount is considered “noise” with respect to multi-million dollar marine seismic data acquisition and processing contracts that operate at day rates well in excess of $350k USD. 

Whenever there are some who have more opportunities than others, this feeds corruption.

Enrique Pena Nieto

Whoever is detected in a shameful fraud is ever after not believed even if they speak the truth.

Phaedrus

It is against the Data Protection Act 1998 (UK) principles – UK law (and Norwegian law) – to export electronic or firm personal data information outside the UK/EU/Norway to the US, even if the data were correct.  Why would PGS go through so much effort to create the false records only to have them retained in UK files where they would have no (negative) impact?  I know, and PGS acknowledges, that my (false) personal data records were shared with a UK national working in the U.S.  The issue in question is the agency of that employee.  PGS has informed the Information Commissioner’s Office that this individual is a UK entity employee.  He was HR support within the UK while I worked on vessels, but he was not working physically in the UK at any time during my employment within the UK.  So, is he still an employee of the PGS UK entity or the PGS US entity?  I have worked in many international offices and never been able to work and remain in a foreign country without a work visa sponsored within that country.  In other words, I could not live and work in a foreign country as an employee of a US entity.  I had to be employed and sponsored for work visa within the foreign country.  Again, regardless of his agency, he would not be legally permitted to share my personal data information to anyone outside of the PGS UK entity.  Also, my personal data is not allowed to be shared with just anyone within PGS UK either.  I personally cannot think of a legitimate and reasonable business case for sharing my correct personal data with this individual even if employed by PGS UK.

This immoral, and I believe illegal, way of doing business is bad for PGS.  It is bad for PGS customers, investors, and employees.  I am certain of this.  Even the most superb vehicle of technology and talent is unable to reach its objectives when its leadership and top executives are not aligned and committed to the same organization values and objectives.  It is impossible.  It is written that Nero fiddled as Rome burned.  Just a few days ago Upstream (16 Sep 2015) published that PGS may possibly be forced to stack additional vessels.  This is on top of stacking the Ramform Viking, which was only announced in the beginning of September 2015, and the stacking of Ramform Challenger and Ramform Explorer.  PGS Apollo in a lease-back agreement (was pawned).  Conditions are unraveling.  I will be writing a more normative analysis of the marine seismic market when Q3 2015 numbers start to be revealed.  However, currently the market is uncertain, and yet degenerate top executives remain silent to calm the storm of uncertainty surrounding their integrity, while compromising PGS’ reputation.  What are the named PGS executives doing?  Are they focused on PGS objectives and strategy during this crisis or deflecting inconvenient questions from police about how they report and retain records and abide by DPA?  It would be exceptional for them to be fully focused on business since they have been dishonest and selfish up to this point.  Are they focused on guiding the Company through the storm or manipulating information in an effort to save their positions and continue the deception?  Which view are PGS leadership and top executives betting has the best chance to prevail?  Risky business.

Workplace bullying is understood by many to be a quantifiable type of psychological violence and abuse of position.  The subsequent retaliation is meant to marginalize, silence, and financially disenfranchise the bully targets.   The “mob”, as Norwegians call workplace bullying, abuse targets while they are employed and often continue this theft and abuse even after the target leaves.  This is a more despicable kind of theft and violence than being robbed on High Street.  Such robbers at least limit what they take and ask for it directly.  As a trained educator as well as one trained in U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity standards, or otherwise someone who simply knows how to read and has some ethical conscience, I can confidently assure HR professionals that such actions are not anything close to effective performance management.  If the “ambush meeting” is so common to be written and spoken about, HR as a professional needs to undergo some serious soul-searching and educate themselves about how to actually manage employee conflict and performance, and especially how to properly address workplace violence in general.  The current conspiratorial relationship between toxic management and HR professionals who knowingly violate common codes and best practices is reprehensible and endangers employee health and workplace productivity.   If humans are enterprise resources, then what is the difference between an employee knowingly driving a company vehicle into a tree and an employee knowingly abusing a capable and productive employee?  If using a Company vehicle for personal use is not allowed, how can company monies be justified to be used to satisfy the personal egos of incompetent and insecure workplace bullies?  These are leadership and management issues that need to be addressed.

