ATTN: Jon Erik Reinhardsen, Chairman; Gottfred Langseth, Director; Christin Steen-Nilsen, Director; Kevin M. Hart, Secretary; Corina Maria Ragazzo, Secretary; Robert Johnson, Treasurer
Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc.:
My name is Steven Kalavity (SDK). SDK is a USA citizen who worked with several of Norwegian company Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (now PGS ASA, “PGS”) subsidiaries from 2000 – 2013. SDKs first assignment with PGS was in Houston, Texas (PGSUS). When SDK worked globally for PGS, Houston, Texas, USA, remained SDKs home of record for USA federal purposes, such as voting. However, SDK spent very little actual time in Texas over the years working globally for PGS. SDKs home of record for PGS while working on vessels and remote data processing centers was Thailand. SDKs final assignment was with PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY (PGSUK) as part of the Contract Sales – Africa group from September 2010 to December 2013. SDK was sponsored on a Tier 2 work visa by PGSUK which allowed him to work and live in England with his family. At the time of SDKs signing a termination settlement contract agreement (SCA) in December 2013, the directors of both PGSUK and PGSUS were Jon Erik Reinhardsen, Gottfred Langseth and Christin Steen-Nilsen. SDKs SCA included provisions for relocation expenses to Houston, Texas. SDK was the only one of the Thai-USA family who had actually lived in Houston. SDKs family departed England 24 December 2013. According to records, this was one day following PGS’ board of directors had signed their commitment for PGS to abide by the Principles of the UN Global Compact. As CEO and President of PGS, Reinhardsen highlighted this commitment within a letter to PGS stakeholders.
PGS has refused to confirm the employer / agency of employee Gareth Jones, especially from the period of between 1 June – 31 December 2014. This withholding of information is an obstruction of justice. In October 2014, SDK submitted a subject access request (SAR) to PGS / PGSUK citing the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) so as to receive copies of the personal data that PGS / PGSUK was processing relevant to SDK. UK (England) Data Controllers, such as employers, are legally obligated to abide by DPA Principles. As a USA citizen who worked under contract in England governed by the laws of England, DPA compliance formed part of the employment contract.
Subject data must not be transferred to other countries outside the European Enterprise Area (EEA) without adequate protection
uk data protection act 1998 (DPA), eighth Principle
It is implied that the legal and contractual DPA Principles 1-7 are being adhered to by the data controller. For the record, the USA does not form part of the EEA. One of the considerations for subject data transfer outside the USA is whether the data subject has consented to such a transfer of their personal data. What SDK discovered once receiving copies of personal data being processed by PGS / PGSUK was inaccurate and defamatory personal data. Obviously, SDK would not consent to this and it is otherwise illegal. Most notably, contents of SDKs professional personnel file contained several documents not signed by nor verified by the data subject. Most were signed or endorsed solely by the PGS UK HR Manager, David Nicholson. SDK did not work for Nicholson nor HR and Nicholson possesses no direct knowledge of SDKs work, i.e., Nicholson did not / does not possess any qualified privilege with respect to his authored content. PGS HR Manager Nicholson (retired in shame) solely signed/endorsed SDK personnel file content which is both fraudulent anddefamatory.
The legal standard for documents populating one’s personnel file throughout SDKs entire working life, up to my experience with PGS, had always been a required employee verification (not necessarily agreement) of all documents being processed within their personnel file. In other words, documents held within personnel files require the signature of the data subject. However, in SDKs case, every document of consequence held within SDKs personnel file bore no subject (SDK) signature! Regardless of whether or not there was a PGS violation of DPA Principle 8, tenured HR staff should have easily recognized that SDK personnel file data did not comply with the most basic HR legal standards. The documents being processed are illegal. There is no way to verify the accuracy of SDKs personal data without a counter-signature. E-mail records contradict the content of the forged and defamatory documents endorsed by Nicholson. Also, SDKs employment was terminated by the SCA. One of the provisions of signing the SCA was a letter by my former employer, PGS, for reference in SDKs search for new employment. The letter was predicated on the contents of SDKs professional personnel file, which contains a copy of the SCA. So, regardless of any violation of DPA Principle 8, the contents of SDKs personnel file were implicitly shared with PGSUS for the explicit purpose of being referenced for SDKs employment search in the US / Houston job market. The PGS SDK personnel file document contents are inaccurate and defamatory. The contents violate most every DPA principle and also seem to constitute the illegal blacklisting under Texas statute.
Nicholson, along with SDKs immediate supervisor, Edward von Abendorff, PGS VP Contract Sales – Africa, and his supervisor, Simon Cather, PGS Marine Contract Africa Regional President had all been accused of gross misconduct, breaches of SDKs employment contract, bullying / harassment, discrimination, misuse of the performance management system and defamation, etc., within a 20 September 2013 SDK submitted workplace grievance (“Grievance”). The Grievance is referenced within the SCA being processed within SDKs personnel file. However, the copy of the personnel file which was provided to SDK following the 2014 SAR did not include a copy of the Grievance. The contents of the Grievance met the standard of qualified protected disclosure, or whistleblowing, as defined by both the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) and the Norwegian Working Environment Act 2005/2017 (WEA). This is important because SDK was employed by contract governed by the laws of England. However, the Grievance was delivered to agents of Norway’s PGS which is governed by the laws of Norway. The only document not signed and/or endorsed by Nicholson being processed within SDKs PGS personnel file is a 25 October 2013 memo (Memo) signed by Per Arild Reksnes, PGS Marine Contract EVP and Terje Bjølseth, PGS SVP Global Human Resources, who are not agents of PGSUK. Both Cather and Nicholson are “exonerated” by Reksnes and Bjølseth through this Memo for their multiple abuses of power, misconduct and contract violations that were cited within the Grievance.
Following the receipt of the copies of SDK personal data provided through the SAR late 2014 (2014 SAR), SDK complained vigorously to PGS, of course, but also to the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and Norwegian Data Protection Authority who oversee data controller personal data processing compliance. On 22 December 2014, a year after having signed the SCA, PGSUK wrote a threatening letter to SDK for disputing the obviously inaccurate and defamatory forged SDK personal data PGS processed and apparently shared outside the EEA, according to a 30 October 2013 email to SDK from Bjølseth. The wire and mail transfer of fraudulent (forged) personal data would constitute the US Federal crimes of mail and wire fraud. As stated before, it serves the data subject to have compliant and accurate personal data sent outside the EEA to the USA to facilitate searching for employment in the USA. However, processing defamatory forged documents in retaliation for blowing the whistle is patently illegal. Also, Nicholson was the principal processor of SDK personal data along with HR employee, Laura Haswell, in spite of the fact that Nicholson had orchestrated and was at the center of the events which brought about and constituted the content of the Grievance. (The 2014 SAR content also revealed communications between Haswell and Jones regarding SDKs impending move to the USA, indicating a global criminal conspiracy by PGS to defraud.) Within the 22 December 2014 letter (Extortion Letter) sent on behalf of PGSUK [Reinhardsen, Langseth, and Steen-Nilsen] and endorsed/signed by Nicholson, who had been accused of criminal misconduct within the Grievance, PGSUK agreed to alter SDK personal data being processed through the inclusion of SDKs 5 December 2014 complaint e-mail even though the Extortion Letter/email stated otherwise.
Termination of employment by a settlement contract requires that the employee receive counsel by an employment law solicitor. PGS breached SDKs original employment contract (OEC) by proffering a termination settlement contract without proceeding through all of the steps of the legal and contractually mandated grievance procedure. Following SDKs being offered a termination settlement contract, SDK immediately contacted UK (English) employment law solicitor, Philip Landau, who was with Landau Zeffert and Weir Solicitors (LZW) at the time. Landau was provided with a summary of the grievance points and the fact that the SCA was proffered before the grievance procedures outlined within the PGS UK Personnel Handbook had been followed and completed as prescribed by the OEC. Landau should have easily recognized the Grievance as protected disclosure and queried about the terms and conditions of the OEC to determine whether the OEC had been breached. Nevertheless, on 1 November 2013 the negotiations – confidence fraud – commenced for the final terms and conditions of the SCA. PGS engaged legal firm Watson Farley and Williams (WFW) employment solicitor, Rhodri Thomas, to negotiate the final terms and conditions of the SCA. WFW Thomas similarly ignored UK law and PGS policy and procedure to pressure SDK into an uncontested “termination” through a fraudulent SCA. Thus, SDK has concluded that Landau and his assistant, Holly Rushton, and WFW were bribed into processing the forged documents to support an illegal termination settlement contract which bypassed SDKs legal right to follow the prescribed grievance procedure to protect the criminals.
The Memo is dated for when Landau represented SDK. The Memo references a canceled meeting which Landau also was informed about. The Memo references a letter by SDK that was never written and in fact does not exist. A legal grievance process must include a written notification of the outcome to the griever, as well as notification that the griever has a right to appeal the decision. The Memo was created to represent SDKs acceptance of an unfavorable outcome to the Grievance agreed to with the guidance of legal counsel. The (forged) Memo does not even reference the actual Grievance nor inform SDK of his legal and contractual right to appeal the Grievance decision. SDKs Grievance recipient and witness, John Barnard, was not included as a recipient of the Memo. Barnard was supposed to ensure the proper proceeding of the legal grievance process. SDK was being terminated through settlement contract by the foregone conclusion that he otherwise would be terminated for performance which was evidenced only by the malicious and unprivileged assessment of an accused criminal, Nicholson (and Cather and von Abendorff). PGS / PGSUK had written to and applied for SDKs Leave to Remain with the UK Border Agency 15 July 2013. On 24 July 2013, Nicholson endorsed a letter (Ambush Letter) written on behalf of PGSUK (Reinhardsen, Langseth, and Steen-Nilsen) citing apprehension about SDKs performance. The Grievance was SDKs response to the Ambush Letter. The Ambush Letter was PGSUK / PGS frantic attempt to obstruct SDK from beginning the grievance process following what SDK believed was an illegal Ambush Meeting hosted by Nicholson, Cather, and von Abendorff. PGS / PGSUK were illegally obstructing SDKs legal and contractual right to blow the whistle. PGS / PGSUK were also defrauding UK Border Agency and ICO (and NDPA). LZW Landau/Rushton and WFW Thomas aided and abetted in these frauds.
