Open Letter to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Regarding PGS Exploration (UK) Limited Defrauding the Information Commissioner’s Office

An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data” (3-Jul-2015)

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO):

This complaint letter is legally protected public disclosure as defined within the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.  If any information presented herein is disparaging to named parties, they are legally and contractually able and obligated to clarify.

The following complaints were submitted to ICO prior to their recommending taking the complaints to the next level to PHSO:

What do you think we [UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)] did wrong?

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) mission is to “uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals”.  The GDPR seven key principles:

  1. Lawfulness, fairness and transparency.
  2. Purpose limitation.
  3. Data minimisation.
  4. Accuracy.
  5. Storage limitation.
  6. Integrity and confidentiality (security)
  7. Accountability.

Steven Kalavity’s (SDK) first direct interaction with the ICO was from October – December 2014.  SDK has submitted subsequent SARs to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Weybridge, Surrey, KT13 0NY, England in 2016, 2018, and most recently in 2020 predicated on the contents received through the 2014 SAR.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is registered with Companies House (02904391) with legal jurisdiction of England and Wales.

SDK has been both disappointed and astonished by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) ability to ensure subject data integrity and data controller compliance to General Data Protection Requirement (GDPR) seven key principles and protect SDKs data subjects rights.  ICO fails to exercise even the most basic due diligence of data controller responses and confirm their responsibilities to data subjects.  ICO seems to lack robust processes that actually qualify and then validate data controller compliance.  Thus, subject data rights can never really be properly protected when dysfunctional processes that allow non-compliance are used by ICO.  

SDK is a USA citizen who was sponsored on a Tier 2 visa and allowed to legally work in England with employer/data controller, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited from September 2010 to December 2013.   SDK and PGS Exploration (UK) Limited are bound by two contracts, (a) original employment contract and (b) a termination settlement contract both governed by the laws of England.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited continues to defraud SDK, the ICO, UK Visas and Immigration, Border Force and Immigration Enforcement, as well as several global stakeholders within the upstream oil and gas industries. 

If the aforementioned contracts are valid, SDK is contractually and legally prohibited from sharing information that disparages PGS Exploration (UK) Limited or any of its affiliates, customers, or contractors.  (This includes the recent disclosures to ICO and of course other online publications.) However, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has never cited a breach of these contracts by SDK.  Why not?  SDK has published disparaging content about PGS Exploration (UK) Limited since July 2015.  However, the content has been legally protected (PIDA) or whistleblowing.  

Three (3) data controller’s processed PGS Exploration (UK) Limited SDK personal data in forming the termination settlement contract signed in 2013.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited was represented by Watson Farley and Wiliams and SDK was represented by Landau Zeffertt and Weir (now Landau Law).  Agents from these firms have been copied on complaints submitted to ICO (and ActionFraud.  Since 2016, SDK has published his belief that he was a mark/victim of a criminal conspiracy and confidence fraud led by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited.  

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley and Wiliams and Landau Zeffertt and Weir (now Landau Law) all have been hostile and fraudulent respondents with regard to queries about the termination settlement contract which they formed.  The termination settlement contract contains Confidentiality terms and conditions prohibiting the publication of disparaging content.  It should be noted that while PGS Exploration (UK) Limited does not have a subsidiary in Thailand, global legal firm Watson Farley and Williams does have offices in Thailand.  Yet, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited used Thai law firm Duensing – Kippen?

However, the real power of settlement contracts is that they make future litigation between parties extremely difficult, absent a breach in the terms and conditions.  In any case, litigation is also very expensive, especially for an illegally terminated and blacklisted data subject.  This is important because usual civil litigation that data subjects would have available to them to correct data is not available once a settlement contract is signed.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley and Wiliams and Landau Zeffertt and Weir (now Landau Law) engaged in criminal behavior and conspired to utter forged and defamatory documents to harm the data subject whistleblower, SDK.  

SDK first published his belief that Watson Farley and Williams and Landau Zeffertt and Weir were bribed to illegally terminate a whistleblower in 2016.  Watson Farley and Williams and Landau Zeffertt and Weir have never commented directly on the PGS Exploration (UK) Limited sponsored litigation against SDK in Thailand.  In fact, SDKs position is that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited breached the terms and conditions of the termination settlement contract that contained mutual non-disparagement clauses.  The purpose of the termination settlement contract was to obstruct the avenues of legal redress to pursue civil and criminal claims under English law against PGS Exploration (UK) Limited / PGS ASA agents.

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley and Williams, Landau Zeffertt and Weir, and Duensing – Kippen principals/agents have been copied on emails and could answer many questions.  However, they remain hostile and refuse to clarify the most basic queries.  SDK believes that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley and Williams, Landau Zeffertt and Weir, and Duensing – Kippen are intentionally working to avoid resolution by the English justice system.  Failure to disclose id a form of fraud:

Fraud Act 2006 Section 3: Fraud by failing to disclose information

18.Section 3 makes it an offence to commit fraud by failing to disclose information to another person where there is a legal duty to disclose the information. A legal duty to disclose information may include duties under oral contracts as well as written contracts. The concept of “legal duty” is explained in the Law Commission’s Report on Fraud, which said at paragraphs 7.28 and 7.29:

The fact that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited does not use the legal system of England as prescribed by contract(s), but instead takes “legal” action against SDK in Thailand citing Thailand criminal code should raise a big flag pointing to some irregularity or impropriety. (It is remarkable that ICO does not see this as highly unusual rather than likely.)  SDK has reported to both ICO and ActionFraud that he believes he and his Thai family members are victims of fraud, and extortion/blackmail multiple times.  However, such claims of data controller impropriety are not regarded as worthy of serious investigation by either ICO or ActionFraud (police)?  It is much too easy for data controller’s, such as PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, to provide material misrepresentations to both the data subject and ICO regarding subject data processing compliance.

ICOs response to data subject, SDKs 2020 SAR:

>>>>—-<<<<<

An organisation has to comply with a condition set out in chapter 5 of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) if it is to transfer personal data overseas.

Article 49 (1) (e) of GDPR provides a condition permitting a data controller to transfer personal data overseas if it is “necessary for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims”.

The organisation has confirmed that they relied on this condition to transfer your data.

In your case, the organisation has transferred your data to a legal firm in Thailand to pursue a legal claim against you. As such we consider it likely that the organisation has complied with its data protection obligations in this case

Although we appreciate this will not be the decision you were hoping for, we hope the above information is of assistance to you in clarifying the application of the GDPR in this case.

>>>>—-<<<<<

ICO facilitates pathological deception and data controller criminal cover-up and misrepresentation.  The UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) form the terms and conditions of both contracts between PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and SDK.  The only data that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited should legitimately be processing for SDK at any time are records pertaining directly to SDKs legal employment.  This especially applies to records created whilst being employed in England from September 2010 to December 2013. These legal records should include personnel records that support the Tier 2 visa work permit legal requirements and also dependent family member application data provided to UK Border..

ICO does not seem to have an understanding of what legal subject data processing is and therefore has no processes in place to detect or validate such processing.  ICO must recognize that there are different types of personal data.  A data controller must only process personal data that is pertinent to the legal relationship of the data controller and data subject.  Data controllers’ legal processing of subject data must be qualified.  For example, inaccurate reporting of personal data used to support a Tier 2 visa could warrant criminal penalties for non-compliance and false reporting to other (international) government agencies.  

ICO renders decisions based on impressions.  Such practices are unreliable and do not protect data subject rights.  ICO decisions must be fact-based and supported with evidence/data.  ICO cannot and should not understand the details of subject data.  However, ICO should understand the base relationship between the data controller and data subject to the extent of making cogent decisions on fair data use.  Data controller’s garner no penalty for actively abusing their position and misusing or withholding subject data.

Data controllers have obligations, whereas data subjects have rights.  ICO must also understand the dimensions of personal data with regard to its fair use.  Data controller records and subject legal records cannot be conflated and allowed to be processed in the same way.  What data is processed and why are central  aspects of the GDPR principles.  While data subject SDK does not believe that ICO (caseworkers), chooses to use poor or dysfunctional processes, doing so actually aids and abets GDPR violators that severely harm data subjects.  

Case IC-44927-G3W4 pertains to the PGS Exploration (UK) Limited response to SDKs 2020 SAR which was submitted 15 April 2020:

From: Steven Kalavity <@gmail.com>

Date: Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 7:20 AM

Subject: GDPR 2020 Subject Access Request

To: GDPR <[email protected]>, John Francas <@pgs.com>

RE;  Steven D. Kalavity

        GDPR

I would like to submit a subject access for data that PGS ASA is processing for me, Steven D. Kalavity.

I am especially interested in the legal claims that have been prepared by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited intended for my receipt in Thailand.  I have never received these.  

I would also like to have the copies of any warrants filed where I am the intended recipient by PGS ASA or its subsidiaries.

I would like PGS to present full copies of any data referenced to prepare these claims.

Regards,

SDK follow-up 19 April 2020 email for unanswered 15 April 2020 email:

From: Steven Kalavity <@gmail.com>

Date: Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:58 PM

Subject: Fwd: GDPR 2020 Subject Access Request

To: GDPR <[email protected]>, John Francas <@pgs.com>, Lars Mysen <@pgs.com>

PGS GDPR DPO,

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

Could PGS ASA please acknowledge?

The 11 November 2018 documents that I signed in Thailand, (1) Plaintiff PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and (2) Plaintiff Carl Richards are not signed by the plaintiffs.  Can you please provide a letter with notarized signature confirming the plaintiffs are attached to the document?

Also, could you provide in English the Tippaya Monmanee’s legal qualification in matters of the laws of England?  Is she qualified to draft agreements for a company governed by the laws of England?  Also, is Tippaya Moonmanee qualified to draft contracts for adjudication in the US Federal Courts of Harris County Texas?

Regards,

This response from ICO shows a complete lack of understanding of SDKs data protection issues and concerns with .PGS Exploration (UK) Limited.  ICO disregards substantive emails sent to them concerning the 2014 SAR, 2016 SAR, 2018 SAR and 2020 SAR processing by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited. ICO states, “As such we consider it likely that the organisation has complied with its data protection obligations in this case.”   ICO has absolutely no basis in fact to issue such a ridiculous statement that damages the data subject and protects corrupt data controllers.  ICO disregards the GDPR Seven Key Principle.  Beyond this, ICO does not consider the data itself that was transferred.  UK GDPR states:

The UK GDPR restricts the transfer of personal data to countries outside the UK or to international organisations. These restrictions apply to all transfers, no matter the size of transfer or how often you carry them out.

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has not been required to provide substantive responses that demonstrate their adherence to any of The Seven GDPR Principles.  ICO seems completely clueless in understanding different types of personal data and also does not inquire why a company, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, governed by the laws of England is using the Thai criminal justice system?  ICO Stating “we consider it likely that the organisation has complied with its data protection obligations” demonstrates an abject disregard for the rights of the data subject who claims the ventures into Thailand are a way to avoid the English legal system and blackmail to destroy and de-publish evidence of crimes!

The criminal charges put forth by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited against SDK are for criminal defamation under the laws of Thailand.   Firstly, the UK has no criminal defamation law.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and SDK were bound by contracts governed by the laws of ENGLAND that both contained Confidentiality terms and conditions prohibiting publication of content disparaging PGS Exploration (UK) Limited. (Unless it is protected disclosure as defined within PIDA.)  How can one not be in breach of contract for publishing unprotected disparaging content under the laws of England, but be charged with criminal defamation under the laws of Thailand?  ICO supporting PGS Exploration (UK) Limited claim that they have “likely” met their obligations for transferring subject data outside the EEA is both ridiculous and unfounded.