I am more loyal to my former employer than the current toxic management which allows PGS values, potential, and reputation to evaporate in hubris.  I followed the rules and put forth best efforts.  Every UK employer has a duty of care. This is critical to the health, safety and general welfare of all employees. Duty of care comes into force when a person or group of people do something that might reasonably harm somebody.  PGS management had to abandon their obligations, rules and values.  PGS management forged and falsified documents to win their zero-sum game and stack the deck to force a loyal employees exit.  They lied and bullied.  Who then is loyal?  In English labor law there is also a mutual duty of trust and confidence between employer and employee in contract.   This means that both the employer and employee are to behave in such a way as to not to undermine the employment relationship.  How many lies are employers allowed before they breach their commitment?  How many health and safety reports can be ignored and destroyed?  PGS executives may have thought that they were clever in their lying, after all, I was far away and what could I do?  Finally, it is not my responsibility to preserve or defend the reputation of PGS executives who have engaged in an intentional and calculated campaign to harm me and my family.  On the other hand, it certainly is PGS CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen’s responsibility, along with his executive team and other top executives, to preserve and protect the reputation of PGS.  It is only a question of how much PGS’ reputation matters to them.

Bullying consists of the least competent most  aggressive employee projecting their incompetence on to the least aggressive most competent employee and winning.

Tim Field

Those in powerless positions aren’t about to complain about bullying bosses, abusive supervisors or corrupt co-workers. There is no safe way to do so and no process that promises redress.

Margaret Heffernan

###

Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign (6 September 2015)

Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign

Applying the No-Asshole Rule in Marine Seismic

Politics is more difficult than physics.

Albert Einstein

Every enterprise requires commitment to common goals and shared values. Without such commitment there is no enterprise; there is only a mob.

Peter Drucker

When I encounter a mean-spirited person, the first thing I think is: ‘Wow, what an asshole!’ I bet you do, too. You might call such people bullies, creeps, jerks, weasels, tormentors, tyrants, serial slammers, despots, or unconstrained egomaniacs, but for me at least, asshole best captures the fear and loathing that I have for these nasty people. ― Robert Sutton, Professor and Author of The No Asshole Rule.

Toxic workplace behavior is all actions that erode trust, dignity, and respect of others within organizations.  These elements are imperative to the organization’s sustainability and impact everything from safety to profitability.  Organizations function more efficiently and effectively where there is civility and trust.  This is why organizations define core values which establish the guiding principles that are supposed to dictate their behavior and action.  A company’s core values are important because they determine the decision making process, describe what the company is about and its commitment and responsibilities to employees, investors, and customers.  Core values are a type of social contract or promise to behave civil and follow through on commitments.  Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) website shares that their own core values provide the foundation for all our goals, policies and actions and we behave with integrity and honesty in all aspects of our business.  Really? The public is intentionally led to believe that these core values are credible and represent the true beliefs which direct decision-making within PGS.  Employees sign their policy handbook which include the written proclamation of these values.  Potential customers receive copies of these values in brochures and within pages of business proposals.  Investors are told them at the start of meetings.  However, under the leadership of CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen, PGS has abandoned their commitment to their core values.  PGS top executives are making decisions for self-serving reasons with shameless disregard for these core values and promises to employees, shareholders, and customers.  PGS’ top executives have accepted and promoted dishonesty above honor, personal agenda above company objectives, and malicious edict above company policy and processes.  This kind of leadership imperils PGS with substantially more risks.  Toxic leadership is allowed to transform these values to hold less intrinsic worth than lavatory tissue paper.  Broken promises – trust – flushed down the toilet.  PGS is being guided by a façade – an unreliable lie – which is dangerous.  This is not an attempt to harm PGS, but to redirect the organization to get back onto its prescribed course.  This is what has prompted this call for PGS CEO, Jon Erik Reinhardsen to resign. 

Marine seismic surveys are carried out over hundreds or even thousands of square kilometers.  3D seismic streamer vessel spreads are the largest moving objects on earth.  A normal azimuth spread towing fourteen eight-kilometer cables equipped with different sensors and separated by one-hundred meters covers 10.4 square kilometers and moves at 4-5 knots/hour.  Operations must plan for environmental factors, such as prevailing tides and currents, marine fauna presence and migrations, surface weather conditions, and refuse disposal, to list only a few.  Marine vessel activity from fishing, cargo and logistics operations, as well as other geophysical survey activity must be communicated and coordinated.  In a growing number of areas, security issues from pirates or contested international borders must be considered.  These functions are all on top of the main objective of collecting data for imaging the subsurface which uses the highest technology systems.  The personnel on seismic vessels combine from different specialized work groups to complete projects within specifications.  The marine crew operate and maintain the vessel and steer it to the correct location for data collection.  The seismic crew operate the seismic source, seismic sensors, and sensor positioning equipment that then collect the data which is combined and processed to create subsurface map images which will guide future drilling and exploration decisions.  Seismic streamer operations present many risks that require an understanding of hazards – all hazards – and how to deal with them.  Within the corporate offices, on vessels and remote offices the promise which core values hold are very important and at the center of a safe, healthy, efficient, and productive workplace.  Global workplaces involve the interaction and coordination of entities from different countries and disciplines bound by such core values.  The fact that PGS executive management ignores dealing responsibly with the top-ranked workplace hazards is troubling and dangerous to workers and the public.  Instead, PGS denies and hides these hazards and punishes those who are affected by these top-ranked hazards; stress, harassment, and bullying which contribute to a toxic and unsafe work environment.  Their actions speak volumes about what PGS’ real values and safety culture is, and the conclusion is unsettling.