SDK has known that he was a victim of PGS crimes since receiving the 2014 SAR content. However, the binding nature of settlement agreements combined with the breadth, money, and number of criminal co-conspirators and their agency (WFW and LZW lawyers) has made just resolution much more difficult. The OEC contained Confidentiality clauses that prohibit employees from publishing disparaging content about PGS and its stakeholders (which would include WFW). The SCA also contained mutual Confidentiality clauses that prohibited both SDK and PGS from publishing disparaging content about one another. Of course, the publication / processing of defamatory forged documents was a breach of the SCA. However, this could only be established by first establishing that the SCA itself was fraudulent. It is important to note that not all publication of disparaging content is a breach. Whistleblowing is protected through PIDA/WEA. SDK submitted his first report to the UK police (ActionFraud) 24 August 2015. On 3 July 2015, SDK published An American, the UK Data Protection Act, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and the Tyranny of “Accurate Data” (3-Jul-2015)on the LinkedIn™ Pulse platform. On 6 September 2015, SDK published, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign (6-Sep-2015). In spite of the threats made within the Extortion Letter months before, PGS took no action. PGS’ responsibility to shareholders was to investigate the whistleblowing claims and then cite a breach in the SCA terms and conditions to stop future publications and safeguard the reputation and value of PGS. PGS remained silent. SDK contacted PGS Compliance Hotline composed of PGS General Counsel, Rune Olav Pedersen, PGS Compliance Officer Silke Hitschke, and Bjølseth (PGS Compliance). PGS Compliance were provided with articles and emails proving that the SCA was illegal, as was SDKs termination from employment for blowing the whistle. PGS Compliance never responded. This was a violation of their fiduciary duty and a furtherance of the damage and fraud to whistleblower SDK and continuation of the intentional deception to the upstream oil and gas industry investors.
In 2016, SDK submitted another SAR to PGS. SDK also submitted SARs to WFW and LZW. (LZW had become Landau Law in early 2014. SDK supposes that this was done to help launder the money received in bribes.) Landau / Rushton never reached out to SDK to warn about or admonish his online publications. PGS and WFW also provided no additional data nor comment regarding SDK online publications. SDK regarded as his publications as legally protected public disclosure. In August 2016 SDK was further defrauded and defamed by PGS. SDK had been publishing his legally protected public disclosure within the PGS LinkedIn™ comment space. PGS again were in breach of the Confidentiality terms and conditions by not investigating whistleblowing claims nor citing a contract breach. Instead, PGS irresponsibly deleted the protected public disclosure and continued their defamation and defrauding of a whistleblower and the industry. SDK was restricted and further defamed on LinkedIn™ through PGS not abiding by the contractual Confidentiality terms. PGS Compliance on two separate occasions during 2016 breached the Confidentiality terms of the SCA. PGS Compliance stated that they had investigated and found no issues. PGS Compliance found no issues with unsigned and unverified documents within a whistleblowers professional personnel file? It was a cover-up which SDK also wrote about prior to being restricted on LinkedIn™, The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of Fraud (24-May-2016). What has been most damaging through all of this ordeal is to have witnessed the abject moral weakness and lack of principles of former co-workers who have made the constructive decision to aid and abet evil criminals above victims of their crimes. PGS has expended a lot of resources to deceive the industry. Much of this has been through salary bribes and promotions paid to complicit employees who breach the PGS Code of Conduct and Core Values to damage an innocent victim of crimes and whistleblower along with his family who were also under PGS’ contractual duty of care.
Following SDKs defamatory restriction from LinkedIn™, SDK established nopgs.com to publish his protected disclosure without the constraints of uninformed social media gatekeepers intimidated by corrupt corporate agents. SDK used Twitter™ to continue informing @PGSNews about new publications related to PGS non-compliance. No agent of PGS, WFW, or LZW had ever contacted SDK with regard to the several online publications which exposed PGS non-compliance. In 2018, SDK was living in Thailand. For the first time ever, in April 2018, someone purporting to be affiliated with PGS had something to say about SDKs online publications. Carl Richards was the PGS UK Head of Legal and PGSUK company secretary from 13 September 2013. In other words, Richards was PGSUK secretary at the time the Grievance was delivered. According to 2014 SAR contents, Richards and his associate lawyer, Ben Kelly, had reviewed and approved the final terms and conditions of the SCA (which references the Grievance, unlike the Memo). By 2018, SDK had established that he was a victim of a criminal conspiracy and also began to understand the corporate hierarchy and their accountability. SDK was producing image files which pictured the accused with links to the articles and evidence broadcast through Twitter™. Richards never did verify his identity in fact. Richards seemed especially concerned with the publication, Carl Richards, Arbitrary and Capricious Company Secretary, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (24 Feb 2018) p112-118and threatened to pursue criminal litigation against SDK as an individual separate from PGS?
In May 2018, lawyer Tippaya Moonmanee with Thailand law firm Duensing – Kippen sent a legal notice on behalf of Richards threatening criminal prosecution for defamation under the laws of Thailand. The notice further stated that she/Duensing – Kippen did not represent PGS, but only Carl Richards the individual (divorced from his fiduciary responsibilities of PGSUK secretary?). SDK believed that the notice was extortion and published this belief. SDK also informed Duensing – Kippen that SDK and PGS were currently bound by contractual confidentiality terms and conditions governed by the laws of England and that litigation in Thailand was unnecessary if the SCA is a valid and legal instrument. (SDK had concluded that the SCA could not be a legal instrument since it was supported by defamatory forged documents.) SDK did not give too much thought to the correspondence at the time. But, how did Duensing – Kippen receive SDKs post address in Thailand? SDK had provided WFW and PGS with passport and post address information for the 2016 SARs. SDK did comply with the demands, to a degree, at first, but did not receive reasonable verification or details to believe the claim was legitimate. Richards resigned from PGS 25 May 2013, according to the PGSUK company information published on Companies House website. In June, SDK again submitted another SAR. This time SDK cited the new General Data Protection Requirement (GDPR) which had replaced DPA.
No additional data was provided from the 2018 SAR. However, within the response from PGSUK in-house solicitor, John Francas, PGS again threatened litigation for breaches in the SCA? In September 2018, SDK left Thailand and returned to the USA. Duensing – Kippen delivered two criminal complaints to SDKs Thai residence on the date SDK departed Thailand. Duensing – Kippen and PGS had used SDKs passport data to track his travels. SDK did not receive the complaints in electronic format. Only firm copies were delivered by post. SDK had to shorten his visit to the USA and return to Thailand to address the PGS sponsored criminal complaints. Even though Duensing – Kippen had explicitly informed SDK that they did not represent PGS, upon arriving to back to Thailand, Duensing – Kippen had delivered two criminal complaints. One was on behalf of Richards, who still had never confirmed his identity in fact. The other claim was on behalf of PGSUK directors Pedersen, Langseth and Steen-Nilsen. Duensing – Kippen had lied to SDK in stating that they did not represent PGS. The “legal claims” of criminal defamation under Thai law included only a small portion of the publications posted since 2015. Content had been translated from its original publication in English into Thai. SDK sent several inquiry emails to PGSUK directors and legal, including Francas, PGS General Counsel Lars Mysen, and PGS Data Protection Officer, Daphne Bjerke, and PGS UK HR Manager Gareth Jones. No one replied to these emails even with the ongoing litigation in Thailand. SDK had to hire Thai lawyers and travel to Bangkok, Thailand Criminal Court to address the claims. This costs thousands of US dollars since there were two separate criminal claims instead of just one.
The claims delivered by Duensing – Kippen on behalf of PGS, WFW, and LZW traumatized SDKs Thai in-laws. SDKs mother in-law went to the hospital and became gravely ill. SDKs family in the US were also traumatized – and still are, along with my wife and children because of PGS’ harassment and illegal actions against their victim of crimes! The delivered claims also were a material breach of the SCA which prohibited the publication of disparaging content, such as an illegal false criminal complaint to silence a whistleblower. On 11 November 2018, SDK signed two Thai compromise agreements to avoid criminal trial in Thailand. For the record, Duensing – Kippen have no idea what is or is not defamation. Neither does Francas. The entire point of SDKs publications is to expose PGS processing illegal forged and unverifiable documents. Defamation is the publication or disclosure of false and harmful information about another party. One cannot ascertain what is true or false through documents that have no counter-signature or supporting data. Further, the threshold for disparagement is much less than proving defamation. How can there be criminal defamation in Thailand but not a breach in the SCA? There cannot be. The litigation in Thailand was get evidence of crimes de-published. Within 10-days of the Thai compromise agreements, SDK was told that he “breached” the Thai agreements through reporting the current predicament and ongoing litigation to JOGMEC while PGS was negotiating the sale of a vessel to JOGMEC. SDK again was exercising his legal right under law and contract to publicly disclose PGS mischief, but was silenced to PGS could once again silence the truth.
PGS and Richards had Duensing – Kippen (illegally) file two more criminal complaints in retaliation for SDKs whistleblowing to JOGMEC. The new trials were set for January 2019. SDK had taken nopgs.com offline as discussions around the litigation and compromise agreements were ongoing. SDK does not believe that the Thai agreements are legally enforceable for several published reasons. The main issues are that SDKs contracts with PGSUK are governed by English law with no limit in time. This includes data protection provisions by GDPR and whistleblower protection through PIDA. The Thai compromise agreements were unnecessary if the OEC had not been breached by PGS and the SCA were a legal instrument. Between 11 November 2018 and January 2019, likely in December 2018, nopgs.com was stolen and SDK lost access to his website. This theft and destruction of evidence was intended to silence legal and protected disclosure about PGS corruption. However, SDK has been certain since 2014 SAR that PGS processes inaccurate defamatory data. Nicholson and Francas both threatened litigation due to breaches in the SCA when they both knew the SCA was not an enforceable legal instrument supported by forged documents. The Thai Compromise agreements also had resolution venues in Harris County, Texas federal or state courts. SDK questioned this. Thai defamation laws are notoriously severe. These laws do not parallel Texas law or USA Federal law. The USA is comprised of fifty independent states with separate laws which differ from federal statute. Neither the USA nor Texas can or would enforce Thai criminal laws.