There needs to be an ICO process in place similar to the legal workplace grievance process that allows  data subjects the ability to appeal the adequacy of data controller responses to SARs.  Data controller compliance to the GDPR Principles should always be the primary objective.  Even if the concerns of the data subject are deemed ridiculous, data controller’s have the obligation to abide by GDPR principles and therefore must be able to easily demonstrate such compliance.  ICO must also understand what legally protected disclosure as defined by PIDA.  Data subjects citing data controller non-compliant data processing or their covering-up such activity is whistleblowing.  ICO needs to anticipate such reporting.

As previously mentioned, SDK had submitted an SAR to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGS ASA) in 2018.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is allowed to respond with ambiguity, threats and ultimatums rather than clarify legitimate data subject compliance concerns.  The response to SDKs 2020 SAR is absurd and actually more relevant to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited actions proceeding SDKs 2018 SAR.  SDK is requesting original English language (prior to translating into Thai language) copies of the “legal notices” that were delivered in Thailand to the residence of relatives while SDK was in the USA, as well as any personal data used in forming the legal notices.

For what possible reason has PGS Exploration (UK) Limited refused this request?  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has not even provided a current status of their Thai claims.  SDK has never published content written in the Thai language.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is translating content (which SDK believes to be legally protected per PIDA) in the English language to the Thai language.  Just as legal matters governed by the laws of England are written in English, documentation for use in the Thai legal system is written in the Thai language.  SDK is simply requesting copies of the documents intended for his receipt in Thailand to be delivered for his perusal in the USA.  

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited also provided multiple misrepresentations to SDK within their response to SDKs 2018 SAR in July 2018 which preceded the initial delivery of two (2) claims in Thailand through legal firm Duensing – Kippen to SDKs residence in Thailand in September 2018.  In November 2018, SDK signed two separate agreements under threat of criminal prosecution in Thailand and possible prison terms. SDK had also written multiple emails to ICO from June – December 2018.  (ICO Case Reference Number ENQ0754715).  

SDK never regarded the Thailand legal proceedings and subsequent agreements as legal and communicated this to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited multiple times.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has never explained how terms and conditions of both the original employment contract and termination settlement contract governed by the laws of England are not still valid and enforceable?  How can agreements sponsored by English company, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited,under the Thai legal system take legal precedence over contracts governed by the laws of England?

A PGS Exploration (UK) Limited company secretary, Carl Richards, had threatened litigation against data subject SDK in April 2018 regarding legally protected (PIDA) publications essentially revealing a criminal conspiracy controlled by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited.  Richards, fiduciary agent of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited was threatening litigation against SDK as an individual divorced from PGS Exploration (UK) Limited.  SDK published his belief that the threat of litigation was illegal extortion.

Richards never confirmed his identity nor answered questions of his legal agency and fiduciary responsibilities of an acting PGS Exploration (UK) Limited secretary that would allow him to pursue litigation in Thailand as an individual whilst SDK and PGS Exploration (UK) Limited were bound by two contracts prohibiting the publication of anything derogatory to PGS ASA, et al.  SDK also received threats from Thai legal firm, Duensing – Kippen, who similarly did not provide requested identification information.  

Duensing – Kippen emphasized that they only represented individual Richards and not PGS ASA or its affiliates.  Richards resigned as PGS Exploration (UK) Limited 25 May 2018.  This inspired SDK to submit another SAR to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited as GDPR was replacing the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and PGS ASA had appointed a Data Protection Officer.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited cited the termination settlement contract and attorney client privilege for not providing any information regarding SDK data processing.

In September 2018, Duensing – Kippen delivered two (2) claims against SDK.  One claim was on behalf of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and the other Carl Richards.  Duensing – Kippen misrepresented that they also represented PGS Exploration (UK) Limited.  When SDK reviewed the claim, it was noted that the claim had been assembled following the delivery of the 2018 SAR.  Therefore, the response which PGS Exploration (UK) Limited was applicable to the 2018 SAR.  But, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited had provided misrepresentations to SDK in their response in 2018.

SDK had provided PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and Norwegian parent company, PGS ASA, with copies of his USA passport and USA Texas state driver’s license, as well as SDKs postal mail address in Thailand where he was staying on visa for the explicit purpose of identification for processing an SAR in July 2018.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited used this data for fraudulent purposes without the permission of the data subject.  The identification and home address data was then provided this data to a Thailand based legal firm to harass and stalk SDK.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited had no legal reason for processing this data beyond identification verification.  These documents (passport and driver’s license) were not relevant, and in fact were different from those provided to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited during the Tier 2 visa application process in both 2010 and 2013.  

It is a violation of USA Federal law to copy a USA passport without permission.  It is a violation of USA Texas state law to copy a Texas state driver’s license without permission.  These copies were provided for subject identification only. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited fraudulently used without the data subject permission USA and USA Texas state legal documents for nefarious purposes beyond the scope of the employer – employee relationship.  This illegally obtained personal data was then provided to Thailand legal firm Duensing – Kippen who used passport data and address information to stalk, harass, and extort (blackmail) SDK.  These are violations of GDPR principles that should mandate the fair and legal processing of personal data.     

PGS ASA / PGS Exploration (UK) Limited also did not acknowledge a 2016 SAR which was sent to PGS ASA compliance which once again claimed and provided evidence of PGS ASA / PGS Exploration (UK) Limited executive fraud, forgery, embezzlement, and bribery.  PGS ASA states that they investigated, but the claim is not believed by SDK.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited noted SDKs 2014 SAR.  Since July 2015, SDK has published legally protected content online.  SDK published his concerns on the LinkedIn PGS comment space.  PGS ASA / PGS Exploration (UK) Limited deleted comments and did not invoke a breach in contractual Confidentiality clauses prohibiting publishing derogatory content nor processed the comments as protected disclosure, or whistleblowing  

At no point in time has data controller PGS ASA / PGS Exploration (UK) Limited played by the rules,  Thus, it is infuriating and intolerable that ICO responds that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has likely complied with their obligation to data subject SDK.  ICO does not even reference the numerous ICO cases and emails sent to them by data subject SDK since 2014!  Is it normal for data subjects to send so many complaints about data controllers every two years?  When providing responses, ICO must also consider the totality of information which they have been provided with focus on the mission.

The tragic truth of the matter is that the 2016 SAR, 2018 SAR and 2020 SAR were required only because ICO gave PGS Exploration (UK) Limited a free pass on their processing SDK personal data that did not comply with (then) DPA principles.  ICO did not protect the rights of the data subject, but provided a shield to criminal abusers who falsified personal data in order to destroy the livelihood and reputation of the data subject, SDK.  The only reason that so many legally protected publications were possible is because ICO dropped the ball in 2014 by not demanding that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited abide by DPA Principles.

The UK Data Protection Act 1998 Principles –  Subject data must be,

  • Fairly and lawfully processed;
  • processed only for limited purposes;
  • Adequate, relevant and not excessive for the above purposes;
  • Accurate and up to date;
  • Not kept for longer than is necessary for the above purposes;
  • Processed in line with the rights of the data subject;
  • Data is kept secure;
  • Not transferred to other countries outside the European Enterprise Area (EEA) without adequate protection.

The response received from ICO 9 January 2015 is abject gobbledygook because PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is non-compliant to the DPA first principle: subject data must be fairly and lawfully processed.  Nevertheless, ICO ignores the first principle and responds: 

Response from the ICO [Ref. RFA0563589]

[email protected] <[email protected]> Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 3:38 AM

To: [email protected]

9th January 2015

Case Reference Number RFA0563589

Dear Mr Kalavity

Thank you for your further emails of 19 December 2014, 20 December 2014, 22 December 2014, 23 December 2014, 29 December 2014 and 30 December 2014 about PGS Exploration (UK) Limited.

The Data Protection Act 1998 applies to personal information relating to living individuals. It requires organisations collecting and using personal data to comply with eight rules of information handling. These are called the data protection principles.

>>>>….<<<<<

Accuracy of data

Finally regarding the accuracy of personal information held about you, as previously advised, we only consider issues of factual inaccuracies and not issues about opinions that may be recorded. In their letter to you dated 22 December 2014 PGS Exploration (UK) Limited advised you that your email to them dated 5 December 2014 had been placed on your personnel file. This means that this has now become part of the information they hold about you expressing your views about what happened.

If you have evidence that they hold information about you is factually inaccurate you may wish to raise this with them. This would not include such matters as your views about opinions expressed about you, or the way in which your grievance was conducted.

>>>>….<<<<<

First of all, the 22 December 2014 letter written by an accused criminal and non-compliant HR Manager, David Nicholson on behalf PGS Exploration (UK) Limited consists of unqualified misrepresentations and does not answer many of the issues the data subject, SDK, has raised.  These allegations were written and submitted within the 20 September 2013 formal grievance which is only referenced within the termination settlement contract.  While the letter does reference and state that a 5 December 2014 complaint email will after the fact be processed to make the subject data compliant, ICO cites no problem nor assesses any penalty to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited for processingesg inaccurate and defamatory (forged) documents.  

These inaccurate and defamatory (forged) documents supported the termination settlement contract.  This  means that SDK was terminated from employment illegally using non-compliant personal data. It also means this data was used to terminate his Tier 2 visa illegally. Why does ICO allow this solution and not hold  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited for violating DPA principles?  A 22 December 2014 email was actually a response to an SDK email sent 20 December 2014.  The email contained the (electronic) attachment of the 22 December 2014 letter citing several issues with a 25 October 2013 Memo which is being processed as SDKs personal data.  

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley and Wiliams and Landau Zeffertt and Weir (now Landau Law) also conspired to place the physical health and well-being of SDK and his family at risk through abrogating their legal duty to protect employees from stress at work.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley and Wiliams and Landau Zeffertt and Weir (now Landau Law) fraudulently withheld an occupational health nurse assessment report from consideration in forming the termination settlement contract.  This report is also not being processed as part of SDK personal data.  (It was obtained through a separate SAR to the contracted occupational health nurse.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited acknowledges this through the inclusion of the 5 December 2014 email which brings up the matter.

David Nicholson <[email protected]> Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 1:21 AM

To: Steven Kalavity <[email protected]>

Please find attached our response to your constant requests for information which either you are not entitled to or we don’t possess.

Please also note that we are now taking legal advice on this matter as we are of the opinion that we have reacted to all your requests in a fair and reasonable manner and that you are now in breach of your Settlement Agreement which you signed last December.

This letter has also been sent to you through the post.

David Nicholson HR Manager

From: Steven Kalavity [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 20 December 2014 04:03

To: Laura Haswell

Cc: David Nicholson

Subject: KALAVITY – SAR – PAR/TB Memo Reference Documents not provided

PGS UK Data Processor/Controller:

In my personnel file there is a Memo written/signed by Terje Bjolseth and Per Arild Reksnes.

First of all, I never received this Memo (to my attention?) until recently when it was sent to me by my SAR / UK DPA 1998.

Note the three referenced documents:

1) Meeting 11 September 2013

2) Your letter of 29 September 2013

3) Meeting 14 October 2013

I have not received these referenced items. 

Item 3:

I think this is a reference to the Norway – UK teleconference meeting.

No minutes of this grievance hearing are provided.  My witness/co-worker John Barnard attended (to verify what was said/discussed).  He is not copied on these minutes.  Simon Cather and David Nicholson did not attend this meeting.

Item 2:

Your letter?  I do not know what letter is being referenced.  Perhaps a letter from DN/SC?  I have not been provided with this document.

Item 1:

I do not know anything about this meeting.  It was not with me.  I have not been provided with minutes of this meeting.

The point is, information has been referenced and processed but has not been provided to me through my SAR request.

Please explain.