The moral values, ethical codes and laws that guide our choices in normal times are, if anything, even more important to help us navigate the confusing and disorienting time of a disaster.

Sheri Fink

The decisions you make are a choice of values that reflect your life in every way.

Alice Waters

PGS employs morally decrepit top executives to guide the company during one of the most challenging predicaments the industry has ever experienced.  The previous CEO of PGS, Svien Rennemo, introduced PGS’ current core values as a critical component toward redemption, growth and profitability as the company rose out of bankruptcy. Current PGS executives have formed and executed decisions based on frivolity and ego.  They have empowered toxic management practices which increase top-ranked workplace hazards.   Through cooperation and conspiracy, PGS top-executives have been allowed to bypass Company policy and National laws to exert tyranny and control.  Toxic behavior has included withholding and destroying their own requested occupational health and safety reports to hide the impact of their toxic management, falsifying, and forging official employment records and misrepresenting these records as factually accurate to government personal data compliance organizations.  This is above and beyond a general low-trust atmosphere of poor communication, manipulation, and deception.  Top PGS executives have demonstrated abject indifference to the established values and norms of business relationships.  In such a climate, it is certain that there will be non-optimal outcomes prior to any final decisions actually being made.  This is because the base information used for decision-making is corrupted and self-serving.  Decisions are no longer focused on organization or project objectives, especially safety, but on personal political interests and diverting responsibility and accountability.

Such decision-making processes not only debase an ethical and safe workplace culture, but just as significantly expose PGS to increased operational and commercial risks.  The evidence is abundant and easily available.  Trust and civility are the foundation of all business relationships, both internal and external to the organization.  Without trust and civility, decisions become, at best, guesses based on substantial uncertainties.  Outcomes become chaotic and performance is unpredictable and over time diminished.  PGS is a low-trust and toxic organization and the best way to rebuild this needed trust is through renewed strong and ethical leadership which will cull such compromising elements that are currently present within the fabric of the executive hierarchy.  Because of this current dynamic, license operators should carefully consider all the elevated risk factors involved in working with toxic management structures as contractors.  At a time of vessel over-capacity and a market with high project liabilities attached, such basis used in determining awards is reasonable and practical to justify.  The marine seismic and offshore sectors especially need to apply the no asshole rule moving forward.  The no asshole rule is the clear objective for companies to rid the work environment from the influences of toxic workers and all the negative consequences which they introduce to business.  Assholes negatively impact operational morale, safety, quality, and the environment.  Assholes impact the bottom-line productivity of organizations which they too often lead, as well as the entire industry.  Assholes are liabilities.  Progressive and efficient workplaces need to be asshole free

Some may consider this article just a brash condemnation from a former employee of over fourteen years. And they would be correct.  However, the unethical and malicious nature of actions carried out through conspiracy and breach of their base social contract has been intentionally directed to cause me and my family harm and it demands voice.  Top management has cooperated to deflect responsibility and protect toxic elements – assholes.  Top PGS executives have breached most every ethical standard of decency.  They have bordered or likely breached levels of criminal behavior.  With company financial support along with the cooperation and assistance from multiple individuals within the corporate hierarchy who participate directly or look the other way, executives have been allowed to serially falsely represent and withhold information.  These intentional deceptions were recorded in my professional employment record to impact me professionally and personally.  I pointed the finger at a toxic regime which breached core values and policies, as well as many other business norms.  Individuals who ignored or were complicit to the toxic behavior and actions were protected, promoted, and otherwise enriched — core values be damned!  The despicable dishonesty and cowardice of PGS top executives should not be tolerated.  And it will not be by me.  At the very least, it will be exposed to the best of my ability and to every extent possible.  Top executives are being allowed to waste “shareholder value” to exercise their demoniac behavior for their own psychopathic entertainment.  These executives are not of an ethical mindset and certainly are not upholding core values.  They are dishonest, insecure, incompetent and professionally deranged.  They excel and retain control through cronyism and breaking the rules, policies, and processes which they themselves define and control.  They are not working for the best interests of PGS.  How and why these assholes are tolerated in such important roles within an organization which lauds such lofty core values is repugnant.  These assholes shouldn’t be engaged in a contract for toilet tissue delivery, much less complex and integrated marine seismic operations.  They manipulate and deceive like antagonists within an Aesop fable.  