On 3 July 2019, Francas contacted by email SDK regarding breaches in the Thai agreement between PGSUK and SDK. Nopgs.com content was republished on marineseismicsurvey.com. Duensing – Kippen has demanded articles de-published. Based on what? PGS, WFW, and Landau Law have not presented evidence that the content on marineseismicsurvey.com actually is the same as nopgs.com and is covered by the litigation because they stole nopgs.com and all content was lost! Richards has remained silent since slithering out of England (to Brisbane, Australia, SDK believes). SDK has no idea where Richards is and Richards has made no attempt to change that. Richards has protested no published content. No director nor named executive has ever even tried to defend their own reputation. PGS, WFW, and Landau Law have relied upon illegal threats against SDK and his family from Duensing – Kippen to demand silence. This is how corrupt and cowardly PGS, WFW, and Landau Law are. There is no interest in the truth, only the continued deception of a public so PGS, WFW and Landau Law can publish lies about their unethical and illegal business practices. PGS, WFW, and Landau Law have allowed many disparaging publications that name cohorts. Reinhardsen has never even tried to defend the reputation and value of PGS, Equinor, and Telenor. Reinhardsen has allowed employees to have their names published and reputations tarnished. Leaders do not allow that! The cowardly and corrupt run away from the truth.
The people most severely damaged by PGS, WFW and Landau Law are the whistleblower and his family. SDK, who publishes the truth is blacklisted?! PGS, WFW, and Landau Law have caused incalculable damage to the upstream oil and gas industry, as well as the geoscience, HR, and employment law professions. True professionals should admonish such behavior and shun their cowardly and corrupt brethren who destroy lives. They are all disgraceful. As late as May 2020, Duensing – Kippen continued citing SDK breaches in the Thai agreements and harassing SDK and his Thai family. SDK is in the USA now and the Thai agreements cite the USA federal and state courts of Texas. PGS, WFW, and Landau Law have been requested to remark on the status of the SCA which they all formed. Why such an effort to run away from that agreement? All of the PGS agreements lead us back to Texas where the fake data about PGS was shared. It takes us back to the questions asked in 2014 and are now posed again to PGS UK HR Manager Gareth Jones. Explain the Memo and all other documents PGS processes within SDKs PGS personnel file and confirm Jones’ agency/employer from 2013 – 2020? And answer the base question, is the SCA signed in England 5 December 2013 really a legal contract? PGS, WFW, and Landau Law silence is obstructing justice and that really is a USA and Texas crime and I have always been a USA citizen. .
For example, on a survey conducted by Family Lives in the U.K., more than 80% of the participants reported that workplace bullying affected their family life. Therefore, the “spillover” effect of workplace bullying on the victims’ personal lives cannot be ignored and constitutes an important consequence of workplace bullying which has been largely neglected by the current literature. Negative job-related feelings such as anger, frustration, despair, and hopelessness can compromise parenting abilities in such a way that the stress resulting from workplace bullying may indirectly affect their children’s psychological well-being and behavior by altering their parenting practices. ~
In the absence of truth, power is the only game in town.
Richard John Neuhaus
Victory is always possible for the person who refuses to stop fighting.
The image which heads this blog article is the screen capture from a Google™ Image search of PGS #Pedersen. By any standard, leadership entrusted with advancing the company, as well as its directors and management’s, reputation would not allow being associated with such imagery and accusations. Therefore, any settlement contract that is intended to end an employment relationship on fair, equitable and reasonable terms, yet allows the employer and its agents open to such public ridicule and criticism would not seem to accomplish its intended objectives. In fact, the outcome of this settlement has apparently left Norwegian marine seismic service company, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) and its UK affiliate, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK), agents impotent in constructively resolving such an online tirade. The PGS/PGSUK legal compliance lawyer, Rune Olav Pedersen (PGS #Pedersen) is responsible for this contract and all of the online postings which it has inspired. PGS #Pedersen was the principal agent who oversaw the resolution of a grievance addressing workplace bullying/mobbing, harassment, defamation, as well as a litany of other indiscretions, mostly regarding the abuse of position. Agents were allowed to not abide by UK laws and PGS policy. The grievance concentrated on acts perpetrated by three (3) PGSUK executives, Simon Cather (PGS #Cather), PGS Marine Contract President – Africa, Edward von Abendorff (PGS #Abendorff), VP Marine Contract Sales – Africa, and David Nicholson (PGS #Nicholson), Human Resource (HR) Manager EAME.
PGS #Pedersen is but one of the alleged PGS/PGSUK criminal and corrupt agents who participated in gang violence intended to protect liars and cheaters and silence my voice. He along with his co-conspirators have been accused, although none have formally retorted or denied these published accusations. My publications became necessary when PGS/PGSUK corrupt executives, the board, and compliance team did not do what their legal agency requires. Their objective has not been legal compliance, but rather covering-up illegal executive behaviors. PGS/PGSUK agents have either lied or ignored my queries. The accused were allowed to not investigate – or rather, produce a fabricated investigation which was withheld from me to exonerate themselves. I believe that the settlement contract proffered to me by PGSUK was not legal. How is it possible to illegally create and process a false narrative supported by false instruments, misrepresentations, and the withholding and destruction of key data/information to affect a legal agreement? How is it legal for any agent, my own nor any agent of PGSUK, to accept and process such false instruments, misrepresentations, and the withholding and destruction of key data/information on my behalf? Common sense would tell most that any such agreement is obviously compromised. But, that is before the corrupted power of misappropriated PGS resources and money enters into the equation. When this happens, no legal or compliant outcome is possible. PGS #Pedersen oversaw the workplace violence and plunder of a whistle blower,
It was PGS #Pedersen who allowed my legal right to file a grievance be obstructed (perverting the course of justice), false documents stating a false narrative to be created and processed (fraud and forgery), and finally withheld a medical recommendation which denied me a medical check-up that may have confirmed that their acts of bullying and harassment were in fact health harming (assault?). PGS #Pedersen did all this while advancing a settlement contract with the specific intent of allowing PGS executives to escape justice and accountability. The formation of such an agreement required a lot of shenanigans on the part of PGS agents. Such a conspiracy and confidence fraud required enlisting a long-term customer and third- party agent, Rhodri Thomas, of legal firm Watson, Farley and Williams, to not carry out normal due diligence and to tell one narrative to the UK Border Agency on the one hand, while telling another juxtaposed narrative to forward an illegal settlement on the other. My (compromised) legal counsel and agent, Philip Landau and Holly Rushton also allowed false instruments and false data to be advanced and processed. This simply is not legal. They were acting as double-agents. Therefore, based on these facts, as well as my former counsel’s lack of support in rectifying such issues and the many queries raised, I was only left to wonder. How much did PGS agents pay you, Philip Landau? None of these “professional lawyers” answer my questions or have retained and provided substantive documentation of the negotiation processes they were clandestinely involved in. More revealing, no lawyer involved has taken any legal action to stop my publications that accuse them of criminal behavior. Their solution is to have me blocked on social media! That’s the only option that their legal training has allowed them? (It is as if the truth might put them in jail!)
Power does not corrupt. Fear corrupts… perhaps the fear of a loss of power.
You take my life when you do take the means whereby I live.
William Shakespear, The Merchant of Venice. Act iv. Sc. 1
When people think of rape, they think it as a sexual
crime. However, studies have shown over and over again that rape is a
crime of power. The legal definition of rape is the
unlawful sexual intercourse with a person against their will. The
essential elements of the crime of rape are sexual penetration, force,
and lack of consent of the other person. However, a broader dictionary
definition of rape is to plunder or violently seize or steal from
another. By this definition, rape is also not only about sex, but even
more so about power. Within this more extensive definition of rape, there
is the power dynamic of control and dominance at its core. The violent
sex act becomes the projection and outcome from the abuse of power,
whereby something is violently taken-away without the consent of the
target. Beverly McPhail of the University of Houston asserts that rape
“occurs due to multiple motives rather than the single motivation. These
multiple motivations include, but are not limited to, sexual gratification,
revenge, recreation, power/control, and attempts to achieve or perform
masculinity.” Such dominance is demonstrated within heterosexual prison
inmate populations. In prisons, inmates are held within sexually
unnatural, repressive, and humiliating environments. Inmates resort to a
system of (masculine) dominance over the weaker inmates that includes sexual
All forms of workplace harassment are about the abuse of power and
authority. Harassment involves intentionally targeting someone associated
with a protected group with behavior that is meant to alarm, annoy, torment or
terrorize them. Hierarchical authoritative power is too often
demonstrated through corrupt and abusive social and political dominance.
Workplace bullying is demonstrated through such behaviors targeting individuals
outside a protected group. Workplace mobbing is bullying of an
individual by a group. Workplace mobbing is emotional abuse that involves
“ganging up” by co-workers, subordinates or superiors, to force someone out of
the workplace through rumor, innuendo, intimidation, humiliation, discrediting,
and isolation. Workplace mobbing is also referred to as malicious,
nonsexual, nonracial, general harassment. Perpetrators of workplace
violence or rape rely on the same corrupted power structures that support, and
too often promote, all forms of workplace violence. One of the most severe
ramifications of abused power is the loss of control and disempowerment which
the targets of such abhorrent behaviors experience. More to the point,
the legal protections that are supposed to be afforded to targets of violence
are denied through the intentional abuse and perversion of illegally sanctioned
authoritative agency power, such as PGS #Pedersen allowing non-compliant and
illegal acts be carried-out as a PGS agent for legal compliance.