Regards,

Steven

Within the 9 January 2015, ICO again does not protect subject data rights, but instead shields data controller PGS Exploration (UK) Limited from addressing concerns responsibly.  ICO essentially allows PGS Exploration (UK) Limited to “correct” subject data with no penalty whatsoever!  ICO does not require that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited state why amending SDKs personal data is either necessary or compliant?  ICO did not even make the most basic inquiries to protect the data subject..  Why is it acceptable or necessary to alter SDK personal data by the inclusion of one of the complaint emails dated 5 December 2014?  The 5 December 2014 email is requesting that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited remove inaccurate and defamatory (forged) documents from SDKs official personnel records!  

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has acknowledged that they have been in violation of DPA/GDPR principles through their permitting this alteration of SDK personal data.  ICO apparently does not even recognize this and obviously is not penalizing the data controller in any way.  Why would PGS Exploration (UK) Limited amend personal data months following the termination settlement agreement?  It is because PGS Exploration (UK) Limited processed the termination settlement contract using fake – forged and defamatory – personal data.  This is fraud.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited would not agree to or should be allowed to amend SDKs personal data with inaccurate and non-compliant content.  

ICO should not need to know this, but PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley and Williams, and Landau Zeffertt and Weir (Landau Law) had promised that SDK personal data was accurate the day before the termination settlement contract was signed.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley and Williams, and Landau Zeffertt and Weir (Landau Law) denied multiple requests by data subject, SDK, to inspect his personal data whilst negotiations were going on.  (SDK now knows why.)  However, ICO should know that documents that have no subject signature would not be considered legal or useful a court of law.  Within the 5 December 2014 complaint email to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, SDK requested the removal of non-compliant (to DPA principles) and illegal personal data.  

The 5 December 2014 complaint email to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited:

Data Protection Act 1998 – SAR – comments / requested changes

Steven Kalavity <@gmail.com> Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 7:16 AM

To: Laura Haswell <[email protected]>

Cc: David Nicholson <@pgs.com>

PGS UK Data Controller,

Please confirm receipt of this email.

The forty day period for compliance of my Subject Access Request (SAR) has now passed.  I do not believe that there has been complete compliance, but I will defer to ICO guidance on how to proceed.

I have not received information regarding who directly has processed my personal data, who has had access to the different personal data stored, who has been provided with my personal data, or for what reasons. 

I applied for different roles while within PGS, especially during the time I was with Marine Contract – Africa.  Please provide me with discussions/outcomes from these applications.

I printed four copies of my grievance to present personally during the scheduled meeting.  I distributed the hard copies them to the meeting attendees:  John Barnard (my witness), David Nicholson, and Eddy Von Abendorff.  I also e-mailed copies to Simon Cather, Per Arild Reksnes, and John Greenway.

The grievance was principally in regard to the unfair and inaccurate processing of my personal data.  I believe that the Data Protection Act 1998 was violated when PGS did not allow correction of this data and continued to publish and disseminate the incorrect information.

During settlement discussions I requested disputed information removed and PGS UK refused this request.

PGS UK has provided only a select number of communications from limited data processors and not undeleted or recovered from back-up other electronic mails and records.

Hardcopy records (i.e., date books, other) have not been provided or mentioned.

Further, the Settle Agreement, Clause 9.7 establishes that PGS will endeavor not to publish any disparaging or harmful information about me.

I have communicated with ICO for guidance on how to proceed. 

Even though the disputed information was brought to PGS UK attention over a year ago through my grievance, ICO allows data controllers to address and correct (remove) inaccurate information.

Since I do not believe that I have received all my personal data that PGS UK holds, I will address the information in my personnel file.

For clarity, can PGS UK please confirm the order of the documents provided to me in two (2) packages as to how the information is presented and who has access to which portions?

With regard to the HRIS copy, can you please provide time-tagged copies (2 month interval) of the file to confirm how and when changes were made?

I am following the order provided to which the data was provided to me.   Please address these changes within 28 days.

Please address why this data was retained and created.

File Section 1:

Need to add eligible for rehire (as written in your recent e-mail). 

Memo dated 25-October-2013 – Conclusions from Grievance Hearing should be removed from the file. 

  • This document was never presented to me, yet it is referenced to my attention.
  • No signature or acknowledgement/agreement from me regarding content.
  • PGS offered me the settlement to STOP the grievance process (prior to this meeting, in fact).
  • Also, my solicitor, which I was prompted to engage after you made the offer, indicated PGS would prefer the settlement to proceed with the grievance so they WOULD NOT have to respond.
  • The grievance process was not CONCLUDED – it was just not continued due to PGS UK’s offer of a settlement agreement.
  • The minutes and record from this meeting are not sufficient given the gravity of the issue to the data subject.  Many important and substantive points are missing. 
  • More likely, I would have not accepted a PIP and would have appealed this conclusion and gone to tribunal, per ACAS provisions.
  • There is no presentation of evidence to indicate a thorough analysis.
  • There is no presentation of data that counter any of my issues brought-up within my grievance.
  • It accepts and amplifies the malicious and defamatory statements that are backed by no substantive evidence. 
  • This is not accurate nor fair and violates DPA provisions.
  • This also is not in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement prohibiting publication of disparaging remarks.

Omitted:  My grievance document that challenges allegations with supporting evidence.  (Omitted okay as long as with the other documents that inspired it.)  The document provided does not include the pages of evidence that support my disagreement.  Why is not the complete document provided?

  • Also, I remember a yellow-highlighted copy of my grievance being reference when the settlement was offered.  Is this the document copied?
  • I provided hard copies to you, Eddy and John.  Where are they?

Letter to me 24 July 2013 – Investigation for Possible Implementation of Performance Improvement Plan – Should be removed

  • This letter was provided to me after HR refusal to present me with minutes of an “informal meeting” where these allegations were first made.
  • This letter without my response (grievance) included suggests some sort of agreement or concession of these claims.  My file contains no meetings or emails that corroborate any of these statements.  In fact, these statements are both malicious and defamatory.
  • This is not accurate nor fair and violates DPA provisions. 
  • This is also not in accordance to the terms of the settlement agreement prohibiting the publication of disparaging remarks.

Meeting 13-June-2013 summary – Should be removed

  • This was an informal meeting.
  • I was called to the meeting with no warning or time to prepare.
  • This meeting did not follow PGS policy or procedures.
  • I asked for clarification about how this meeting conformed with PGS policy and was refused.
  • I was also refused minutes of the meeting to contest.  Instead, I was provided a letter which prompted my response.  Yes, I did believe the minutes needed to be written so that I could have the opportunity to contest the (unsupported) allegations.
  • I do not agree with these minutes and believe they conflate meetings and correspondence which occurred between the meeting and my grievance.
  • Allegations are not supported by any documentation.  In a fair and accurate process, these allegations should have been substantiated:
    • Workload distribution is not an opinion and can be quantified.  I included this in my grievance.  It was never provided in the meeting. 
    • Responsible and fair HR Management should have verified and clarified claims made as fact.
    • Commercial acumen was never defined and purely a (malicious) unqualified opinion.
    • Meeting and instruction were cited, but not supported by written records.  In fact, they never happened.
    • The GAP analysis meeting(s) mentioned with Manager are not corroborated by notes or details, and in fact never happened.  Responsible and fair HR Management should have confirmed this.
    • PIP was never discussed during meeting, move to another work assignment was mentioned.
    • Quality of work – no record of meetings or specific instances.  In fact, there seems to be no reduction in work given to me as mentioned in grievance.
    • Workload distribution is not an opinion and can be corroborated with evidence.  It never was.  Responsible and fair HR Management should have confirmed and clarified this.  Workload distribution evidence was included within my grievance/reply.
  • I was not provided an impartial witness during the meeting to corroborate the minutes.
  • I do not agree with many of the contents of this letter.
  • My Grievance documents go into detail about the many disagreements.
  • This is not accurate nor fair and violates DPA provisions. 
  • This is also not in accordance to the terms of the settlement agreement prohibiting the publication of disparaging remarks/information.
  • Why was there no validation by HR (UK/Norway) of the contested statements made as fact and to my personal detriment?
  • I believe that this is a violation of the DPA.
  • The documents inclusion into my personal personnel record is prejudicial and disparaging and violates the terms of the settlement agreement, as well.

GAP Analysis – Should be removed.   Note, I asked for its removal during settlement talks and was refused.

  • No supporting documentation to give meaning and context.
  • The Gap Analysis is not supported by any tangible data.
  • It mostly indicates disagreement, but no basis of disagreement (what was measured?)
  • No supporting documentation that indicates any effort to resolve the Gap.
  • The denial to provide how the Gap is defined or can be filled makes this document irrelevant.
  • EvA references meeting, but no evidence is provided to substantiate.
  • This is not accurate nor fair and violates DPA provisions. 
  • This is also not in accordance to the terms of the settlement agreement prohibiting the publication of disparaging remarks.
  • Omissions – Supporting documentation

There is no record of meetings, advice, or elaboration about my deficiencies referenced in the meeting.  Did the meeting ever happen?  Did you confirm, if so why isn’t there supporting documentation?

Documents about my temporary living, and trip to England, etc. can be removed because the information is dated not really useful or relevant to my professional file

.Section 2:

Tax reference info if needed.  Most all else can be removed as no longer valid.  (i.e., passport copies)

Section 3:

Section 4:

Omission – Email from Maggie Bream regarding my health check following my 5-day absence.

Section 5:

Replace with current CV.  I have provided several updated versions for internal vacancies.

Steven D. Kalavity

Steven Kalavity’s first direct interaction with the ICO was from October – December 2014.  SDK has submitted subsequent SARs to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Weybridge, Surrey, KT13 0NY, England in 2016, 2018, and most recently in 2020 predicated on the contents received through the 2014 SAR,  Since 2014, ICO had been unsuccessful in their mission to protect the data rights of subject SDK.  ICO failure has allowed PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (Watson Farley and Williams, Landau Zeffertt and Weir / Landau Law, Duensing – Kippen) to process defamatory forged documents that violate every DPA /  GDPR principles.  

SDK does not believe that there is an individual ICO caseworker or ICO in general has a personal vendetta against the data subject.  However, there is something systemic within the processes and procedures that data controllers PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley and Williams, and Landau Zeffrtt and Weir (Landau Law) to utter forged and illegal documents as SDK personal data over the course of several years without reprisal.  There may be other victims of data controller tyranny.  SDK is not the only person who is damaged by dysfunctional systems that violate personal human rights.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited processed fake data to preserve a dangerous mythology intended to deceive investors, customers and competitors.

The upstream oil and gas industry pays a premium for companies that operate safely.  However, the Deep Water Horizon disaster demonstrated how catastrophes manifest within climates of fear where whistleblowers remain silent due to the threat of reprisal.  Further, being the target of workplace gang-bullying and mobbing, a brutal tactic often used by corrupt organizations to oust whistleblowers, is no picnic.  SDK would not wish it upon anyone.  What PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has done to whistleblower SDK is take away his ability to fight back.  

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited denied SDK his ability to defend himself.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited breached SDKs contract and obstructed his ability to raise a grievance.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited engaged in mobster tactics and worked to destroy his reputation through producing defamatory performance reports.  However, this meant PGS Exploration (UK) Limited had to defraud UK Visas and Immigration, Border Force and Immigration Enforcement.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited could not legally employ a poor performing foreign worker and displace an able UK-EEA resident worker.  When SDK did finally submit his grievance, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited once again breached his employment contract by proffering a termination settlement contract and not follow-through the legally mandated grievance procedures.  