There are three things in the world that deserve no mercy, hypocrisy, fraud, and tyranny.

Frederick William Robertson

 Things gained through unjust fraud are never secure.

— Sophocles

Per Arild Reksnes, PGS Executive Vice President Operations, Terje Bjølseth, PGS SVP Global HR, and John Greenway, SVP Marine Contract along with executives based in Weybridge, England:

  • Forged official employee record documentation
  • Conspired to withhold requested employee record documentation
  • Conspired to withhold Company requested occupational health and safety report
  • Conspired to falsify official employee record documentation
  • False representation to the Norwegian Data Protection Authority
  • Conspired in the false representation to the United Kingdom Information Commissioner’s Office.
  • Shared personal data outside Norway/UK/EU in violation of DPA
  • Conspired in the false representation to the United Kingdom Border Authority
  • Did not follow PGS Company prescribed policy and procedures
  • Did not adhere to PGS Core Values

Simon Cather, PGS Regional President – Africa, Marine Contract, Edward Von Abendorff, PGS Vice President – Africa, Marine Contract Sales, and David Nicholson, PGS EAME HR Manager collectively and with substantive support from executive management support based in Lysaker, Norway:

  • Assisted in the forgery of official employee record documentation
  • Withheld requested employee record documentation
  • Withheld Company requested occupational health and safety report
  • Falsified official employee record documentation.
  • False representation to the United Kingdom Information Commissioner’s Office.
  • Shared personal data outside UK/Norway/EU in violation of DPA
  • False representation to the UK Border Authority
  • Did not follow PGS Company prescribed policy and procedures
  • Did not adhere to PGS Core Values

Civility and trust are of key importance.  The coordination, effectiveness and efficiency of operations are optimized through prescribed processes, best practices, and communication between the different specialized work groups.  These are all controlled through management decisions.  License operator’s contract deepwater geophysical data acquisition and processing services in similar ways that they contract deepwater drilling services.  Service companies own and operate the vessels or rigs that perform the specified work.  Both of these technically challenging offshore endeavors rely on strong trust networks for optimal performance.  Air time is given to the big failures that seem implausible to most situations that workers and enterprises confront, while the smaller accidents or near misses which lurk within their own operational domains are hopefully recorded, but often ignored.  Great disasters or successes are not the result of single significant decisions, but come about from the culmination of outcomes from several prior decisions.  The Deepwater Horizon disaster was not a technology failure.  It was a failure of management and communication.  According to Project Management Institute the reason for most project failures is given to be communication – knowledge sharing.  When trust networks and knowledge-sharing are interrupted and impeded, risk is elevated.  Toxic leadership increases operational and commercial risks.

It’s a very sobering feeling to be up in space and realize that one’s safety factor was determined by the lowest bidder on a government contract.

Alan Shepard

 Public trust is essential to public safety. 

Martin O’Malley

BP was the principal license operator for the Macondo prospect of which Anadarko had a 25% interest.  As license operators, they shared ultimate responsibility – the court decided – for the outcome of the very complex deepwater drilling project which they essentially planned and then mostly only oversaw.  BP and Anadarko contracted the rig and its drilling operations.  Each contractor working for BP had their own culture, processes, and procedures and were collectively responsible to deliver their products and services under the umbrella requirements which the license operator defined.  But, there was a system breakdown which ultimately resulted in the largest environmental disaster of all time, as well as the loss of eleven workers lives.  There were 126 persons on the Deepwater Horizon when the catastrophe happened.  Transocean was the owner and operator of the Deepwater Horizon and had 79 of their personnel on the rig.  BP had seven personnel.  The other personnel were from Anadarko, Halliburton as well as other companies.  BP may have had ultimate management and fiduciary responsibility over the outcome of the failed operation, but did they actually have the dominant control over the safety culture on the rig which allowed the disaster to happen?  This is a vexing problem for any license operator – contractor relationship.  What dominant “safety culture” actually prevails on a projects where the actual operator and contractor cultures diverge?

During the disaster inquiry with Transocean, it was asked if their safety culture relied on luck.   This question is not too far off the mark.  The Transocean CEO stated that he believed they had had a good safety system in place.  However, at the same time, he also believed Transocean rig workers should have done more to prevent the catastrophe.  HSE reports conducted on other Transocean rigs and projects prior to the disaster highlighted that Transocean had a toxic bully culture.  Again, Transocean was mostly dismissive, but did acknowledge there were isolated episodes of bullying on different operations.  Bullying is anti-social behavior and often contrary to written company policies and values.  Bullying is toxic behavior.  While there is no universally accepted definition, bullying involves the targeting of an individual or group of workers who are often isolated and without support.  Bullying occurs where there is a power imbalance between the bully and the target.  Most often, targets are bullied directly by their supervisors.  However, bullying has to be empowered or allowed through the formal power structure and practiced cultural norms.  BP bore the majority of the blame for the Deepwater Horizon disaster, meaning that license operators need to be concerned about the fidelity of the published culture of their contractors.  This is where abiding by core values and policies is most important.  Core values should establish the behavioral constraints which should not allow toxic workplaces to develop and prosper and elevate risks in the first place.  If they don’t, then what is the point in lauding core values? 