There is something very understandable about gang violence. The fact is that people are more likely to do something if they think they can get away with it. Large numbers provide some statistical likelihood of not getting caught. However, more importantly, within the workplace, it is the concentration of power and misused agency authority to preserve such corrupted power which makes justice so difficult to realize for targets of abuse. When internal governance and compliance do not fulfill their legal agency responsibilities, organizations become lawless. Non-compliant behavior is too often rewarded directly or indirectly through favoring those who look the other way from witnessing bad behavior. These bystanders and witnesses of bad behavior who remain silent accommodate all corruption. Too often HR is used as a conduit to pay “bribes” and to reward people for their complicity. Money can also be laundered and funneled for seemingly benign bonuses or promotions. Power and money with no third-party oversight is simply a formula for rampant corruption, which is seen too often these days within every industry. Harassment and bullying are epidemic, yet justice for such abrogation of civility and workplace policy is rarely realized. Internal governance is a façade that the corrupt create and misuse for self-preservation of power. Corrupt corporate agents only need to publish core values or responsibility reports.
Authoritative power can decide which scandals are investigated and
punished. Authoritative power can also allow themselves to misuse
shareholder value to do it. When a report was made to UK Action Fraud,
PGS/PGSUK voiced no concern about allegations made against executives.
The UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) who administer over compliance
to the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) have no authentication process and
therefore data controllers, such as PGSUK can lie with impunity. (And
they have, thus far.) Accusing Terje Bjøseth (PGS #Bjolseth), PGS SVP HR
and Per Arild Reksnes (PGS #Reksnes), then PGS EVP Marine Contract, and PGS #Cather
of forging a memo stating my acceptance of a false narrative does not warrant
concern as it is regarded as an “employment issue.” Even though a
person’s employment represents to them a significant amount of money and such
fraud is in fact stealing that money, enterprise agent’s access to money and
resources to stave off accountability is never in short supply! PGS
#Pedersen and his accomplice within “compliance” are automatically trusted
because of their hierarchical authority and the money and resources that it
controls. It has nothing to do with truth or legal compliance.
The likelihood of getting away with a crime is also greatly
enhanced with a gang of complicit co-conspirators hiding from the truth.
When corrupt power wants to suppress the truth, it is made easy for them.
The truth is that shareholders and customers actually finance the deceit of
misused resources through apathy. Therefore, the solution for creating
workplaces free from health-harming and performance hindering harassment and
bullying is for all stakeholders: customers, investors, and competitors, to
demand proof of legal compliance and not just hollow statements.
Toxic workplaces cannot be cured through weak and dysfunctional enterprise
I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.
When policemen break the law, then there isn’t any law – just a fight for survival.
Billy Jack character (Billy Jack, 1971)
When the principal enterprise/corporate agents entrusted with the role of
legal and policy compliance are themselves entwined in the illegal and corrupt
behavior that they are appointed to govern, it is impossible for any outcome to
be legal and compliant. Nowhere is such a workplace culture of harassment
and violent mobbing behavior more manifest than within Norwegian marine seismic
service company Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS). My former employer.
And newly appointed PGS CEO, PGS #Pedersen, is an integral proponent of this
toxic culture where corrupt acts by board members and executives are financed
by their deceived stakeholders and customers. What the deafening PGS
board and executive silence around such allegations makes clear is their very
direct involvement at every level in conspiring to carry-out an intentional and
organized cover-up. PGS #Pedersen is placed front and center in both
carrying-out and covering-up these nefarious activities. Because of PGS
#Pedersen’s direct involvement, it is also no surprise that he has now become
the CEO. He is in place to shield the depth of PGS corruption. No
credible or honest person would accept this role and not feel compelled to
reveal the truth behind such allegations. In fact, it is the
responsibility of key executives and the board of directors to uphold PGS and
their own reputations in the eyes of stakeholders. Ignoring and remaining
silent in addressing such allegations is unprofessional, irresponsible, mean,
There is legal non-compliance to be uncovered, if only an honest investigation were carried-out. Workplace bullying is referred to as the hidden epidemic. Workplace bullying and harassment top the list of workplace hazards. Such workplace violence is corruption by almost any reasonable definition. It is the first tool of corrupt management to rid the workplace of whistle blowers, complainers, and even threatening talent. Human Resources departments become weaponized to rid employees that threaten corrupt management. HR departments also become a money laundering operations that pay out rewards to the incompetent and pliant employees who support the corruption. HR departments are the avenue used to pay off the settlements that protect perpetrators of violence. Payrolls are used as bribes to coerce others to support the corrupt and perform duties which are against the law or transgress workplace policies and procedures. Targets of the corrupt, violent, and health-harming effects of workplace bullying seldom find justice. Much of this is because the concept of corporate governance is too often utter idiocy in practice. Corrupt organizations simply do not adhere to their own corporate governance protocols. Isn’t that what corruption is? Corrupt executives are allowed to maneuver and manipulate processes to protect themselves from any deserved legal or civil liability because corrupt executives allow themselves this non-agency authority to rig the system to their favor through bypassing local laws and company policies.
For over two-years I have been exposing PGS board and executive corruption and hypocrisy to which PGS #Pedersen has played a principal role. I have tried to use the legitimate company processes for redress. There have been lies, threats, but mostly silence in response to my phone calls and emails to compliance team members. When a group of adults are allowed to conspire, coordinate, and engage in workplace mobbing, involving fraud, with the explicit intent of harming and robbing targets of their professional livelihood and reputation, it should resonate with all stakeholders. Such violent plunder and theft is intended to harm and destroy the targets of abuse while protecting the rapists. It is the most evil and despicable kind of corruption. Stakeholders need to understand that corruption impacts the reputation and performance of all professionals and the markets that employ them. I implore all stakeholders and decent people to demand that PGS #Pedersen, board, and executive chronicle and explain how their decisions and actions followed legal compliance and policy. PGS #Pedersen was obliged to uphold legal compliance under his agency for PGS. The fact that he did not carry out his legal duties also implies very clearly that he is corrupt beyond measure. I am an enemy of the corrupt board and management because I wanted them to follow the rules, policies and the law (of Norway and England). I am an enemy of the corrupt board and management because they have misused company resources, diminished the profession, and deceived customers. They have sanctioned all this to harm me and my family. No agent from PGS/PGSUK has publicly challenged my truthful narrative. (They dare not expose themselves to rational dialogue.) I need the help from stakeholders who care about a fair and level playing field offering the best products and services to step up and challenge corruption. Challenge corruption, deception, and make the industry more safe and fair by not doing business with opaque organizations who cannot demonstrate their core values or responsible behavior. This is the plea of all victims of crime: Justice.
Fighting corruption is not just good governance. It’s self-defense. It’s patriotism.
No oppression is so heavy or lasting as that which is inflicted by the perversion and exorbitance of legal authority.
Reinhardsen is currently the CEO and President of Norwegian marine seismic
service company, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS). Reinhardsen recently (29 May 2017) announced
that he will retire from PGS at the end of August 2017. Reinhardsen is not the only person who needs
to retire from PGS. Reinhardsen
never understood the cyclic seismic industry so much as financial instruments
and legal loopholes. PGS desperately
needs a solid and ethical leader and executive team who understand thoroughly
the cyclic nature and technology demands of the marine seismic industry. The new CEO should also understand the
importance of adhering to core values to serve all stakeholders. Ethics and values are the only stable thing
in business, to which Reinhardsen pays only lip-service. It is a sad testament to the O & G
industry that Reinhardsen has been picked to chair Norwegian oil company
Statoil. This may be the worst decision
that the Statoil board has ever made.
Firstly, Reinhardsen is not a leader. In my view, Reinhardsen is a disingenuous
coward who abandoned core ethical business values and practices which have
harmed PGS and the greater marine seismic sector, quite possibly beyond
repair. Since he assumed the helm of
PGS, in spite of extraordinary capex spending, the market capitalization of PGS
has declined from over $5 billion USD to a present value of less than $700
million USD. Reinhardsen does not
possess the integrity or honor to assume such a role. He also does not appear to possess the
commercial acumen either.
The current marine seismic market is tumultuous and requires a strong and steady leader and manager at the helm. It demands leadership with character and integrity. It demands responsible stewardship and owned responsibility. Reinhardsen has demonstrated none of these qualities while CEO at PGS and yet is rewarded? The latest addition to the PGS Executive Team is a lawyer and not a geophysicist. EVP Rune Olav Pedersen is a similarly ethically debased and corrupt compliance team member. This speaks volumes to how Reinhardsen sees the O & G business. Through his toxic management practices, corrupt executives are protected by lies and misappropriated and ill-managed money (embezzled) hidden under legal minutiae. PGS cannot continue their spendthrift corruption forever, and so, of course, Reinhardsen retires from the challenge of ethical leadership. PGS is a damaged company. It is my opinion that Reinhardsen, along with many in the upper hierarchy of PGS, should all have been fired and/or put into handcuffs. I have published extensively my reasons for this belief on www.nopgs.com [now offline since December 2018 due to what I contend was illegal litigation in Thailand.] I first called for Reinhardsen to resign 6 September 2015 in the article, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Jon Erik Reinhardsen Should Resign. The latest article highlighting the CEO, The Society of Exploration Geophysicist (SEG) Should Investigate the Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) CEO Reinhardsen Cabalwas posted on 17 October 2016. So, Reinhardsen’s announcement of retirement from PGS is both welcomed and overdue. On the other hand, his appointment to chair Statoil is mostly tragic. I fear Statoil’s company value and reputation will be diminished by such a choice.
the course of justice is an English common law crime. There are three key acts which define
perverting the course of justice.