In desperation, SDK sought “legal” advice from solicitor Philip Landau.  When SDK received the contents of his personnel file through the 2014 SAR and discovered forged and defamatory documents being processed he knew he was the victim of something terrible.  Landau Zeffert and Weir (Landau) law betrayed SDK.  Landau received truthful information from his client, but processed PGS Exploration (UK) Limited lies.  Watson Farley and Williams processed one set of data for UK Visas and Immigration, Border Force and Immigration Enforcement and another set of SDK personal data to support the illegal termination settlement contract.  

Every penny spent on this confidence fraud game is money stolen from PGS ASA shareholders.  This robbery should have been halted years ago.  It only required that ICO employed robust processes that legally validate data controller compliance to DPA/GDPR principles rather than assuming that corrupt narcissistic data controllers are “likely” telling the truth.  SDK is 100% certain that the personal data PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is not legal and violates DPA / GDPR principles.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited even acknowledges this through their amending SDK personal data by the inclusion of the 5 December 2014 complaint email!

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited  has no legal business nor reason for transferring SDK personal data to a law firm in Thailand.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited litigation in Thailand is predicated on the fact that SDK was coerced to sign two compromise agreements in Thailand.  One agreement was on behalf of Carl RIchards and the other on behalf of the PGS Exploration (UK) Limited directors: Rune Olav Pedersen, Gottfred Langseth, Christin Steen-Nilsen  The agreements were signed under threat of criminal prosecution under Thai law with prison terms of 2-5 years each.  

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley and Wiliams and Landau Zeffertt and Weir (now Landau Law) refuse to clarify the legal status of the two contracts governed by the laws of England which contain Confidentiality terms and conditions prohibiting publication of content that disparages PGS ASA, except for legally protected (PIDA) content.  The agreements signed in Thailand are for the sole purpose of silencing legally protected disclosure.  Such agreements are illegal under Norwegian law and unenforceable under the laws of England (PIDA).  

Content referenced within the original two claims was published on nopgs.com, which was stolen with all evidence destroyed whilst legal discussion was ongoing with SDK in Thailand.  Additional charges were made against SDK in Thailand when he once again exercised his legal right under the laws of England to legally disclose.  Retaliation against whistleblowers is illegal (PIDA), but continues because of the inaction of ICO and ActionFraud.  ICO and ActionFraud are implored to thoroughly investigate.  But, data subject rights are not protected from guesses by ignorant ICO caseworkers.

Regards,

SDK

PINTEREST

No PGS

Ben Kelly lawyer DTN PGS Watson Farley Williams

PGS ASA John Francas

Landau Law – London, Employment Law

PGS ASA John Barnard & Josh May Bully Bystander

Holly Hobson London Employment Law BDBF Landau LZW

PGS ASA Human Resources Gareth Jones

rhodri thomas london employment lawyer EM Law WFW

PGS ASA WHISTLEBLOWER – December 2020

Telenor – PGS Corrupt Compliance Silke Hitschke

Jon Erik Reinhardsen Equinor PGS StatOil

PGS ASA Q3 2020

Simon Cather Artist Manager PGS ASA Africa Region

2020 Society of Exploration Geophysicists SEG PGS

PGS ASA Business Development VP Sarah Murphy Bids

Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. Houston TX PGS Corrupt

2020 Q3 Norway’s PGS ASA Corrupt CEO Pedersen

DUENSING – KIPPEN THAILAND

PGS ASA Candida Pinto

PGS ASA Carl Richards Accused Criminal

###

What do you think we [UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)] did wrong?

Duress – UK Contract Law

1 – 2   What do you think we did wrong? & IC-44927-G3W4 – Part 3

SDK does not accept PGS Exploration (UK) Limited response to his 2020 SAR as reasonable.  It must be assumed that the correspondence delivered to SDK was for his consideration.  Why does PGS Exploration (UK) Limited contend that this consideration can/should only be done in Thailand?      

The subject access request (SAR) sent to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited in 2020 is requesting copies of any / all legal notices sent to SDKs former residence in Thailand to be sent electronically to the email address referenced within the 11 November 2018 contracts.  SDK has also requested the English language versions of any notices or correspondence prior to translation into the Thai language as well.

to:GDPR <[email protected]>,John Francas <[email protected]>
date:Apr 15, 2020, 7:20 AM
subject:GDPR 2020 Subject Access Request
mailed-by:gmail.com

RE;  Steven D. Kalavity

        GDPR

I would like to submit a subject access for data that PGS ASA is processing for me, Steven D. Kalavity.

I am especially interested in the legal claims that have been prepared by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited intended for my receipt in Thailand.  I have never received these.  

I would also like to have the copies of any warrants filed where I am the intended recipient by PGS ASA or its subsidiaries.

I would like PGS to present full copies of any data referenced to prepare these claims.

Regards,

Steven

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has refused to honor the 2020 SAR and provide SDK with content actually created for his consideration.  This PGS Exploration (UK) Limited response is more relevant to the SAR that SDK submitted in June 2018, prior to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and Carl Richards delivering initial claims in September 2018.  SDK was compelled to sign two (2), one for each claim, compromise agreements governed by the laws of Thailand.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and Richards agreed not to further pursue criminal defamation charges with 2-5 year sentences for each claim if SDK signed the agreements.  (These agreements may also be invalid for reasons of duress.)  PGS ASA / PGS Exploration (UK) Limited provided Thai law firm Duensing – Kippen with SDK sensitive personal data without consent to initiate their legal claims in 2018.

ICOs response to data subject, SDK:

An organisation has to comply with a condition set out in chapter 5 of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) if it is to transfer personal data overseas.

Article 49 (1) (e) of GDPR provides a condition permitting a data controller to transfer personal data overseas if it is “necessary for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims”.

The organisation has confirmed that they relied on this condition to transfer your data.

In your case, the organisation has transferred your data to a legal firm in Thailand to pursue a legal claim against you. As such we consider it likely that the organisation has complied with its data protection obligations in this case

Although we appreciate this will not be the decision you were hoping for, we hope the above information is of assistance to you in clarifying the application of the GDPR in this case.

Carl Richards’, Secretary, PGS Exploration UK Limited, Silence Implies Agreement and the Abrogation of Fiduciary Duty (20 April 2018) p108-109

SDK has also requested, through several separate correspondence, clarification on the status of the two current contracts between PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and SDK with respect to the legal notices delivered in Thailand citing SDKs breach of the Thailand contracts.  The legality of Thailand contracts has not been resolved nor clarified by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited.  SDK has sent PGS ASA/ PGS Exploration (UK) Limited several emails requesting clarification.  PGS ASA/ PGS Exploration (UK) Limited response has been to have Duensing – Kippen deliver ultimatums that only frighten Thai relatives who have no understanding of SDK and PGS ASA/ PGS Exploration (UK) Limited legal issues.

UK defamation laws are different from the laws of Thailand.  Defamation occurs when something is said or written about someone which is untrue and damages their reputation.  In the UK, defamation is a civil action.  Thailand still has a criminal defamation law.  Disparagement differs from defamation.  The contracts between  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and SDK, governed by the laws of England, prohibit the publication of unprotected content (not whistleblowing) that damages the reputation of someone even if the content is true.  The UK Limitation Act 1980 allows one-year from the date of publication to make a claim for defamation.   

When an English company hires a foreign law firm, they do not inherit the agency of the law firm.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited cannot legally hire Thailand law firm Duensing – Kippen for the sole purpose of prosecuting a case under the laws of Thailand!  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited would need to have agency in Thailand, such as a legal business of subsidiary, in order to be a victim under the laws of Thailand.  There are defamation laws in the UK/England that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited could sue under.

Duensing – Kippen cannot legally establish what is or is not a true published statement.  The claim filed in Thailand on behalf of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is a false claim.  SDK publications have focused on PGS Exploration (UK) Limited processing documents that are not signed by the data subject.  These documents are inaccurate and unverifiable.  SDK supports his claims with time-stamped emails.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and Duensing – Kippen cannot legally establish what is true for the basis of a defamation suit.  SDK regards the litigation in Thailand as illegal blackmail / extortion to intimidate him into depublishing legally protected content with evidence.

SDK was accused of breaching the 11 November 2018 Thailand agreements during the 10-day consideration period following the signing.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (also, PGS ASA/ Watson Farley & Williams/ Landau Law) again retaliated against SDK for publishing protected content directed to a customer whilst they were in negotiations for a lucrative transaction.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and Carl Richards filed new criminal claims in Thailand with a new scheduled trial date of 29 January 2019.

During this period,  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and Carl Richards would decide to accept the previously signed agreements. However, in mid-December, the website, nopgs.com, that published most of the protected content was stolen after being taken offline.  SDK believes this was illegal theft and destruction of evidence that SDK would have relied on to defend against the claims.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and Carl Richards did accept the signed agreements.

The legal notices pertinent to the 2020 SAR are directed on the content published on marineseismicsurvey.com  Again, since nopgs.com was stolen and destroyed, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and Carl Richards would have to legally establish that content published on marineseismicsurvey.com is defamatory and the same as content illegally destroyed while under the legal discretion of Duensing – Kippen, Carl Richards, and PGS Exploration (UK) Limited.  SDK can only suppose that the claims delivered to SDK attention in Thailand address these issues.  But, Duensing – Kippen, Carl Richards, and PGS Exploration (UK) Limited refuse to deliver these claims to SDK while he is in the USA.

Why I Believe that Duensing – Kippen’s Delivered “Legal Notices” on Behalf of PGS ASA are Crimes (25 Mar 2020)

SDK believes that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is in breach of the 11 November 2018 Thailand agreement which stipulates an email address be used for communications regarding the contract.  SDK resided in Thailand on a visa which has expired.  Thus, SDK has no legal right to travel and/or remain in Thailand for any length of time.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and Duensing – Kippen have demanded SDK travel to Thailand to address these delivered claims.  SDK needs to consider the complaints and get advice prior to returning to Thailand.

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited provided Duensing – Kippen SDK sensitive personal data.  PGS ASA /  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited had been provided SDK passport copy and Thailand address information for the specific process of processing a 2018 SAR.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited did not have permission to provide sensitive personal data to Duensing – Kippen.  SDK is requesting the legal claims delivered in Thailand so that he can receive counsel regarding how to legally respond, but also resolve whether the initial claims were themselves legal.

SDK believes the only legal and valid contract between PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and SDK is the original employment contract.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited have declared SDK published content defamatory only under Thai law.  However, SDK publications are legally protected by the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA).  PIDA protections against illegal whistleblower retaliation constitute the part of both contracts governed by the laws of England. 

Why I Believe that Duensing – Kippen’s Delivered “Legal Notices” on Behalf of PGS ASA are Crimes (25 Mar 2020)

 SDK believes that his termination from employment by Tier 2 visa sponsor PGS Exploration (UK) Limited was illegal retaliation for SDKs blowing the whistle on PGS ASA / PGS Exploration (UK) Limited management through the submission of a workplace grievance.  PGS ASA / PGS Exploration (UK) Limited were motivated to process fake records to support a “legal” basis for termination. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley and Wiliams and most importantly Landau Law (Phillip Landau, Holly Hobson) uttered forged documents to process the termination settlement contract. 

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley and Wiliams and Landau Law have been copied on this complaint to ICO.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley and Wiliams and most importantly Landau Law have never personally refuted SDK accusations nor invoked contractual confidentiality terms and conditions to cease the publication of content published since July 2015.  SDK contends that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has been in violation of GDPR principles since 2013.  SDK has published time-stamped e-mail records that prove PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is processing inaccurate SDK personal data.  

These claims could easily be validated by a legal third-party (police) evaluation of SDK PGS Exploration (UK) Limited processed data.  SDK has been involved with the ICO directly since submitting a subject access request (SAR) to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited in October 2014.  SDK received the contents of his PGS Exploration (UK) Limited professional personnel file and learned that most documents being processed within this personnel file bore no subject signature and were unverifiable.