From a system thinking perspective, the interrelationships and interconnections are compromised and so performance is not optimal with a toxic workplace.  Strong relationships and process connections are built on trust.  Where there is no trust, network connections fail.  Decisions that are made from incomplete or incorrect knowledge mean problems are almost inevitable.  At the very least, risk factors increase.  Even worse, the problems are more difficult or nearly impossible to resolve in an unstable system.  Corrective measures are guesses with uncertain outcomes.  Most everyone understands that the interrelationships between workers can greatly impact performance and outcome.  Highly variant process outcome are an indication of low quality and less safe operating processes.  In chaos theory, unpredictable outcomes start to self-organize aligned to output norms.  So, if a safety process is often done wrong or not at all, that becomes the process affecting the system, not the documented one.  Further, management of the system accounts for between 85-99% of the system performance.  This is why new versions of the certified OHSAS 18001 and ISO 45001 Safety Management System standards, which embrace many of the ISO 9001 Quality Management System standard concepts, will require more direct accountability for system outcome by organization (certified) system management in the future.  High integrity trust networks are low variation, high quality and more safe.  Trust does not just matter when top managers pen agreements.  Trust matters in every decision made within a complex interconnected system.  Toxic regimes thrive on the chaos they create.  But, the future of business cannot afford empowered assholes.

PGS top executives are so cowardly and selfish that they remain silent to such accusations that impugn the company which they are supposed to represent.  My challenge to them all is to prove the factual accuracy of the information held within my professional records and describe how their actions have followed PGS policy and values, or the law of contract and English law for that matter.  And when they cannot, then they need to explain what the purpose and intentions of holding such inaccurate information is and why they have cooperated, conspired and spent company resources to retain it.  PGS executives know I am not lying and this is a bane to their method of dealing with challenges that make them feel uncomfortable.  In the meantime, these PGS executives allow the reputation and value of the company to be diminished.  They are the epitome of weak, dishonest, and toxic leadership and they are at the helm during such trying times.    

The deck is still stacked against individuals who confront corrupt corporations.  The epic historical confrontation between David and Goliath is the classic representation of the underdog prevailing.  But, when scholars review the confrontation more closely, it is the power dynamic which is really misunderstood.  Goliath represents the conventionally well-armed and equipped adversary, while David represents the new approach.  The sling was never a boy’s toy, but was demonstrated to be a very agile, accurate and deadly device which outperformed conventional weapons and armaments on that “modern” battlefield.  Secrecy has always been the friend to corrupt organizations and fraudsters who operate clandestinely to undermine their targets through character assassination and financial disenfranchisement.  Likewise, the best way to affect organization change is when those with vested interests are in the position to lose through their continued support of such toxic regimes.  The UK Data Protection Act 1998 and Norwegian Data Protection Act, both derivatives of the EU Data Protection principles, are actually designed to address information sharing in the digital internet era.  The legislation is in place to protect individuals from having false or damaging information irresponsibly held and shared about them.  It addresses large scale – by numbers – sharing.  On the other hand, social media is also a way to share truthful information beyond the traditional channels and expose corporate corruption, malfeasance, and dishonesty.  The audience is always growing and the ink never runs dry.  I believe job creation and disparate economic opportunity and prosperity in every sector of the economy are tied to toxic self-serving regimes that hoard and collect power amongst themselves and make chaotic self-serving decisions.  The weakest ethical links cannot be relied upon to lead the marine seismic sector and the overall economy forward.  The future of the marine seismic sector, or any other workplace, must not be determined by cowardly, insecure, incompetent, and dishonest assholes.

Character in leadership is the most important balance for leadership. Without character, leaders have no safety. Leadership has no protection without character. 

Myles Munroe

Because power corrupts, society’s demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases. 

John Adams

###

When Human Resources is Corrupt (10-August-2015)

Why it Matters in the Seismic Industry

Corruption: dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people. 

Merriam-Webster

Oh, what a tangled web we weave…when first we practice to deceive.