Intimidating a witness, juror, or judge; disposing of or fabricating
evidence; and falsely accusing someone of a crime. These are all forms of perverting the course
of justice. (Perverting the course of
justice is a serious criminal offense and carries a maximum sentence of life
imprisonment.) I believe that toxic
workplace behaviors often embody the elements of perverting the course of
justice, and thus perverts the course of the industry which accepts and
promotes such toxic and corrupt management practices. Also, accepting toxic workplaces to be the
sole concerns of agents and stakeholders of the enterprise themselves generally
works to empower corrupt management and therefore corruption in general
throughout the greater landscape of the market sector even more. It is an oxymoron to expect internal governance
and compliance to be functional within corrupt organizations. Human nature after all, is just that. Toxic management, by its nature, is
non-compliant and often is antecedent or parallels enterprise corruption and
even criminal behaviors. Directors apply
the constraints. When rules and policies
stop being fairly applied this leads to disorder and disorganization. Disorganized organizations are always less
productive and less profitable to the honest stakeholders. Toxic management embodies these elements. Further, the belief that toxic management of
an organization is a matter only for internal governance and legal compliance
is predicated on the myth that abating corruption is a principal interest of
those in authoritative power of the enterprise.
This is seldom the case. Corrupt
leadership alwaysfacilitates enterprise corruption
through the culture of behaviors that they accept. Culture is defined by choices and by the
decisions that those with authoritative power make. Culture is performance. With Reinhardsen as Chairman, Statoil is
accepting a disastrous health-harming toxic culture to direct their business
decisions in the future. Good luck.
Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny.
The sentiment of justice is so natural, and so universally acquired by all mankind, that it seems to be independent of all law, all party, all religion.
All of the individual’s named within my articles have always been encouraged to tell their side of the story publicly. How did their decisions abide by core values, company policy, or common law? Well, they didn’t and so there is the irresponsible silence which accompanies the void in ethical leadership. Signing a contrived agreement proffered through misrepresentations, withheld information, and abusive – corrupt – management, and likely countersigned by Reinhardsen is apparently binding for targets of abusive workplaces. The distressed signature is even more binding than the breach in policy and common law which facilitated the PGS executive executed confidence fraud. The corrupt protect the corrupt and defile the business and industry in the process. Toxic management unbridles corrupt behavior and then normalizes it, protects it, and promotes it. Reinhardsen and his cabal are disgusting and evil human-beings who will destroy livelihoods before facing the truth and being held accountable. PGS executives run from responsibility. How is it that Reinhardsen does not feel obligated by his CEO agency status and responsibilities to stakeholders to live the words in his authored Responsibility Letter? Where are the core values and integrity that embody true leadership? Vacant. Those in control of the leadership and management of the enterprise define the culture, develop the processes, and determine how resources are best used. Organizational leadership, through culture, facilitates either intentionally or through neglect corruptible processes and systems. Workplace bullying has become epidemic along with corporate corruption. The two go together hand-in-hand. Workplace bullying is especially focused on whistle blowers who reveal corruption, and it is whistle blowers who most often pay the highest price in terms of damage to their careers and livelihood. USA Wells Fargo Bank agents, including compliance and human resource (HR) executives, engaged in relentless non-compliant behaviors and corrupt terminations and blacklisting of whistle blowing employees to hide the fraud and protect the enriched executives. This is a travesty of justice. It is far too easy for many enterprise executives to be corrupt under the guise that there exists some form of corporate governance and leadership accountability. Those with the authoritative power to abuse are out of reach of the rules and laws that are supposed to govern the workplace. Such is the case with PGS as well.
psychological workplace violence, such as workplace bullying,
gang-bullying/mobbing, and harassment, to remain an issue of internal policy of
the organization itself undermines markets and all professionals who work
within them. Enterprises work hard to
present reputations of ethical business practices grounded in core
values. However, PGS top management have
collectively conspired to pervert the course of justice through their misuse of
power and resources. The policy handbook
has no value but to the most toxic and corrupt who misuse it to purge grievers
and whistle blowers. The bullies have no
dignity or honor because they needn’t have within the corporate gangland. Narcissistic executives regard
industrious and creative employees as threats and pariahs to expel. Threatening the empowered incompetent and
corrupt within a toxic organization places the target of abuse in peril. The reason that I can publish such blistering
critiques and admonishments is because I write the truth. And while a hefty legal claim is kept out of
reach through such fraud and abuses, there is no renunciation of my words from
those accused. The simple fact is that
workplace psychological abusers and fraudsters are willing to be called anything. The abused targets require lots of money
and evidence for actions against the corrupt.
The corrupt need only a signature on a voidable contract to remain free
simply does not possess integrity or the temperament to direct a company into
the future. Reinhardsen’s management
practices are obscene, cowardly and abusive.
He has never had to answer for his terrible decisions. This sets a deafening tone from the top. He is responsible for destroying careers and
lives by his active promotion and participation in illegal workplace
practices. No one is demanding that
Reinhardsen address such allegations directly and seriously study the
evidence. Why not? The health and safety of all stakeholders is
at stake. His business decisions are a
product of his character and the culture it imbues. Reinhardsen is allowed to retire with praise
while grievers and whistle blowers revealing his corruption and evil management
are disposed of. Reinhardsen is not a
leader. He is too unprofessional,
dishonest, insecure, and divorced from what the business actually means to be
called a leader. The industry needs to
stop encouraging and promoting toxic management. Workplace bullying, gang-bullying/mobbing,
and harassment are top rated health hazards.
The Deepwater Horizon and Piper Alpha offshore disasters
were products of toxic management thinking productivity and profit are achieved
through cutting corners in safety. Those
interviewed following the Deepwater Horizon understood that if they
complained about abusive work practices of those in charge that their days were
numbered. When will the days be numbered
for toxic and corrupt managers? When
will the profession demand their responsible redress? Executives such as Reinhardsen pervert the
course to a safe and high morale workplace.
Reinhardsen owes many an apology.
He should be ashamed. He should
have integrity. Without these, with his
position he can only continue to damage the O & G industry.
Business, that’s easily defined – it’s other people’s money.
The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people.
FORGED MEMO HAS NEVER BEEN DISPUTED BY THE ACCUSED PATHETIC COWARDS WHO UTTERED FORGED INSTRUMENTS
David Nicholson was accused within the 20 September 2013 Grievance of abuse of position (misuse of the performance management system), discrimination (SDK is a USA citizen on PGS sponsored Tier 2 visa)
Simon Cather was accused within the 20 September 2013 Grievance of abuse of position (misuse of the performance management system), discrimination (SDK is a USA citizen on PGS sponsored Tier 2 visa)
Terje Bjolseth is Nicholson’s superior and an agent of parent company in Norway
Per Arild Reksnes is Cather’s superior and an agent of parent company in Norway
No one related to this Memo is SDKs first line supervisor (Edward von Abendorff) and do not possess qualified privilege.
Subject has not signed this ridiculous forgery created to hide the fact that PGS ASA, Watson Farley & Williams and Landau Law (formerly LZW Solicitors) broke the law and obstructed the legally guaranteed grievance process which states the that a decision on the grievance MUST BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. The griever MUST ALSO BE INFORMED HE MAY APPEAL the decision.
PGS ASA, Watson Farley & Williams and Landau Law (formerly LZW Solicitors) Uttered Forged Documents to support and illegal settlement contract used to terminate a whistleblower.
The 20 September 2013 Grievance is referenced within the fraudulent settlement contract, but is not referenced within the Memo! The Grievance met the criteria of protected disclosure as defined within the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA).
What #PhilipLandau, #London #EmploymentLaw Solicitor taught me about Settlement Contracts
An Anatomy of the Petroleum Geo-Services (@PGSNews) Confidence Fraud
Corporate executives and business owners need to realize that there can be no compromise when it comes to ethics, and there are no easy shortcuts to success. Ethics need to be carefully sown into the fabric of their companies.
The truth of the matter is that you always know the right thing to do. The hard part is doing it.
General H. Norman Schwarzkopf
Having come across an
article written by London employment law solicitor, Philip Landau (currently of
Landau Law), in October 2013, I contacted and later engaged Landau to help
me. I am a U.S. citizen who was working
for PGS Exploration UK Limited [PGSUK] in Weybridge, England at the time on a
Company sponsored Tier 2 Shortage Occupation List) visa. I was working in a toxic workplace and had
filed a grievance citing harassment and bullying, in part, through the misuse
of the PGSUK performance management system.
Inclusive to the grievance was my claim that an unsubstantiated false
narrative regarding my professional performance which was being forwarded
by PGS managers to impugn my professional reputation. I believe that this was defamation and this
was cited as well within my grievance.
The only formal employment action between me and PGSUK was the
grievance. There were only threats of
a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) being investigated, which I qualified as
harassment and bullying. The negotiations
lasted nearly six-weeks from Oct-2013 to Dec-2013. I left England at the end of 2013 having
signed a settlement contract facilitated by Landau and his assistant, Holly
Rushton (Landau officially signed-off on the settlement). Placing so much trust and confidence in
Landau was a disastrous watershed event in my life. At the same time, accepting the/any
settlement contract terms was also an act of desperation to exit a toxic and
corruptly managed health-harming workplace for me and my family.
I am not a lawyer. I am a geophysicist with an understanding of how data is processed. I also understand how systems work. The axiom in data processing is garbage in – garbage out. Legal processes cannot create an illegal outcome. The principal who advised me on my employment settlement contract and oversaw the processes was Landau. Because of this,I could never recommend Landau or Rushton to anyone seeking help with any employment law issue. Never. Consider this article a public service. Of course, Landau and others mentioned herein are encouraged to respond or clarify any of the content presented. I will promise to post and respond accordingly. Some additional food for thought for anyone contemplating engaging Landau as their solicitor: I have been able to publish severalarticles condemning agents of my former employer, their hired legal counsel, Watson, Farley and Williams (WFW) and even Landau, without comment or rebuke. The settlement contract contained a non-disparagement clause. Nevertheless, I have been able to call-out agents of PGS/PGSUK as criminals, fraudsters, charlatans, and assholes. These articles were first published on LinkedIn™ Pulse (LI) (thr first appeared in July 2015), and currently are now accessible on the website www.nopgs.com [taken down through litigation in Thailand initiated by PGS. I believe illegally.]