Another Unanswered E-mail to PGS ASAs Rune Olav Pedersen, Gottfred Langseth, Berit Osnes, Nathan Oliver, Rob Adams and Walter Qvam (6 June 2020)

SDK has subsequently submitted SARs to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited in 2016, 2018, and 2020.  The predicate for the submissions in 2016, 2018, and 2020 has been the contents – personal personnel file data/documents – that was received from PGS Exploration (UK) Limited by the 2014 SAR.

Lawyers from PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (John Francas, Lars Mysen, Rune Olav Pedersen, Carl Richards),  Watson Farley and Wiliams (Rhodri Thomas, Neeta Aulak) and Landau Law (Phillip Landau, Holly Hobson) all were involved with forming the termination settlement contract supported by the defamatory forged documents. This is the reason why PGS Exploration (UK) Limited sponsored litigation in Thailand, where SDK was living.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley and Wiliams) and Landau Law (LZW Law) are avoiding the English legal system because it would expose agent complicity and criminal behavior.

Lawyers from PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (John Francas, Lars Mysen, Rune Olav Pedersen, Carl Richards),  Watson Farley and Wiliams (Rhodri Thomas, Neeta Aulak) and Landau Law (Phillip Landau, Holly Hobson) all know that the data being processed by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited for SDK is not legal nor accurate.  There is no way that any legal contract breaches could not be resolved in much less time.  There has been a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.  

Lawyers from PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (John Francas, Lars Mysen, Rune Olav Pedersen, Carl Richards),  Watson Farley and Wiliams (Rhodri Thomas, Neeta Aulak) and Landau Law (Phillip Landau, Holly Hobson)  have been copied on this email and should be able to clarify and resolve the issues that SDK has found with his personal data that was processed by YOU ALL!

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Carl Richards and co-conspirators at Duensing – Kippen, Watson Farley & Williams, and Landau Law continue to pervert the course of justice through their silence.  In the meantime, my family suffers from the collective abuse from unprofessional pieces of shit who decided to make a US citizen a victim of their harassment, fraud and abuse.  You know who you are and what you have done.  Too many cooks spoil the soup as too many lawyers spoil a contract.  Whose contract takes precedence?  Article 49 (1) (e) of GDPR provides a condition permitting a data controller to transfer personal data overseas if it is “necessary for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims”  Are the claims legal?  This is in doubt and contested by data subject SDK.

ICO has ignored SDK concerns regarding claims that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has violated multiple GDPR principles and even UK law (e.g., reports to ActionFraud (police) and instead have accepted the uninvestigated and unverified denials from PGS Exploration (UK) Limited.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has escaped the most rudimentary and reasonable validation processes to confirm with certainty their compliance to GDPR principles.  SDK is 100% certain that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited  is NOT compliant to GDPR Principles!

17 May 2020 SDK to PGS ASA, Duensing – Kippen, and Watson Farley & Williams (17 May 2020)
ICO Casework <[email protected]>
cc:[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
ActionFraud <[email protected]>,
Alan Zeffertt <[email protected]>,
Andrew Weir <[email protected]>,
Carl Richards <[email protected]>,
GDPR <[email protected]>,
Holly Rushton <[email protected]>,
John Francas <[email protected]>,
Landau Law <[email protected]>,
Rhodri Thomas <[email protected]>,
Tippaya Moonmanee <[email protected]>
date:Jan 27, 2021, 11:27 AM
subject:What do you think we did wrong? & IC-44927-G3W4 – Part 2
mailed-by:gmail.com

This is a continuation of my previous complaint.

1 – 2   What do you think we did wrong? & IC-44927-G3W4 – Part 2

Steven D. Kalavity (SDK) is a USA citizen who was sponsored on a Tier 2 visa and allowed to work in England with data controller, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Weybridge, Surrey, KT13 0NY.

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is registered with Companies House (02904391) with legal jurisdiction of England and Wales.  The employment contract between SDK and PGS Exploration (UK) Limited was/is governed by the laws of England.  

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited processed SDK personal data to (a) confirm that a foreign worker met the criteria to legally work in England, and (b) maintain legal records regarding SDK work in England.  In the case of SDK, this data is mutually dependent.  The data that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited processes must simultaneously satisfy both of these legal requirements.  The data subject, SDK, has shown with evidence that it doesn’t.  But, ICO does not hold PGS Exploration (UK) Limited accountable.

SDK has been involved with the ICO directly since submitting a subject access request (SAR) to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited in October 2014.  SDK received the contents of his PGS Exploration (UK) Limited professional personnel file and learned that most documents being processed within this personnel file bore no subject signature and were unverifiable.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited was clearly, in the eyes of data subject SDK, in violation of DPA principles.

The Case Reference Number RFA0563589 for the initial complaints regarding PGS Exploration (UK) Limited personal/subject data processing.  

On 9 January 2015 ICO sent me a response.  This correspondence has also been attached to this email.

Firstly, SDK was flabbergasted when he received the personal data that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited processed about me.  It was like an identity theft.  Most all of SDKs personal data being processed by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited was inaccurate and defamatory.

At that time, I could not figure out exactly what had happened.  

My employment with PGS Exploration (UK) Limited ended by a settlement contract,  UK employment law requires that terminations through settlement contract require the employee receive advice from a solicitor, which I did.

What SDK did not realize was that he had been the target of a confidence fraud by his hired solicitor.  My solicitor, Philip Landau and Holly Hobson (previous Holly Rushton) participated in the creation of fake data to support a performance based termination.

The settlement contract that was proffered and negotiated was in response to a submitted workplace grievance.  The grievance met the standard of protected disclosure, or whistleblowing, as defined by the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA).  

UK Law prescribes a legal process for resolving workplace grievances involving a written conclusion/decision and the opportunity for the employee to appeal the decision.   PGS Exploration (UK) Limited bribed Philip Landau and Holly Hobson to process an illegal settlement contract and deny SDKs opportunity for due process per law and contract.

SDKs grievance cited PGS Exploration (UK) Limited malpractice and breaches in UK Law, including violations of the Health & Safety Act 1974 and Equality Act 2010.  This included claims of being a target of workplace bullying, harassment, discrimination, and defamation.  

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited breached SDKs employment contract multiple times.  SDK had requested many times to see the contents of his professional personnel file and other documents.  SDK was denied.  This continued throughout the settlement contract negotiations because Landau and Hobson were not working in the interest of their client, but actively defrauding and defaming him.

In normal situations, the data subject would receive assistance in resolving such personal data issues from their solicitor.  However, since my solicitors were involved in the confidence fraud, it has been very difficult to unwind. Settlement contracts are very binding and unless there is some criminal investigation over the fraud, there is not too much I can do as a data subject.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has invested a lot of money and resources into this fraud.

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Landau Law (Philip Landau & Holly Hobson) and Watson Farley & Williams (Rhodri Thomas) broke many laws throughout the course of SDKs “settlement negotiations.”  Also, since lawyers oversaw and participated in the confidence fraud, normal avenues of redress were blocked or made exceedingly difficult.

Within the 9 January 2015 ICO email:

Secondly regarding the removal of your personal data this is not a matter we can assist with. As previously advised Section 14 of the DPA says that a court can order a data controller to rectify, block, erase or destroy data where the court is satisfied the data contains an expression of opinion which appears to the court to be based on inaccurate data. Therefore you can consider taking such an issue to court, however you may wish to seek independent legal advice before pursuing this.

>>>>…<<<<

Accuracy of data

Finally regarding the accuracy of persona information held about you, as previously advised, we only consider issues of factual inaccuracies and not issues about opinions that may be recorded. In their letter to you dated 22 December 2014 PGS Exploration (UK) Limited advised you that your email to them dated 5 December 2014 had been placed on your personnel file. This means that this has now become part of the information they hold about you expressing your views about what happened.

If you have evidence that they hold information about you is factually inaccurate you may wish to raise this with them. This would not include such matters as your views about opinions expressed about you, or the way in which your grievance was conducted.

Other Issues

The following are response to other issues raised in your correspondence dated 29 December 2014:

  • Regarding providing information to Gareth Jones in the US if he is an employee of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited this information is not being disclosed to a third party organisation. Therefore his being in the US does not appear to be a DPA Issue.
  • The management of you former company email address is not a DPA issue. If any personal information about you is held on this email account PGS Exploration (UK) Limited should have considered providing this to you when they responded to your subject access request. This would not include personal emails.    
  • We have no evidence that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited hold information about a visit you may made to occupational health on 15 November 2013. If you have such evidence you may wish to raise this with PGS Exploration (UK) Limited.

Landau Law (Philip Landau & Holly Hobson), under normal circumstances, should be able to address all of the issues brought to the attention of ICO by SDK.  However, since LandaU and Hobson were SDKs hired counsel but actually principals in the confidence fraud, redress has been difficult.

However, with regard to the final point regarding the visit with the occupational health nurse 15 November 2013, SDK did acquire this report which not only should be processed as SDK personal data, but should have greatly impacted the settlement negotiations.  SDK submitted an SAR directly to the nurse.  The OHN report contradicts much of the fake content within the personal data being processed by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited.  This report has been sent to ICO previously, but has been attached again.

The agency of Gareth Jones, who was working in the PGS ASA Houston, Texas USA office in 2013-2014 is a question that Landau and Hobson should be compelled to answer, since they were theoretically advising USA citizen SDK.  Landau and Hobson should also be compelled to state who signed the 5 December 2013 settlement contract on behalf of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited.  But, they fo not.

In the previous complaint which SDK sent to ICO last week, SDK mentioned that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited needed to support both legal sponsorship for a foreign worker in addition to normal employee records.  

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited could not legally sponsor a poor performing foreign worker.  Foreign workers can only fill roles which cannot be satisfied by the local employment market.  A performance based termination was used as a way to blacklist a whistleblower.  

Every lawyer and human resources professional understands the importance of having records signed by the data subject.  The reason that SDK records are not signed is because a criminal conspiracy of PGS ASA/PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and bribed lawyers uttered forged documents.

This leads to the same question as was asked in 2014, how can ICO or anybody regard unsigned documents as legal?  

Again, this e-mail will be copied to those accused in this mail.  Everyone can invoke the Confidentiality terms and conditions of the employment contract if they feel disparaged.  (They have not done so since first publications July 2015.)

Regards,

Steven D. Kalavity

Case Reference: IC-44927-G3W4

cc:[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
ActionFraud <[email protected]>,
Alan Zeffertt <[email protected]>,
Andrew Weir <[email protected]>,
Carl Richards <[email protected]>,
GDPR <[email protected]>,
Holly Rushton <[email protected]>,
John Francas <[email protected]>,
Landau Law <[email protected]>,
Rhodri Thomas <[email protected]>,
Tippaya Moonmanee <[email protected]>
date:Jan 24, 2021, 7:00 PM
subject:ICO Complaint 1 – 2 What do you think we did wrong? & IC-44927-G3W4
mailed-by:gmail.com

Complaint Regarding PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley & Williams and Landau Law SDK Personal Data Processing

According to a quick Google search, the Information Commissioner is an independent official appointed by the Crown.  The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) mission is to “uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals”.

These information rights are articulated within the General Data Protection Requirement (GDPR) seven key principles:

  1. Lawfulness, fairness and transparency.
  2. Purpose limitation.
  3. Data minimisation.
  4. Accuracy.
  5. Storage limitation.
  6. Integrity and confidentiality (security)
  7. Accountability.

Steven D. Kalavity (SDK) is a USA citizen who was sponsored on a Tier 2 visa and allowed to work in England with data controller, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Weybridge, Surrey, KT13 0NY.