Walter Scott 

What happens when human resources is corrupt?  During a down cycle in an industry, and amid times of economic uncertainty especially, corporate human resources (HR) departments can hold substantial influence over personal lives.  With such influence also comes the opportunity to abuse power and wield such influence in nefarious ways.  As a scientist for the majority of my career, HR served as an innocuous backdrop.  HR collected my timesheets, distributed payroll slips, insurance and pension optimization plan information, and they filed assessments conducted by my supervisors.  In the article, Why the Path to Ethics Starts with Human Resources, author Chris MacDonald states that HR is ground zero for company culture.  I agree.  HR publishes company policy, values, and procedures.  However, my benign impression of HR was completely transformed through the experience with a past employer.  Since then, I have read extensively about HR, including accounts of HR behaving badly, which opened my eyes.  I have come to the conclusion that, fundamentally, HR functions to support the organization hierarchy.  An HR which supports the organization hierarchy is not too surprising and is as it should be.  If the hierarchy is fair and honest, so too is HR.  Conversely, however, if the hierarchy is corrupt, then so too is HR.  A corrupt HR is used to purge the ranks from power liabilities, such as the honest up-and-comer on a top manager’s coat tails, or any honest person too close to the truth, such as a whistle blower, or a bully target who challenges managerial competency and integrity.  HR does not have the power to displace the corrupt hierarchy that employs them.  It should be relatively simple for an ethical hierarchy to rid themselves of a knave employee.  Corrupt hierarchies are regimes who conspire, cooperate and protect one another.  Fundamentally, workplace bullying is the abuse of power.  Abuse of position is a category of fraud, as are false representation and withholding of information, which are all usually associated with fiduciary malfeasance, rather than the misuse and abuse of human resources.  I believe that bullies are not individuals, but regimes supported by an organization’s formal power structures.  HR will shield managerial corruption and incompetence and use their legitimate guise to extricate threatening (to the corrupt or incompetent hierarchy) personnel.  Within unethical and toxic organizations, a corrupt HR is empowered and enabled as the enforcer to protect the company proverbial cosa nostra.  In fact, for corrupt organizations, a corrupt HR is practically essential.

For me, this prose is personal.  However, what I have learned is that it shares an all too common theme for many disenfranchised workers who take stands against unprincipled work practices.  It is the reasonable people who are often made out to be unreasonable.  I wrote about how I came to discover, and know with certainty, about the unethical practices of my former employer in the LinkedIn Pulse article, An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data.” (3 July 2015)As an American working in England, my former marine seismic company employer’s HR manager had the brazen audacity to create and retain an entire mythology of my work history. I suppose it is because I upset the hierarchy by essentially saying “enough is enough.”  Without my knowledge, and in spite of several requests for more substantive information, the HR Manager compiled a collection of unsigned, falsified, and forged documents which he had the imperiousness to call my professional personnel file.  Because it is my belief that these falsehoods have been shared throughout the HR back-channels, as I cannot conceive of any other utility for them matching his character, I brought my knowledge of these activities to light.  There would be absolutely no advantage for me to publish ungrounded allegations of a former employer.  However, I feel that I need to write about my experience to defend and preserve my personal dignity and reputation for myself and my family, as well as enlighten the broader community.  I am determined to challenge the false narrative economically focusing on the truth rather than addressing damages in English court.  Such a challenge would be time consuming, expensive, and logistically difficult.  Also, to prove the points to any (uncertain economic) benefit is not my priority so much as the truth of the matter.  However, it would be impossible for my previous employer to prove otherwise.  Nonetheless, the false documents and/or contents mentioned are in my possession, as well as have been shared with UK and Norwegian government compliance organizations, if they so choose to investigate compliance to their national laws and acts.  Truth has patience.

I never wonder to see men wicked, but I often wonder to see them not ashamed.   

Jonathan Swift     

The reason that it is important to bring attention to the iniquitous behaviors of employers within the seismic industry, or other sectors for that matter, is because nothing is done in isolation.  The companies, employees, and communication channels are all connected.  When companies decide to pollute their company records, and the marine seismic and larger geophysical community or sector, with false information about ex-employees, it serves only the self-interest of incompetent or corrupt leadership.  When high level executives cooperate to use the financial leverage provided from customers, shareholders, and other employees to make challenging wrong-doing exceptionally difficult, these decisions devalue every aspect of a company.  Should management be able to vilify me, or other employees, professionally when the company top executives are the ones who lie and malign?  It is those who lack the courage to abide by the policies which they articulate, who deceive, withhold, and then falsify documents who are the ones that should be ashamed.  And it should be the company and its executives who condone such egregious practices that should be out of work, and not the targets of abused power.  That is how business should work.  I am directly familiar with the events which have affected me personally.  However, the culture and character of the organization hierarchy suggests that I was likely not the first person to be the target of such abominations.  From my review of literature, this behavior is not exceptional – unfortunately – and transcends sector and industry.  This is the same culture and character which makes decisions about how to handle other employees concerns contrary to their own policies and which also forms decisions about who is to be retained or made redundant in a down cycle.  This same culture and character form several other “strategic” business decisions, up through preparing and signing multi-million dollar contracts with oil and gas license operators.