In late 2014 following
my submission of a subject access request (SAR) citing the UK Data Protection
Act 1998 (DPA) with PGSUK, I discovered that most every important aspect with
regard to my leaving my position through a settlement agreement was
ignored. When I received my personnel
file, it contained defamatory false instruments intended to harm me personally
and professionally, the very things that my grievance highlighted. It took me too long to understand that such a
disastrous outcome could only result if my counsel, Landau, was in fact serving
my past employer’s interests more so than my own. Landau was my agent to oversee the processes
created the desired legal outcome. This
outcome did not happen. Perhaps
it was cognitive dissonance – an inability to believe that a
well-qualified and reputed person hired as my agent would not advance my
interests. Since Landau had been
provided with my lengthy grievance along with the PGS Exploration UK Limited
Handbook and also clarification emails, he would have been able to detect
all of the issues which I discovered when I received my personnel file. It was his responsibility to make certain
there was no false narrative backed by false instruments as an outcome. Initially, I assumed that PGS/PGSUK agents
had placed the documents into my file as a form of retaliation after my
employment had been terminated. But, it
has become obvious to me now is that the problem was a corrupted settlement contract
negotiation process with Landau complicity.
We are inclined to believe those whom we do not know because they have never deceived us.
Narrative Tension is primarily about withholding information.
In October 2016, I finally decided to request my file from Landau. I have asked Landau pointed questions about the settlement debacle and even published and sent to him My Philip Landau and Watson, Farley & Williams (WFW) London Solicitors Testimonial. Landau has never provided much insight into the matter and has since blocked me on his Twitter™ (@philiplandau). I have also called to boycott the PGSUK Norwegian based parent company, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS) until management is replaced. I believe that there had been collusion between the three negotiating parties: PGSUK and there counsel, WFW, and of course Landau. The agents of these parties engaged in active gaslighting manipulation and deception as part of a confidence fraud that resulted in the most favorable outcome for PGS. The only way for the outcome to be illegal – false instruments created to support a false narrative within my personnel file – is if Landau allowed it. After all, it was the unsubstantiated narrative which prompted my grievance in the first place. I suppose all the aforementioned parties believed that I would disappear in despair somewhere in the USA after being blackballed and bullied out of my career and livelihood in the marine geophysics industry. Landau and Rushton apparently were not only unsympathetic to my personal health issues resulting from the workplace mobbing or the trauma to my family, but were actually active contributors in the gang assault. So, if settlement contracts are intended to “settle things” so that parties can move on, the contract signed and approved by Landau as my advisor didn’t achieve this objective. In fact, it achieved quite the opposite. In my view, I became, along with my family, victim of a criminal confidence trick.
Settlement contracts are
very binding legal instruments. So, even
if one finds that the party/ies on the other side of the negotiating table did
terrible things after the fact, the assumption is that all of the legalmaterial
issues were considered during the negotiations.
The reason that employee’s offered settlement agreements need to engage
a solicitor is so that they receive correct legal advice. The role of an advisor-solicitor is to assist
the employee is getting the best practical and legal outcome for your
situation. Landau is experienced with
employment contracts and has published articles about employment law
issues. The idea of the settlement
contract is to let bygones be bygones.
The first mistake that I made was to not be so involved with my
negotiation and allow Landau to negotiate without me present to confirm
my interests were being advanced. I
am not sure what the normal practice is, after all I was unfamiliar with such
situations. All those around me knew
this. Plus, I was in a foreign country
and did not really understand how all the laws and my rights in these
circumstances. I am, after all, a professional geophysicist. However, I believe to trust, and of course
verify in both processing seismic data or in my business dealings. At the same time, I was working in the
contract sales and had some concept and understanding of contracts and common
My former employer was
able to dictate most of the terms of negotiations while information was
withheld from me and many of my core concerns were side-lined. The principals simply were not that capable
in negotiating in such a strong position without solid documentation. They did not have this. If they did not have supporting documentation
or evidence that processes were followed, how was such a favorable outcome possible? Simple, PGS agents,with Landau’s
cooperation, cheated. Over time and
through review of my notes and subsequent research I concluded that I had been
conned, not just by PGS agents, but by WFW agents and Landau as well. What firmed this conclusion was the non-response
to my many articles and many allegations.
People with means with integrity and reputations to preserve simply
would not allow such published allegations to be left unanswered. Of course, people guilty of wrong-doing also will
not engage and place themselves in legal peril.
According to the IT law Wiki site, confidence
fraud is the reliance on another’s discretion and/or a breach in a
relationship of trust resulting in financial loss. It includes a knowing misrepresentation of
the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or
Power is what men seek, and any group that gets it will abuse it. It is the same story. ~ Lincoln Steffens
Performance is a legal
avenue to terminate an employee and as such, this is a common tool that is
misused by toxic management to eliminate targets. Within the 2013 version of the PGSUK Company
Handbook it is stated that workplace bullying, “will not be tolerated.” (Landau had received a copy after I engaged
him.) I learned, in the most evil way
possible, that this is not the case. Not
even close. Dr. Sophie Henshaw describes
workplace mobbing as “bullying on steroids.”
What PGSUK agents, WFW, and Landau have perpetrated against me is mobbing
on steroids. Or more generically, confidence
fraud. This is my allegation for
which I have provided proof.
There has been no substantive response from the accused parties. But, such a negative outcome for me could
only be possible through the illegal conspiracy and collusion of all of the
principal agents involved in the negotiations.
Workplace mobbing is also referred to as workplace gang-bullying. Gangs are organized groups of people who
associate with each other to forward a certain agenda. The defining characteristics of
workplace mobbing is its unidirectional nature and its use as an intentional
weapon to hurt a target.
Workplace mobbing essentially permits the most insecure,
least adept, and most corrupt agents to guide the enterprise while expelling
the more coherent, empathetic and capable personnel. It’s a formula for disaster, and that is why
workplace bullying needs to be regarded as illegal in its own right. Such management is a disservice to all
stakeholders and there therefore needs to be appropriate third-party
oversight, in my opinion. PGS/PGSUK
agents had been preparing for my leaving the workplace for some time. In Jun-2013 I had been called to an impromptu
meeting that is colloquially called an ambush meeting in workplace
bullying lexicon. I was so disturbed by
what occurred in this meeting that I naively indicated to the (corrupt) Human
Resources (HR) manager, David Nicholson, who had coordinated the evil event
that requested minutes of the meeting and stated that I wanted to file a
grievance. My immediate superior, Edward
von Abendorff, along with his boss, Simon Cather, also had attended the
meeting. Aware that their scam had been
detected, they withheld the meeting minutes. I requested something in writing so that I
could take action. In late Jul-2013, I
received a letter with a subject line interjecting “investigation into possible
Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) – their “legal” avenue. Another meeting to discuss this letter’s
contents, which mimicked some of the content of the ambush meeting, was
scheduled for 11-Sep-2013. This meeting
was postponed until 20-Sep-2013, and it was clear to everyone that my response
to the letter would be filing a grievance.
I surprised my PGSUK bullies once again by not only grieving
against Abendorff, but also against Cather and Nicholson. On 13-Sep-2013 there was a change of PGSUK
Company Secretary. Directors of
companies are ultimately responsible for health and safety issues, compliance,
and contracts. I had mailed my grievance
the fore-mentioned and the SVP of HR, Terje Bjølseth, SVP Contract, John
Greenway, EVP Marine Contract, Per Arild Reksnes, and my co-worker/witness,
John Barnard. The actual meeting on
20-Sep-2013 where I delivered the grievance document in person was attended by
myself, Abendorff, Nicholson, and Barnard.
A grievance hearing was scheduled for 14-Oct-2013 chaired by Bjølseth and Reksnes. On 10-Oct-2013 Nicholson offered me a
settlement contract to terminate my employment because, legal in both Norway
and Weybridge thought that I was in dispute with the Company, because I
was the target following policy and procedures.
I declined the offer and attended the hearing. PGS delayed any response to my grievance and perhaps
knew by experience that I would seek counsel.
It is a legal requirement that employee’s offered settlement contract be
advised by legal counsel and Nicholson had shared this information with
me. It was during this wait that I
contacted Landau. He had been provided
with all of the facts stated and otherwise knew the Company principals. PGS decided to outsource the settlement
negotiations to WFW. PGSUK had a long
standing business relationship with WFW, having hired their employees in either
a temporary or even full-time capacity.
WFW had also processed all of the paperwork pursuant to me and my
family’s visas which had been renewed for another 3 years in Jul-2013. PGSUK had stated that my services were required
to UK Border Agency between the ambush meeting and ambush letter.
Serious misfortunes, originating in misrepresentation, frequently flow and spread before they can be dissipated by truth.
It is the trade of lawyers to question everything, yield nothing, and to talk by the hour
I have discovered that it is a legal requirement that
grievers be provided with a conclusion to any grievance hearing along with
notification that they can appeal unfavorable decisions. Landau did not press PGS/PGSUK to submit to
these legal requirements. Instead,
Landau pressed that I would likely get a better settlement if I did not press
on this (legal requirement). I never received
a conclusion or the minutes from the grievance hearing, nor did my
witness. I asked Landau about how the
terms would be impacted by my Tier 2 visa status. There would be pauses in the
negotiations. When I filed an SAR with
WFW, they did not provide any of the Tier 2 application documentation. According to WFW, there was no discussion of
my citizen status. This corresponds with
Landau’s “file” and is ridiculous because for bullying to be illegal harassment
the target needs to be a protected class.
My claims of bullying and harassment were never investigated even though
I asked Landau about it specifically. However,
the real issue is whether a PIP conformed with information PGSUK provided to UK
Border Agency because misleading the agency would also be illegal. Would have I been granted the Tier 2 visa if
PGSUK had revealed that it was the intention to place my on a PIP? Likely not, as the SOL visa displaces locally
qualified applicants. Landau never
pursued this avenue and continued to press for a settlement predicated on
unestablished “underlying performance issues” which PGSUK never was
requested by Landau to substantiate. Why?
Landau never seemed to use my visits made to Doctors as
leverage to substantiate the health harming effects of PGS/PGSUK toxic
management practices. PGS/PGSUK even had
a report citing the same findings completed by their contracted occupational
health nurse (OHN). Landau never cited
this report or that I could have received a fit note from my NHS GM. PGS/PGSUK was able to destroy and withhold
this health report which they had requested during the negotiations. The UK has the National Health Service. The US does not. When I returned to the US I did not have
health insurance for myself and my family.