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is registered with Companies House (02904391) with legal jurisdiction of England and Wales.  The employment contract between SDK and PGS Exploration (UK) Limited was/is governed by the laws of England.  

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited processed SDK personal data to (a) confirm that a foreign worker met the criteria to legally work in England, and (b) maintain legal records regarding SDK work in England.  In the case of SDK, this data is mutually dependent.  The data that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited processes must simultaneously satisfy both of these legal requirements.  The data subject, SDK, has shown with evidence that it doesn’t.  But, ICO does not hold PGS Exploration (UK) Limited accountable.

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is processing illegal personal data for SDK, which is a violation of GDPR Principles 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7.  Put simply, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is actively engaged in the illegal uttering of forged documents that were used to defraud  and illegally terminate SDK from employment, but also defraud UK immigration (UK Border Agency), USA immigration, and Thailand immigration.  ICO has provided no support in rectifying PGS Exploration (UK) Limited criminal violations of GDPR principles.

ICOs RESPONSIBILITY is to validate PGS Exploration (UK) Limited subject data processing as compliant to GDPR principles.  ICOs failure to confirm data controller compliance has contributed to  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited violence and human rights abuses against foreign-worker whistleblower, SDK. 

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is also actively defrauding ICO.  The tragedy is that ICO is so dysfunctional that they seem unable to detect or remedy what should be simple to detect data controller violations and protect the human rights of data subjects as well as the vested interests of the UK government.  

ICO fails at their core objective mandate for existence to protect the rights of data subjects.  ICO failures have contributed to the damage inflicted on SDK and his family by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited illegal subject data processing practices.  

SDK is a professional data processor and analyst.  SDK also has received formal training and certification in auditing compliance for ISO 9001 Quality Management System standard.  SDK has also carried out several ISO 9001 internal compliance audits and also OHSAS 18001 Health and Safety compliance audits.  Auditors do not annotate compliance, they validate compliance.  In other words, auditors do not care if the auditiee says their processes are compliant because it is meaningless.  Auditors look at the requirements and validate compliance from the data which supports or subtracts from the objective requirements for compliance. Auditors generally do not have intimate knowledge of the processes that they audit or even the industry.  This allows auditors to focus on the documentation and data to determine process compliance.

Data subjects have neither the power, authority nor resources to compel data controller compliance to GDPR principles and ensure that personal data is being properly processed.  This responsibility and authority is given to ICO.  SDK has no idea what processes ICO caseworkers follow to assess data controller compliance to GDPR principles intended to protect the rights of data subjects.  

What SDK does know with absolute certainty through supporting data is that ICO has been unable to protect SDK personal data integrity and human rights.  

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited endured no reprisal for their exposed DPA violation.  ICOs failure to address what SDK understands to be UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) violations in 2014 (early 2015) was the predicate for multiple reports submitted to ActionFraud (police) and the impetus behind SDKs legally protected public disclosure – whistleblowing – campaign.

SDK has been involved with the ICO directly since submitting a subject access request (SAR) to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited in October 2014.  SDK received the contents of his PGS Exploration (UK) Limited professional personnel file and learned that most documents being processed within this personnel file bore no subject signature and were unverifiable.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited was clearly, in the eyes of data subject SDK, in violation of DPA principles, which states that subject data must be,

  1. Fairly and lawfully processed;
  2. processed only for limited purposes;
  3. Adequate, relevant and not excessive for the above purposes;
  4. Accurate and up to date;
  5. Not kept for longer than is necessary for the above purposes;
  6. Processed in line with the rights of the data subject;
  7. Data is kept secure;
  8. Not transferred to other countries outside the European Enterprise Area (EEA) without adequate protection.

Legal documents are required to have a signature and date. A signature is the name of a person written with his or her own hand. It is a legal means of indicating acknowledgement of the document content.  A date is necessary to show when the signature was made and therefore acceptance given.

None of the documents of significance being processed by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited as SDK personal data have been signed by the data subject SDK.  They are not legal and do not satisfy the first principle.  The PGS Exploration (UK) Limited SDK data being processed could not be used in an English court of law.  But, ICO allows PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has taken no action to defend subject data integrity.  How is this possible?  It is obvious that ICO processes are woefully inadequate and not protecting data subject rights.

Due to ICOs dysfunction and inability to stop PGS Exploration (UK) Limited continued processing of illegal data formed to defame and blacklist from employment data subject SDK in retaliation for exposing PGS ASA (Norwegian parent company) and PGS Exploration (UK) Limited board of directors and executive corruption and criminal behavior SDK reported to ActionFraud (police) and embarked on blogging campaign publishing legally protected public disclosure – whistleblowing (LinkedIn Pulse, July 2015).

SDK has subsequently submitted SARs in 2016, 2018, and 2020.  The predicate for the submissions in 2016, 2018, and 2020 has been the contents – personal data – that was received from PGS Exploration (UK) Limited by the 2014 SAR.  SDK was disclosing legally protected content intended to provoke a legal response which would expose, or force PGS ASA, to reveal the illegal subject data which.   (The first online publication, An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data” (3-Jul-2015)  PGS ASA has avoided direct legal action in the UK court system and never cited the initial article or any thereafter as a breach in the contractual confidentiality terms and conditions.

In 2016, PGS ASA did not respond to numerous PGS Compliance emails exposing PGS ASA corruption from SDK.  PGS ASA also illegally deleted comments posted on the PGS ASA LinkedIn space.  PGS ASA breached contractual confidentiality terms and conditions protecting whistleblowing through the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA). PGS was legally and contractually obligated to process a whistleblowing claim properly or cite a breach by SDK of contractual non-disparagement clauses. 

Contractual Confidentiality Clause:  

Each member of staff also agrees that he/she will not, during the course of his/her employment or if any time thereafter either make or publish or cause to be made or published, to anyone is any circumstances any statement (whether of fact, belief or opinion) which directly or indirectly disparages, is harmful to or damages the reputation or standing of the Company or any of its directors, officers, agents or shareholders.

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited wrote SDK a letter (22 December 2014) demanding that SDK stop communication with ICO regarding claims that their SDK data was non-compliant (fake) and cited that SDK was in breach of the contractual confidentiality terms and conditions and would take legal action (blackmail).  

Given your comments that you have been in touch with the ICO, we should be grateful for your confirmation by return that you have not disclosed any information to the ICO in breach of your confidentiality obligations (and that you will not do so).

In August 2016, SDK was restricted from LinkedIn through PGS ASA misrepresentation and mishandling of SDK personal data and not legally processing protected public disclosure claims per law and contract.  PGS ASA provided no information to SDK following the 2016 SAR.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited cited no breach in the contractual confidentiality terms and conditions over multiple online publications exposing PGS ASA fraud and abuse.  Thus, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited legal inaction is an admission that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is uttering forged and defamatory documents as SDKs personal data, as claimed within SDK blog post articles.  

The 2020 SAR was focused on litigation that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited initiated against SDK in September 2018 regarding content published online which the data subject declared to be legally protected public disclosure, or whistleblowing.  SDK was forced to sign in Thailand under threat of potential 2-5 years imprisonment for each for two claims of criminal defamation two compromise agreement contracts governed by the laws of Thailand?

RE;  Steven D. Kalavity

        GDPR

I would like to submit a subject access for data that PGS ASA is processing for me, Steven D. Kalavity.

I am especially interested in the legal claims that have been prepared by PGS Exploration (UK) Limited intended for my receipt in Thailand.  I have never received these.  

I would also like to have the copies of any warrants filed where I am the intended recipient by PGS ASA or its subsidiaries.

I would like PGS to present full copies of any data referenced to prepare these claims.

Regards,

Steven

SDK has contended that the litigation initiated in Thailand on behalf of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is illegal blackmail intended to depublish and destroy evidence of crimes committed against a whistleblower and his family, but also against company stakeholders, the UK Border Agency and even ICO whom PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has provided misrepresentations repeatedly.  

If the accusations made through the 20 January 2021 e-mail sent to ICO is not protected public disclosure, then PGS ASA, Watson Farley and Williams, and Landau Law agents could all cite the contractual confidentiality terms and conditions and sue SDK under the laws England.  But, all of the co-conspirators remain fraudulently silent and take no action.  Again, such inaction is an admission that the published claims of SDK that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is uttering forged and defamatory SDK personal data, which is a crime and violation of GDPR principles.  

In June 2018, SDK submitted an SAR to PGS Exploration (UK) Limited following the receipt of legal threats by email from Carl Richards, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited secretary, while living in Thailand regarding online publications which SDK regarded as legally protected public disclosure, or whistleblowing, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited requested that SDK provide them with information to confirm his identity prior to processing the 2018 SAR.  This included a postal mail address in Thailand, SDK USA passport and Texas driver’s license photocopies.

In September 2018, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and Carl Richards (two separate claims) had Thai law firm Duensing – Kippen deliver summons to the address which had been provided to them by request to process the 2018 SAR.  PGS illegally copied SDK personal data and provided it to third-parties Carl Richards and Duensing – Kippen.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited had never responded to numerous e-mails nor commented on the also numerous posted articles on SDK website, nopgs.com.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited illegally copied SDK personal data and provided it to support illegal litigation.  SDK and PGS Exploration (UK) Limited were bound by the confidentiality terms and conditions of the original employment contract and the 5 December 2013 termination settlement contract, both governed by the laws of England.

Both the 22 December 2014 and 16 July 2018 SAR response letters written on behalf of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited referenced the 5 December 2013 termination settlement contract confidentiality terms and conditions which prohibit the publication of disparaging content.  However, rather than PGS Exploration (UK) Limited citing a breach in the 5 December 2013 termination settlement contract confidentiality terms and conditions (governed by the laws of England), PGS Exploration (UK) Limited initiate criminal defamation claims in Thailand citing Thailand laws?

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is an English company governed by the laws of England.  But, more significantly, how could there be no breach in the 5 December 2013 termination settlement contract confidentiality terms and conditions, but defamation under Thai laws?  If the SDK personal data is not legal, then the 5 December 2013 termination settlement contract cannot be legal.   PGS ASA is trying to avert the laws of England.  SDK was forced to sign another compromise agreement in Thailand to avoid two criminal and civil trials in Thailand.

SDK does not believe that the agreements signed in Thailand are legal instruments as they prohibit whistleblowing.  SDK left Thailand 3 July 2019.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited / John Francas was made aware of this.  Yet, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited continued to mail threats to the home of SDKs Thai relatives in SDKs absence.  PGS Exploration (UK) Limited threatened that there was criminal prosecution and jail awaiting SDK if he did not appear in Thai court.  

PGS Exploration (UK) Limited has never explained how the litigation in Thailand that exposes the SDK personal data PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is processing are defamatory forgeries can be legal or what has become of the original employment contract or 5 December 2013 contract terms and conditions.

The 5 December 2013 settlement contract between SDK and PGS Exploration (UK) Limited is not a legal contract because it is supported by forged and defamatory documents!

ICO needs to validate PGS Exploration (UK) Limited DPA/GDPR compliance.  This must start with demanding that PGS Exploration (UK) Limited explain why they contend that documents which have several inaccuracies, are defamatory toward the data subject, and finally do not bare the signature of the data subject are legal.  

If ICO cannot compel data controllers to demonstrate compliance to GDPR principles, then exactly what can ICO do to ensure personal data integrity?

Do your job, ICO.  

Regards,

Steven D. Kalavity

Was Withholding my Occupational Health Nurse Report from me OK? (2 April 2019)

2.  IC-44927-G3W4

Criminal Pieces of Shit:

PGS ASA named Accused Criminal Conspirators

(WAITING FOR THE POLICE TO INVESTIGATE AND CONFIRM)

Legal Firm Watson Farley & Williams Accused Criminal Conspirators

(Waiting for the police to investigate and confirm)

Legal Firm Landau Law / Landau Zeffert & Wier (LZW) Accused Criminal Conspirators

(Waiting for the police to investigate and confirm)

SDK hired Counsel and reason that I am able to publish so much content since 3 July 2015!