If senior management is willing to conspire, lie, and falsify documents to deal with what should be a relatively simple problem to control or solve, had they only effectively applied their own policies and been responsible, what would keep any company from corrupting the outcome of other unfavorable health and safety or other controversial information?  Should we be resigned to allow such companies to just change the rules whenever they cannot “win” on their terms?  It is all connected.  The problem is that such behaviors are all too common today globally, and it has impact on the greater global economic culture of business.  Cheaters are holding onto their jobs, even being further rewarded, while honest, capable and committed workers are losing their jobs and livelihoods directing the sector on the wrong course by use of a broken moral compass. Corrupt organizational hierarchies are making bad business decisions and then using HR to formally facilitate personnel actions to hide their incompetence.  This reality negatively effects quality, health and safety, and the environment.  It impacts employees, customers, and investors.  It effects the entire seismic industry and beyond, and it needs to be stopped.  Hopefully, informing business sector stakeholders will facilitate this change.

With most people disbelief in a thing is founded on a blind belief in some other thing.

Georg C. Lichtenberg

I never thought that I would ever work under such dishonest and manipulative management hierarchy as I did.  I worked within the contract sales group in England concentrating on Africa projects.  When I voiced health and safety concerns and believed that I was being bullied by my boss, management’s reaction had me in disbelief.  There is a lot of literature about workplace bullying and it is not an altogether exceptional issue to come across these days.  In fact, it is a serious issue mentioned within the company handbook as something that is not tolerated.  Countries are passing workplace bullying legislation affecting global workplaces.  One would think (or hope) that high level human resource professionals and executives would want to be in tune with this knowledge and possess the acumen to listen and address such concerns professionally and be able to arrive at some mutually advantageous solution if such issues arose.  After all, stress, harassment and bullying are the most highly ranked workplace hazards within the UK, where I was working.  I was not actually familiar with the term “workplace bullying” until I started to try and put a name on the unreasonable and derisive management practices which I was enduring.  The silence, misinformation, and deception all around me was the most difficult part to absorb.  My direct interaction with human resources throughout my career had been minimal until my England assignment.  I had never experienced anything close while working for the U.S. Department of Defense where keeping information secret was in fact part of the team’s job.  To make a long story short, it was never officially resolved whether I was bullied.  But, it was neither resolved that I hadn’t been bullied.  We agreed to part ways.  I wanted to leave the inhospitable and uncomfortable situation behind me, and so I moved back to America, along with my family.  Top management had done just about everything possible to avoid dealing with the issue directly.

Over time, what I have become completely certain of, in my case, is that the HR manager responsible for compiling my file is a liar and a coward.  However, his actions were wholly empowered and supported by top management, who apparently share his level of character.  The senior vice president of HR and current executive vice president of operations, who reside at the parent company headquarters in Norway, created and signed a forged memo which was added to my professional personnel records.  The memo presented false assertions that a conclusion regarding my bullying issue had been reached.  In fact, nothing could have been further from the truth.  This high level power team demonstrated no interest in dealing with my issue on a professional level according to the company’s policies and procedures. Yet, they continue to project a narrative where they essentially won the argument.  This is unacceptable.

Through all of this, they were in fact willing to endanger my health and well-being to maintain and project authority.  There was never an interest for an objective review of the situation and no dialogue.  I would have never brought-up such mistreatment and company departure from process and procedure at such a high level without some chronicle of reasons or episodes to support my claims.  There was plenty of information presented that the senior management team could have reasonably considered and reported on.   During the same period, management requested an independent report from an occupational health professional.  I discovered it through a separate Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) subject access request.   The senior management knowingly withheld this report from me while I was employed and considering my exit.  They also responded to me and the compliance agency that such a report was never provided to them when I made my subject access request.  They had lied to me and likely to the compliance agency.  I believe that management took advantage of the fact that I was from America and required company sponsorship to remain in determining how to address my issue.  Management colluded to make my work conditions more unbearable so I would not want a prolonged confrontation and have to remain in England any longer.  They were correct that I did not want to stay in England surrounded by such dishonest and manipulative hosts.  They used this to their advantage as they averted protocols and delayed decisions until I finally agreed to leave and not press the issue any further.  And then top management had the false narrative follow me to America polluting the seismic industry community.  They were likely surprised by my DPA subject access request.