I had requested to be able to purchase PGSUK Company plan insurance on
my own for six-months. But, Landau could
not leverage any concession there.
Landau did not negotiate positively a single concession based on the
unique special circumstances. On the day
before signing the settlement contract, PGS/PGSUK, WFW, confirmed that all data
held about me was accurate. Landau
accepted PGS/PGSUK and WFW on their word and never stated that I could make a
SAR, or similar, and actually see the data which PGS/PGSUK processed about me
to confirm that it was accurate. How
much more can you help the other side?
PGS/PGSUK knew that I was motivated to flee the toxic work
environment because it was stated within the OHN report which I never received,
even though the OHN requested that it be sent to me by Nicholson. I had to make a separate SAR following my SAR
to PGSUK to find this out. The day
before I signed the settlement contract I asked Landau if I should go to
tribunal. He advised no. Based on what? Tribunal would not have been the next
step. We would have had to have reverted
back to the grievance and then receive the report and letter stating that I
could appeal. Then I would have had an
appeal, and THEN we would have had to consider tribunal. But wait!
Dated 25-Oct-2013 is a Memo written to my attention stating that the
grievance was concluded! This is a false
document citing the 11-Sep meeting which never happened and a letter which I
never wrote. The conclusion does not
even reference the grievance document which I presented! The PGS/PGSUK, WFW, and Landau false
narrative was the basis of fake negotiation that lasted for
six-weeks. Six-weeks of lies and
gaslighting that negatively affected my health and effectively ended my career
in the marine seismic industry. Of
course, PGS/PGSUK shared this defamatory information with their US based agents
to interfere with my job search. While I
cannot prove this, I am certain of it. I
could tell by the interviewer questions and it’s what prompted me to submit my
SAR in the first place. Corrupt
and criminal PGS/PGSUK agents have lied throughout all of this. They have lied to me, to UK Border, to the
Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and to stakeholders. They have been able to lie because of
Landau’s binding settlement. Corrupt
PGS/PGSUK agents have such little respect for stakeholder clients, employees,
and shareholders that without shame they highlight grifters like Cather as
spokespeople for anti-corruption.
Laughing like this only hurts. What
Landau taught me about employment settlement contracts is that you cannot trust
Truth is truth to the end of reckoning.
Psychopaths know intellectually what is immoral they just don’t have a feeling of immorality about it.
I am a USA citizen who was sponsored for employment in Weybridge, England on a Tier 2 shortage occupation list (SOL) basis. I have the unfortunate experience of having been in need of legal guidance in employment law during my overseas assignment. My family -Tier 2 dependents – also resided and were sponsored by my employer. I was an outsider from another country unfamiliar with UK employment law and practices. I had worked globally with affiliates of the Norwegian based company, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (PGS). As a foreign worker, I relied heavily on the core values, policies and processes promulgated by PGS executive management as a basis for the conditions of my employment. In October 2013 – over three years ago – I engaged London based solicitor Philip Landau, currently of Landau Law. I had submitted a formal grievance citing health-harming workplace bullying (mobbing), harassment, and other executive wrong-doing within the Weybridge, England based affiliate, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGSUK). (It might have been considered whistle-blowing.) PGSUK, with guidance from PGS executives and legal staff, had offered me a settlement agreement following the submission of my formal grievance, but prior to a scheduled grievance hearing. The HR Manager said that PGS senior legal, HR and Contract executives regarded my grievance as a dispute with the company. In my view, I was the only actor following policy and law. I rejected the initial settlement offer, which was proffered by one of the principals implicated in the grievance, and decided to proceed to the grievance hearing. Distraught, vulnerable, and confused, I sought to learn more about my predicament and seek counsel. This is my testimonial about the professional services which I received from Landau.
Settlement agreement offers come as
a shock to many employees. In England, it is required that the offeree of
a settlement contract receive legal counsel to guide them through the
process. It was during the delay following the grievance hearing entertained
via video conference by the Norwegian superiors (which I didn’t feel was
handled well at all) that I started to search for a solicitor for advice.
Landau is a prolific writer on topics of
employment law in The Guardian,
as well as other venues. I came upon one of his articles (on workplace
bullying, I believe), whereupon I provided some contact details. Landau
was with Landau, Zeffertt and Weir Solicitors at this time.
Following this initial contact, Landau contacted me. I provided him with
more details about my situation, which included my lengthy grievance.
Landau requested that I summarize key points. I was awaiting to hear some
decision or receive some minutes about my grievance hearing which I had
attended prior to my search for legal counsel. Fundamentally, my
grievance was about being harassed and bullied and then pushed toward an
investigation into a possible performance improvement plan. My
grievance challenged the fairness and propriety of the PGSUK performance
management system and the unsubstantiated false-narrative and justifications
for pushing me toward that direction. Even the Landau Law website
(currently) describes bullying as misusing the performance management process:
Some of the classic signs of bullying includes being frozen out of meetings which the individual would normally be expected to attend, having people who would normally report to them taken away, not being asked to pub lunches or other office gatherings, being put on unwarranted performance improvement plan, being given a poor appraisal, being overly critical in emails and verbal communications, and being generally unpleasant and belittling.
My grievance was predicated on an
event which is referred to as an ambush meeting in workplace bullying
vernacular. On very short notice I was invited to my ambush meeting
by the HR manager. Both my immediate supervisor and his immediate
supervisor were also there waiting for me. During this meeting, I had to
endure and listen to these three bullies spew unsubstantiated bullshit
my way.Very soon following the ambush meeting, I requested
minutes of the meeting, queried how the meeting conformed with workplace
policy, and also queried about raising a grievance about the entire
unprofessional (illegal?) experience. I was denied all of these
requests. Information was withheld and designated policies transgressed.
This happened on 13-Jun-2013. At this point, nothing had been documented
for me to respond to, and so I requested something in writing. On
24-Jul-2013 I received a letter (which I had requested, as I wanted something
in writing). The HR Manager authored a letter with the subject line, Investigation
for possible implementation of a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).
This is what I refer to as the ambush letter which restated the
unsubstantiated claims brought-up during the ambush meeting. This is
where the HR manager interjected performance into the
communications. (My intention to file a grievance proceeded the delivery
of the ambush letter.) Within this letter was an invitation to a meeting
on 11-Sep-2013 where we could discuss the issues brought-up. This meeting
was postponed until 20-Sep-2013. PGSUK had tried to push me toward a PIP,
but I simply did not see that PGS has any evidence to support a PIP. My
response to the letter was my grievance which pointed this out. So, for
an incident which initiated 13-Jun, I was finally going to be able to present
my argument 20-Sep. Though there were attempts to delay the meeting, I
was determined to present my grievance that day. The grievance delivery meeting
A grievance hearing was scheduled for 14-Oct-2013. All of this information was provided to Landau for review. I even provided him with a the PGS Company Handbook. The work environment continued to be hostile and I essentially knew I had to leave. I did engage Landau to help me. On 25-Oct-2013 Landau notified me by email that he had made contact with PGS/PGSUK lawyers to discuss my situation. Landau seemed to be steering me toward a settlement solution and to not complete the grievance process. (Of course, if the situation were to go to actually go to tribunal it is preferable that to follow the prescribed workplace process of the grievance, I had read.) I was sort of confused at the advice to be honest because PGSUK simply had not presented any documentation to support their performance claims. Even Landau’s advice points out the proper path (below). None of this was followed by PGSUK. The need for the PIP had not even been determined at that point, according to the ambush letter.
If there is a disciplinary case to answer, you should be notified in writing with sufficient information about the issues and be given details of a disciplinary meeting, time and venue. The disciplinary meeting should be held as soon as possible and you should have a reasonable time to prepare for your case. Employers should provide evidence of any wrongdoing, and you should be allowed to answer any allegations, ask questions, present evidence and call relevant witnesses.
PGSUK decided to have a law firm
which they often conducted business with to negotiate the settlement instead of
their legal staff. I was familiar with Watson Farley and Williams (WFW)
because they had advised and handled the Tier 2 visa process for me and my
family. In fact, I (we) had received my second Tier 2 visa on 15-Jul-2013
– nine days before the delivery of the ambush letter – indicating that my
services were required by PGSUK. Honestly, everything was very strange to
me. At the start of negotiations with WFW, I was forwarded the following
“Without prejudice” discussions essentially do not bind parties to any of the
concessions which may be made during the negotiation process in the event that
no agreeable settlement contract terms are achieved. There are many
questionable things about this communication. For one thing, my
grievance essentially was my response to the ambush letter. Also, I had
always wanted to go through the legal grievance process. PGSUK offered
the settlement to avoid the grievance process. The underlying performance
issues were never substantiated by any process or documented and were in fact
the basis for my grievance in the first place. At the same time, I had
just paid money to Landau. Landau’s assistant during the
negotiations was Holly Rushton. (Rushton followed Landau to Landau Law,
but now is with Hine Legal.) I have to say that I was never completely
satisfied with the settlement reached. The process took its toll on me
and my family. I was visiting doctors regarding trouble sleeping and just
normal health issues that needed attending to while I had medical benefits and
insurance. During the month of November 2013, I had taken a week of sick
leave. I had never abused my sick leave in all of my years working for
PGS. Nevertheless, my direct supervisor and the HR manager requested that
I see the contracted occupational health nurse. By this time, I was very
motivated to leave the unpleasant and toxic work environment, but not on
ridiculous terms. PGSUK/PGS knew this because it was in the health report
which they had requested.
The negotiations continued through
the month of November. I signed a settlement on 5-Dec-2013, but I
remained employed until 31-Dec-2013 as I was placed on garden leave.