Thailand Legal Firm Duensing – Kippen Accused Criminal Conspirators (Paid by PGS ASA) in lieu of invoking Contractual Confidentiality Terms and Conditions Governed by English Law)

(Waiting for the police to investigate and confirm)

The Psychological Terrorism of my 9-11
Workplace Mobbing is Psychological Terrorism
Why I Believe that Duensing – Kippen’s Delivered “Legal Notices” on Behalf of PGS ASA are Crimes (25 Mar 2020)
PGS ASA, Watson Farley & Williams and Duensing Kippen Global Corruption: Racketeering and Defamation Defined (2 March 2020)
Open Letter to Norway’s Telenor Board of Directors Regarding Compliance Officer Silke Hitschke (8 September 2020)
Open Letter to Tina Bru, Norway Minister of Petroleum and Energy (13 June 2020)
Petroleum Geo-Services #PGS #CEO #Pedersen and the Management of Gang Rape (24 October 2017) – Republish
Open Letter to Petroleum Geo-Services ASA Board of Directors (18 June 2017) p124-128

###

PGS ASA: Webcast Details for Presentation of Q4 2020 Results and 2021 Perspectives

A board of directors should exercise reasonable prudence in carrying out their duties to achieve the best interests of the corporation. An officer or director may be held personally liable for failing to exercise reasonable or ordinary care under the circumstances, e.g., invoking contractual confidentiality clauses in place to protect company reputation and value.

PGS ASA Customers and Investors are Idiots that allow the Corrupt and Incompetent Board of Directors and Executive Management to Ignore their Responsibility of Protecting Company Reputation and Value.

The “data protection dispute” acting PGS Exploration (UK) Limited secretary, Carl Richards, refers to is the data subjects claim that PGS ASA processed forged and defamatory documents to support a termination settlement agreement. What data did Richards provide to Thai law firm Duensing – Kippen to establish a defamation claim? PGS ASA illegally released SDKs sensitive personal data to a third-party (Richards) who then shared it with another third-party (Duensing – Kippen)? Why is English lawyer and secretary of a company governed by the laws of England relying on Thai laws instead of the confidentiality terms and conditions of the employment contract also governed by the laws of England which prohibit the publication of derogatory content about PGS ASA or its agents/stakeholders?

Commentary and Analysis

Why do PGS ASA, Watson Farley & Williams, and Landau Law agents allow themselves to be called Criminal Pieces of Shit if they are not Criminal Pieces of Shit? Silence is consent ActionFraud (and ICO)!

Criminal Pieces of Shit:

PGS ASA named Accused Criminal Conspirators

(Waiting for the police to investigate and confirm)

Legal Firm Watson Farley & Williams Accused Criminal Conspirators

(Waiting for the police to investigate and confirm)

Legal Firm Landau Law / Landau Zeffert & Wier (LZW) Accused Criminal Conspirators

(Waiting for the police to investigate and confirm)

SDK hired Counsel and reason that I am able to publish so much content since 3 July 2015!

Thailand Legal Firm Duensing – Kippen Accused Criminal Conspirators (Paid by PGS ASA) in lieu of invoking Contractual Confidentiality Terms and Conditions Governed by English Law)

(Waiting for the police to investigate and confirm)

Wake-up and do you your job, ActionFraud!

On or before 4 February 2021, PGS ASA will need to respond to the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) regarding the transfer of USA citizen and PGS ASA whistleblower, SDK, personal data to THAILAND and USA.

Such transfers can only take place if conditions are met under Chapter 5 of the General data Protection Regulations (GDPR) . ICO has requested that PGS ASA UK subsidiary provide information to demonstrate how PGS ASA have met the conditions of Chapter 5 of the GDPR with regard to the criminal and civil litigation carried out by Thailand law firm Duensing – Kippen on behalf of PGS Exploration (UK) Limited directors Rune Olav Pedersen, Gottfred Langseth, and Christin Steen-Nilsen, as well as (former) secretary Carl Richards (two claims).

More Legally Protected Public Disclosure Content Exposing PGS ASA Corruption and Deception will be added through Thursday, February 4, 2021.

PGS ASA Press Release

President & CEO Rune Olav Pedersen and EVP & CFO Gottfred Langseth will present the results and PGS 2021 perspectives, including company guidance, via a webcast the same day at 09:00 am CET. To join the webcast, copy and paste the link below into your browser, or go to PGS website www.pgs.com.
Webcast link: https://channel.royalcast.com/landingpage/hegnarmedia/20210204_5/

A replay of the webcast will be made available on www.pgs.com shortly after.


FOR DETAILS, CONTACT:
Bård Stenberg, VP IR & Corporate Communication
Mobile:  +47 99 24 52 35

The UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is a Worthless Organization

ICO Fails to Protect the Human Rights of Data Subjects. ICO Dysfunction Facilitates Data Controller Corruption and Abuse

SDK hired Legal Counsel Philip Landau and Holly Hobson have never represented nor defended client SDK. Philip Landau and Holly Hobson accepted bribes to participate in a confidence fraud. Philip Landau and Holly Hobson are criminal pieces of shit who should be in prison. Their silence is fraudulent and perverts the course of justice. Those who employ these bottom-feeding scum are negligent through poor due diligence and need to be held accountable.

###

In Search of Vindication from “Legal Counsel” Philip Landau and Holly Hobson

An Open Post to Former Agents of Landau Zeffertt Weir Solicitors LLP

Between the Bully and the Deep Blue Sea (5-Jun-2015)
Aaron Tippin – You’ve Got To Stand For Something (Official Video)

On 22 October 2013, US citizen and sponsored Tier 2 visa worker Steven D. Kalavity (SDK) formally engaged Philip Landau, then with Landau Zeffertt Weir Solicitors (LZW), a London, England employment law firm. LZW was contacted to advise on a settlement agreement that had been proffered by SDKs employer, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Weybridge, Surrey, KT13 0NY, England, on 10 October 2013. Since this date, SDK has felt like a man convicted for a crime that he never committed. It has been hell! After months of terrible workplace mobbing abuse by his employer, SDK sought redress through his proceeding through the legally and contractually guaranteed grievance process. However, LZW decided not represent the interests of client SDK, but instead aid the abusers. (SDK could have never even imagined such evil back then.) The LZW agents who SDK communicated with directly and principally facilitated the confidence fraud were Philip Landau and Holly Rushton (now Holly Hobson) who were professionally engaged as SDKs counsel through the eventual signing of a termination settlement contract agreement 5 December 2013 (10 October – 5 December 2013) [SCA]. The reason that SDK is able to publish articles disparaging his former counsel and employer is because the rendered SCA advised on by LZWs Landau – Hobson (Rushton) is an illegal contract supported by defamatory forged instruments. The conspirators were publicly exposed years ago (3 July 2015). Landau and Hobson have never advised that the online publications cease or denied accusations that they participated in a criminal conspiracy to defame and defraud their client. Landau and Hobson have remained silent. This is the main reason that justice has alluded SDK is because he never really ever had legal counsel representing his interests.

The voice of the lawyers involved with negotiating the actual terms and conditions of my termination were Philip Landau, from Landau Zeffertt Weir Solicitors LLP, representing me and Watson, Farley & Williams (WFW) which was enlisted by PGSUK.  Every single one of these named individuals has a voice, access to legal counsel, and the capacity to respond and to clarify any of the issues brought-up in my posts.  The base argument is that no settlement agreement contract can be applied to supersede the legal provisions afforded to each data subject through the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).  The DPA does not allow inaccurate subject data to be fraudulently processed by a data controller, e.g., PGS. My contention, however, is that the aforementioned actors – and likely several others – have indeed conspired to accomplish just that.

Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Mob Gaslighting (22 June 2016)

Communications between SDK and Landau began on 10 October 2013. SDK had delivered a formal grievance to parent company, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) management on 20 September 2013 to initiate the formal grievance process. The grievance was prompted by an ambush meeting that occurred on 13 June 2013. SDK had wanted to submit a grievance directly following that ambush meeting, but was obstructed from doing so. PGS refused to provide minutes, or any firm record, of that meeting to SDK as a basis for the grievance. Eventually, on 24 July 2013, PGS delivered, through PGS UK HR Manager, David Nicholson, a letter, Investigation for possible implementation of a Performance Improvement Plan. This ambush letter instead became the referenced basis for the grievance submitted 20 September 2020. The grievance had alleged the abuse of position, bullying / harassment, discrimination, and defamation of SDK mostly by three principals: David Nicholson, PGS UK HR Manager, Edward von Abendorff, SDKs supervisor and Simon Cather, von Abendorff’s boss. A grievance hearing had been scheduled for 14 October 2013. On 10 October 2013 a termination settlement was proffered by the accused PGS perpetrator, Nicholson, to stop the grievance process, which SDK rejected. Following this, SDK did some online research, discovered and then contacted Landau / LZW.

In October 2014, I contacted Nicholson and Haswell to submit my SAR to PGS Exploration UK Limited.  I contacted Landau, just so he would be aware.  I also contacted Bjølseth.  There was a brief acknowledgement from Landau. Bjølseth basically confirmed and approved that Nicholson et. al would address my SAR.  I made it clear that I had many disagreements about my held subject data with the ICO caseworker, as well as with Nicholson and Haswell.  The communications with PGS ended in late December 2014.  Readers must understand that I knew immediately upon receiving my SAR data that something was awry. 

Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Mob Values (14 June 2016)

Landau immediately recommended that an “enhanced” settlement agreement be sought, rather than continuing to proceed through the Company grievance procedures through conclusion and then possible appeal. SDK was motivated to extricate himself and his family from the health-harming work environment. However, SDK obviously wanted to do so with the most favorable financial and professional terms possible with his reputation and dignity intact. As a US citizen foreign worker, SDK had no ties nor interest in any prolonged battle or remaining in England. Reluctant to abandon the grievance procedures process, SDK paid Landau to negotiate the most favorable exit that he could, based on his experience and knowledge of UK employment law. SDK finally did act and place his confidence in Landau’s advice to negotiate the “enhanced” termination settlement agreement. Landau was assisted by lawyer Holly Rushton (now Holly Hobson). PGS enlisted the services of law firm Watson Farley & Williams lawyer Rhodri Thomas. On 1 November 2013 settlement discussion began. An agreement was signed 5 December 2013. SDK was placed on garden leave from 5 – 31 December 2013 and did not return to PGS offices. SDK felt that the garden leave and isolation from office acquaintances was disparaging, especially around the holiday season, but PGS offered to pay an additional month salary if SDK agreed. SDK would have never agreed to such terms and conditions if he lived in England and not been a sponsored foreign worker. SDK and family departed England to the USA on 24 December 2013 never completely satisfied with the outcome, but out of harms way. Or so SDK hoped and believed at the time.

PINTEREST – Holly Hobson London Employment Law BDBF Landau LZW – Without Prejudice Emails – Confidence Fraud Against Whistleblower

following the initial settlement proffered by one of the perpetrators which SDK rejected.