The senior management completely abrogated their responsibility as prescribed in policy.  They demonstrated no leadership or ability to discuss difficult issues whatsoever.  Instead, they created falsified documents to form a suitable written mythology to place into my personnel file.  Through guidance and cooperation from the company top executives, HR changed dates and left out or embellished events – the entire history of my final months of employment – to make things appear as though some semblance of policy and procedure was followed when it was not.  They left out any of my disagreements to their unsubstantiated narrative leaving a completely one-sided –false – narrative.  This shameful behavior was not only supported, but rewarded during a year with reduced earnings.  Since shedding light on my circumstances, high level scientists working for my former employer and anonymous others have viewed my LinkedIn profile.  I have encouraged the identifiable one’s to look into my file and check my personnel file and claims for themselves.  People of honor would want to defend their character.  As expectedl, there has been no response, only the typical silence and avoidance from confronting truth.  Apparently, it was not enough for the hierarchy to take away my career, they also wanted to steal my identity and rewrite history so that it should be difficult that I ever have one again.  This tale of events would have never been shared had I not come to discover the true hubris and vindictiveness of my former employer’s senior management through a UK Data Protection Act 1998 subject access request.  Without the leverage of certainty, I would have never known without doubt the distortions and would have been obliged to silence assuming accurate records, as both the DPA and ethical practices require, were being retained.

It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.

Warren Buffett

My narrative, while unique, is not altogether exceptional.  Change the company and some particulars, and the behaviors and character of how issues of bullying and whistle-blowing are dealt with have a common theme.  Power structures will align themselves and protect their domains by all means.  Fairness is a side issue only read about in HR columns removed from the real world.  We find trust in business relationships at an all-time low, while management hubris and abuse of positions seems to be at an all-time high. Why?  The common reaction to those who expose corruption or management incompetence is to purge the messenger.  Management will conspire to lie, cheat, and yes, endanger worker lives, to maintain their power and position.  Psychologists David DeSteno and Piercarlo Valdesolo conducted several experiments showing time and again that 90% of people – mostly of whom identify themselves as morally upstanding – will act dishonestly to benefit themselves if they believe that they will not be caught.  Further to this, people will rationalize their own dishonesty while condemning the dishonesty of others.  In other research by Paul Piff, it was found that with increased power and status there is a decrease in honesty and reliability.  Psychologist Robert Feldman believes people are motivated to lie not necessarily to impress others, but to maintain a view of themselves consistent with the way that they want others to view them.  In the workplace, self-esteem and threats to the executive’s sense of self are drivers for lying.

Executives want to look good in the company and this is closely tied with the fact that people appear to be short-term focused when they decide to deceive someone.  While individuals work to sustain their self-image and self-worth in the short term, if the deceived individual finds out it can have long-term consequences.   I hope that this is what is happening now.  Within an organization with a fair and ethical management system, if managers have the legitimate formal power, along with the appropriate processes to handle employee issues, there would be no need to risk lying and damaging the organizations reputation.  According to research cited by consultant and speaker Margaret Heffernan, 85% of surveyed US and UK executives avoid dealing with issues that might provoke conflict.  These executives did not want to be challenged because they were afraid to get embroiled in arguments that they did not know how to manage, and felt that they were bound to lose.  Couple this with a propensity for high-level executives to preserve their self-identity through lying and many events become easier to explain, while not necessarily easier to accept.

Human resources is too often used as a punitive function to protect and hide organization leadership and managerial corruption and incompetence. This negatively impacts and corrupts the entire organization culture.  This results in sub-optimal organization and system performance in all areas impacting quality, health and safety, and environment.  Organizations who misuse the human resource function blemish the majority of honest and competent HR professionals and the positive contributions that they can provide to organizations when counseled properly.  When a positive work culture is allowed to be destroyed from within and hijacked by management of misrepresentation, blame, and distortion, then employees, customers, and shareholders, as well as the entire industry pay the price.  When top managers are not obliged to follow the policies and values that the company advocates, these counter-cultural norms are then embraced to form a debased work culture.  In the modern business environment, we are all connected in some way.  Human resources is the center of organization culture.  Human resources articulate and publish company values and policy for common understanding.  How companies deal with workplace conflict, such as claims of harassment, bullying, discipline and grievance processes, etc. is a much better measure of company culture.  How these events are recorded and resolved along with third-party survey data would provide more information than a company’s printed mission statements and values to license operators who contract them.  Gauging contractor cultures compatibility with operator cultures will also reduce project risks.  Many business and project failures are due to incompatible work cultures working ineffectively toward incongruent objectives.  As it was written, the path to ethics starts with human resources.  It often ends there too.

You may choose to look the other way but you can never say again that you did not know.

William Wilberforce

If you are a human resources professional, please offer your perspective.

###

English English French French Japanese Japanese Korean Korean Norwegian Norwegian Portuguese Portuguese Thai Thai