Within the article, Settlement agreements: what do employees need to
is stated that settlement agreements are typically offered to employees when
they are being made redundant or if an employer can show that they are
performing badly in their job or are guilty of misconduct. Typically, the
employee is given money in return for certain conditions, such as not bringing
a claim against their employer. “A settlement agreement will only
become binding once you have received independent legal advice on it,” says
Philip Landau. He follows with saying, “if you get it wrong,
there’s no going back, and this is why the legislation insists that you take
independent legal advice.” I was involved very little and kept rather
busy with work while the negotiations commenced. This was likely a
mistake, but I was kept quite busy with work. I did insist on a mutual
non-disparagement clause being included within the settlement. I kept a hands-off
attitude and let Landau do what he was both professionally qualified and
experienced to do. After all, he had published articles about the legal
process. I left England unemployed.
There were many discussions with
regard to the non-disparagement clause, especially as it applied to the three
principals which were the focus of my grievance. Everyone was very aware
of my concerns about the PGS narrative. As far as 4-Dec-2013 this was an
During the final days of negotiations, bedraggled and confused I signed, what I now believe was, an illegitimate contract. This is what I have discovered. PGS, WFW and Landau had conspired to agree on a false narrative with the intent to harm me and protect the corrupt organization and their bullies. I believe it to be fraud. Through the play in words, “underlying performance issues” the colluding parties turned a grievance regarding bullying and harassment into a legal performance-based termination and separation. PGS was able to do this without providing any defense or documentation. All they needed was a pliant and corruptible pair of solicitors such as Thomas, and more importantly, Landau and Rushton. The negotiations were carried out on a false narrative. This is called gaslighting. Wikipedia says that gaslighting is a form of manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or members of a group, hoping to make targets question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the target and delegitimize the target’s belief. The only way for such a disastrous settlement outcome was through the actions of Landau. It was an illegal termination made to look legal.
About 10-months after leaving
England, Oct-2014, citing the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), I submitted a subject
access request (SAR) to PGSUK. I made Landau aware of my SAR with
PGSUK at the time. A SAR allows data subjects, such as myself, to receive
copies of all personal data which a data controller, such as PGSUK, holds about
them. When I received my personal data from PGSUK, I was
astonished. The contents of my personnel file were populated with mostly forged/false
documents pertinent to my troubled period of employment with PGSUK.
The final health report which I never received in Nov-2013 even though
the nurse requested a copy be sent to me (in England) a recommended a follow-up
visit, had been destroyed from my record along with my grievance document.
(I received a copy through a separate SAR to the nurse in 2014.)
I went round-and-round with the
PGSUK personal data processors (Human Resources [HR]), most notably the
principal processor was the HR Manager whom I had filed a grievance against,
requesting that PGSUK remove the false instruments. PGSUK adamantly
refused to remove any data from my personnel file even though DPA requires that
only fair and accurate data is processed. Soon after I received my data
from PGSUK I sought legal advice only to learn how binding settlement
agreements were. Even though I could easily show the information held
within my personnel records were false from email histories and other
documentation, it did not matter. The Information Commissioner’s Office
(ICO) that determines DPA compliance does not have a standard or authentication
process for held data.
Character assassination is at once easier and surer than physical assault; and it involves far less risk for the assassin. It leaves him free to commit the same deed over and over again, and may, indeed, win him the honors of a hero in the country of his victims. ~ Alan Barth
One had better die fighting against injustice than die like a dog or a rat in a trap.~ Ida B. Wells
I knew that the information held
within my personnel file was false. In July 2014, I decided to confront
the issue through blogging because of the strength of settlement contract in
prohibiting future ligation. I could not stand defamatory content
residing in my personal data. That is where I am now. I have
published many articles about this issue since then. At first, I published
on LinkedIn™ Pulse (LI), where I had pretty good readership. However,
when I begin to post my queries on the LI PGS space comment section several
times, I was restricted. I had had over 4600 connection on LI and managed
a group, Marine Seismic Survey, with over 1450 members. PGS has
never fully responded to any of my queries.
Since August 2016, I have split content onto two websites. On www.marineseismicsurvey.com , I continue to blog about issues on the marine geophysical exploration. My newer site, nopgs.com <taken down December 2018 through dubious litigation in Thailand> , now holds my blogs which challenge the false PGS narrative through presenting my truthful narrative of events. NOPGS is an acronym for NO Psychopaths in Geo-Services. (Bullies often have psychopathic and narcissist qualities.) In addition to NOPGS hosting my blogs, I also provide links to articles on workplace violence, harassment, bullying, mobbing, and whistle blowing, as well as holds some informative information videos. I believe workplace bullying a terrible thing. It is known as the silent epidemic which infects too many workplaces. My aim is to inform and empower targets of this dysfunctional management and abuse. The key issue for me is that no settlement agreement can change the truth. At this point in time I have accused PGS agents, including the CEO, of lying, cheating, and fraud. That is the power of truth. However, all of this does not address the central issue of how these false instruments were able to remain in my personnel file in the first place.
Recently, I requested my case file from Landau. I also submitted an SAR to WFW. I am not sure why I waited so long. I was looking at the problem as a retaliation constructed after my termination of employment from PGSUK. However, PGS/PGSUK has double-downed on not changing any of the contents held within my personnel records. I have even brought the issues to the attention of the PGS Compliance Team. If we hold PGSUK/PGS by this information which they hold, then that means these documents were held within my personnel file during the negotiation process. This means that Landau/Rushton and WFW processed false instruments. The many issues which I have with my personnel file are best presented within article 8, The Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Ambush Meeting and the Definition of Fraud. In reviewing my email communications with Landau and Rushton, it is clear that they were provided with the information to detect many of the issues which I detected within my personnel file. This is why I did not initially target my complaints with Landau. I just assumed the issue was with PGS/PGSUK agents. My file from Landau contains no notes or information beyond the emails that we exchanged. He has not provided the names of PGS lawyers that he references within a separate communication, nor the source documents to support PGSUK’s position.
The most significant document held
within my file is a memo titled, Conclusions from Grievance Hearing,
which is dated 25-Oct-2013. There are many problems with this document,
not least of which is that I never received the memo 25-Oct-2013, I received it
with my SAR content. The additional problem with this memo, is that it
contradicts the pretense of the 01-Nov-2013 without prejudice discussions.
These discussions went on for over four-weeks. Had the settlement
discussions fell through, then the grievance would have had to be
addressed. That is what without prejudice means. If
conclusions were already made, what was the purpose of the settlement
discussions? Were there really settlement discussions or did all the
lawyers just kill time until I gave-up and accepted the settlement offer?
Landau and WFW Risk and Compliance Director, Neeta Aulak, have been provided
article links (8 & 13), but have thus far been unwilling to answer
questions or clarify what was discussed for over four weeks. Landau and
WFW will not state which PGS/PGSUK agents provided the source information and
how that information was vetted or even what source information they used to
base their decisions.
The PGS/PGSUK narrative is
substantially different from what I provided through my grievance and emails,
as well as other information sent to Landau. At no time did PGS/PGSUK,
Thomas, or Landau request or discuss clarifications. The above email also
indicates that WFW solicitor Rhodri Thomas knew about the grievance and cites performance
issues. What were the specific performance issues? They are
wholly undocumented and unsubstantiated. That was the point of the
grievance! The contents and narrative of my personnel file are false
instruments stating an unsubstantiated false narrative. The documents
contain wrong dates and reference none existent documents and/or
meetings. As Landau states, you better get the settlement right. I
am now gaining a better appreciation of what happens when lawyers form a bad
settlement agreement. Landau is a prolific writer and I would like for
him to respond to these issues. Thus far, these questions have left him without
words to explain to his former client. This is what is
suspicious. If Landau were my truth advocate, then he would also want
honest clarification about the veracity of the contents held within my
personnel file following his negotiated settlement contract on my behalf.
What incentive did Landau and Thomas (WFW) receive from PGS/PGSUK to not follow
the very advice which one writes and reads about? (I suppose starting a
new legal firm is a good way to launder money.) I do not know all the
ins-and-outs of settlement contracts. However, the end result cannot be
unfair or inaccurate personal data simply because it would then violate the
DPA. Also, I am not a compliance and risk director, but the agency is legalcompliance and not cover-up.
Since leaving England, I have read
more about UK employment and criminal law to try and understand what happened
to me. The article What is Mobbing? – The Office Disease states that, “The expulsion of the targeted person was
predetermined by those doing the mobbing from the very start and there was
nothing the targeted person could have done to resolve the issue.” Workplace
mobbing involves the direct support and involvement of upper management.
Upper management will break policies and laws it seems to achieve this often
corrupt and psychopathic objective. With mobbing, it is never a fair
fight. When mobbers corrupt the one sliver of equity and refuge that
targets of workplace violence have – their legal protections – this only
punctuates the cowardice and corruption of senior executives who are not concerned
with managing enterprises so much as being in the top tiers of their corporate
hierarchy where they are paid handsomely for their charade. I knew PGSUK
management let me down, and so I sought justice from PGS executive
management. I knew PGS executive management let me down too, and so I
sought Landau. And in this respect, it is Landau who let me down the
most. I hired Landau because he had knowledge and a reputation which he
shared with the public. The only possibility for any degree of parity exists
from outside the mobbing organization. It is imperative that your legal
counsel is an advocate who understands the interweaving dynamics of
organization psychology and employment law involved with workplace bullying and
mobbing. Workplace bullying may not be explicitly against the law.
However, the abuse of position is a form of fraud and senior executives and
company directors have an agency responsibility to be fair to employees, be
trustworthy, and especially maintain a safe workplace. We do not need
laws against workplace bullying so much as we need to make executives of
companies accountable for the decisions that they make. It is the role of
solicitors to make sure such decisions are legal and just, because in reality
the greatest risk to any enterprise is senior management that allows
There are limits, however, to the ‘without prejudice’ rule. It cannot be used to hide perjury, blackmail or ‘unambiguous impropriety’
“Unambiguous impropriety” amounts to a catch-all description of situations where the cloak of the without prejudice rule acts so as to shield some bad action on behalf of the party invoking it, and is in effect an exception based upon the rule of unconscionability—that such bad action should not be protected by a rule of public policy.