Diligence, Negligence, and Gross Negligence

My Philip Landau and Watson, Farley & Williams (WFW) London Solicitors Testimonial (Updated 9-Apr-2017)
Alan Zeffertt – Anthony Gold
Andrew Weir – Andrew Gold

Through a network of bribed and corrupt lawyers / solicitors and human resources personnel justice have perverted the course of justice and denied their victim of violent crimes an opportunity to fight back. PGS, along with their contracted counsel WFW plus LZWs crucial assistance formed an illegal termination settlement contract through gaslighting lies and manipulation. The abuse of SDK and his family has continued through their illegal silence. PGS, LZW and WFW fraud, defamation (blacklisting), harassment and abuse has never ceased. Once in the USA, in October 2014, SDK submitted a subject access request (SAR) citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) to receive copies of SDK personal data that PGS was processing. This included SDKs PGS professional personnel file and several other e-mails. (Landau was made aware that an SAR was submitted. ) The documents processed within SDKs PGS personnel file bore no subject SDK signature and were inaccurate and defamatory. SDK sent several complaints to both PGS as well as the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in charge of DPA compliance. On 22 December 2014, PGS sent by e-mail and post mail a letter signed/endorsed by Nicholson “clarifying” issues that SDK had discovered following the receipt of data that PGS was processing as SDKs personal data (extortion letter).

PGS did concede to amend SDKs personnel file documents by including one 5 December 2014 complaint e-mail into SDKs PGS personnel file, but threatened legal action if SDK continued his questioning of the false instruments PGS had already illegally processed. In spite of the double-speak within the extortion letter, placing the 5 December 2014 e-mail highlighting issues with the contents of SDKs personnel file was an amendment/change of SDKs personal data after the fact. PGS essentially acknowledged that PGS, WFW and LZW had processed inaccurate personal data and their solution was to correct it. This was also an acknowledgement that PGS, WFW and LZW has all conspired to defraud SDK. As a condition of signing the termination settlement agreement, PGS, WFW and LZW promised that the contents would be true and accurate. PGS, WFW and LZW all gaslighted to induce SDK to sign the phony contract. Obviously, LZW participation in the fraud was pivotal to its “success.” Records with no subject counter-signature cannot be verified for accuracy and would not be considered legal documents, except within this criminal conspiracy including corrupt lawyers and human resources employee’s. Most documents are signed solely by accused harasser and defamer Nicholson!

PGS did not address that their concession to amend SDKs personal data meant that inaccurate/false personal data had been used to process the termination settlement agreement (fraud). Nevertheless, ICO was and has remained satisfied with this “solution.”

A formal grievance had been delivered to parent company, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) management on 20 September 2013 and a hearing had been scheduled for 14 October 2013. Landau recommended immediately recommended that he advise on negotiating an “enhanced” settlement agreement (payment) and discontinue the grievance process. Landau was assisted by lawyer Holly Rushton (now Hobson). PGS enlisted the services of law firm Watson Farley & Williams lawyer Rhodri Thomas. On 1 November 2013 settlement discussion began. An agreement was signed 5 December 2013. SDK was placed on garden leave from 5 – 31 December 2013 and did not return to PGS offices. SDK and family departed England 24 December 2013.

Workplace Mobbing is Psychological Terrorism (16 April 2019)
The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of Fraud (24 May 2016)
The Crimes of Philip Landau #London #EmploymentLaw #Solicitor and Petroleum Geo-Services #PGS #CEO #Pedersen (30 December 2017)

Because of the binding nature of settlement contracts, there was little more that SDK could do, even though the entire purpose of DPA is to ensure correct data is processed for data subjects. In July 2015, SDK published some of these issues online the LinkedIN™ Pulse platform expecting that the Confidentiality clauses would invoke some response (legal action) from PGS. Nothing happened. In August 2015, SDK submitted a report to UK ActionFraud (police). Neither ICO nor the police, to date, have ever thoroughly investigated SDK, claims. From September 2015 through August 2016, SDK published several more articles on LinkedIN™. SDK sent several complaints to PGS Compliance Hotline which were never answered. SDK also submitted several comments on the PGS LinkedIN™ space . These complaints were deleted. SDK even contacted Landau. Landau and Hobson (Rushton) were now with Landau Law. Landau and Hobson have never commented, but have essentially aided PGS in maintaining the false narrative. SDK believes that this silence and failure to clarify SDKs position is itself fraudulent and perverts the course of justice. It also confirms that Landau -Hobson were principle actors in the execution of a confidence fraud against their client. SDK, a USA citizen. SDK was denied due process under English law and contract. SDK was then sent back to the USA out of reach of English justice. This punctuates the claim of discrimination made against PGS. SDKs US citizenship made him vulnerable to such a confidence fraud.

Several e-mails between SDK and Landau-Hobson from 10 October 2013 – 5 December 2013 confirm that PGS is processing inaccurate defamatory data as SDKs personal data.orwegian company Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) illegally harassed and discriminated against a US citizen foreign worker whistleblower. To avoid accountability for their violent crimes against US-Thai citizens under their contractual Duty of Care, they bribed lawyers, Philip Landau and Holly Hobson (Rushton) to defraud and professionally blacklist their client, Steven Kalavity (SDK). On 22 October 2013, Philip Landua, then with Landau Zeffert and Wier Solicitors (LZW) was paid money and formally engaged to represent SDK. (LZW later became Landau Law to scrub evidence and launder the bribe money.) SDK was sponsored to work in England by PGS’ subsidiary in England, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Brooklands, Weybridge, Surrey, KT13 0NY. The criminal conspiracy to defraud foreign worker whistleblower, SDK, was only successful because SDK was a foreigner. Through bribing SDKs counsel, SDK was effectively denied his legal due process. Everything that I am writing can be confirmed or denied by Landau and Hobson. Landau and Hobson silence is fraud. Every question asked of PGS through the subject access request (SAR) sent to PGS October 2014 should have been confirmed by Landau and Hobson. However, since Landau and Hobson were indispensable actors in the criminal conspiracy confidence fraud, they have never come to the aid of their former client. They have allowed SDK to be defamed and defrauded. Landau and Hobson have been accused of criminal acts formally since 2016. Neither has ever protested their innocence. So, why doesn’t UK ActionFraud (police) arrest them when they have never denied that they are criminals. The evidence that SDK has posted online since 3 July 2015 is irrefutable. But, it seems Sherlock Holmes inquisitiveness is only the thing of fiction in the UK.

Equinor should have addressed ‘significant’ problems in U.S. sooner -chairman (9 October 2020) – Norway covers-up their corruption and the PWC audit is meaningless. The same board that allowed the poor investments also selected Reinhadsen to be Chairman

SDK was a foreign worker in a foreign land under significant stress from the hostile work environment. The health and well-being of SDK and his family were continually jeopardized by the illegal workplace behaviors, continual lies and gaslighting. Things came to a head 13 June 2013 when SDK entered into an ambush meeting hosted by HR Manager, David Nicholson and attended by SDKs supervisor, Edward von Abendorff and his supervisor, Simon Cather. An ambush meeting is essentially when corrupt managers abuse their power and without legal license nor evidence threaten a hapless target of illegal harassment and discrimination livelihood and defame them. Following this meeting, SDK requested minutes of the meeting so that he could invoke his legal right under law and contract to submit a grievance. The trio of criminals, Nicholson, Cather, and von Abendorff breached SDKs contract and perverted the course of justice by obstructing this legal right under law and contract. SDK needed something in writing since minutes of the illegal ambush meeting were withheld. Eventually, Nicholson signed and delivered an illegal letter on behalf of the Company on 24 July 2013 that similarly threatened and defamed SDK. The trio of criminal cowards wanted to escape all responsibility for their illegal behavior and PGS upper management aided and abetted in the fraud and defamation of a foreign worker whistleblower.

SDK did not work directly for Nicholson. Further, since the requested grievance regarded the meeting that Nicholson hosted and participated in, he would not have any qualified privilege. Similarly, the directors and secretary of PGSUK, Jon Erik Reinhardsen, Gottfred Langseth, Christin Steen-Nilsen and Candida Pinto also held no direct knowledge of my work and also held no qualified privilege. They abused their power to intimidate their target of violent health harming harassment through endorsing an illegal and defamatory letter that they ultimately would be accountable. The letters subject line, Investigation for Possible Implementation of a Performance Improvement Plan was strategically named to obstruct SDKs legal and contractual right to submit a grievance which would have obviously revealed PGS breach of contract and defamation. The ambush letter scheduled a meeting for 11 September 2013. SDK had made his intentions clear that he intended to respond to the ambush letter with a grievance. PGS continued to illegally obstruct SDKs legal and contractual right under law and contract to submit a grievance. PGS never aided in the submission process as they are supposed to do. The 11 September 2013 meeting was rescheduled for 20 September 2013. On 13 September 2013, Pinto resigned as PGSUK secretary and Carl Richards assumed the role. From 24 July 2013 SDK had requested co-worker John Barnard to be his witness through the grievance process. Again, Nicholson made several attempts to obstruct the grievance process. However, on 20 September 2013 there was a meeting. PGS never provided any investigation report at the meeting. SDK delivered the grievance during the short meeting.

Again, PGS delayed. Nicholson was a named subject of the grievance citing bullying, harassment, and other contractual duty of care breaches (Health and Safety Act 1974), discrimination (Equality Act 2010), based on SDKs nationality protected class. Nicholson continued to be allowed to direct – or obstruct – SDKs legal grievance process. A meeting / hearing was scheduled for 14 October 2013. However, Nicholson – a named perpetrator within the grievance – proffered a settlement agreement 10 October 2013 stop SDKs legally guaranteed grievance process. SDK did not accept the settlement offer, but did decide to seek legal advice and came across Philip Landau. Landau immediately recommended seeking an “enhanced settlement.” Email records show that Landau (and Hobson) were provided with both a summary of the grievance as well as the grievance document with names redacted. Landau never requested a copy of the employment contract, which was predicated on my Tier 2 visa sponsorship and also included reference to the disciplinary and grievance processes contained within the employee Handbook. (This would mean not following the grievance procedures would be a breach of contract.) The grievance hearing occurred on 14 October 2013 by video conference with myself and Barnard in England and Cather’s superior, Per Arild Reksnes, and Nicholson’s superior, Terje Bjolseth both in Norway. No minutes or decision from that meeting was ever provided to SDK. Impatient, on 22 October 2013, SDK officially engaged Landau to represent and advise in the grievance – settlement process. PGS had never provided any Performance Improvement Plan, only the grievance process was officially initiated.

I have signed a settlement agreement, or “NDA”. Can I take my story to the media?

In most cases, no. If you have signed a valid settlement agreement containing a confidentiality clause this would usually be sufficient to stop you from taking a story to the media. It is possible (and likely) that your ex-employer could sue you for breach of contract and significant damages if you did so.

However, as mentioned above, a settlement agreement cannot prevent you from reporting crime to the police, whistleblowing to an appropriate authority (for example a regulator), or reporting anything that had not yet happened at the time you signed the settlement agreement, for example if you have stayed with your employer and the harassment has continued.

If you are concerned about the validity or enforceability of a settlement agreement you have signed, you should seek legal advice before taking any further steps.

LANDAU LAW SOLICITORS

Settlement agreements are not legally effective unless the employee has received independent legal advice about it.

Ben Kelly lawyer DTN PGS Watson Farley Williams

Settlement agreement discussions and section 111A of the ERA 1996

Section 111A of the ERA 1996 provides that offers to end the employment relationship on agreed terms (i.e. under a settlement agreement) can be made on a confidential basis which means that they cannot be used as evidence in an unfair dismissal claim to an employment tribunal.

Claims that relate to an automatically unfair reason for dismissal such as whistleblowing, union membership or asserting a statutory right are not covered by the confidentiality provisions set out in section 111A.

Neither are claims made on grounds other than unfair dismissal, such as claims of discrimination, harassment, victimisation or other behaviour prohibited by the Equality Act 2010, or claims relating to breach of contract or wrongful dismissal.

 Acas Code of Practice on settlement agreements
Brennan Heart & Coone ft. Max P – Fight For Something (Official Videoclip)

###

English English Français Français 日本語 日本語 Norsk bokmål Norsk bokmål Português Português ไทย ไทย