Mistreatment is not always intentional; it may stem from innocent mistakes, incompetence, or oversights. Regardless of intent, the consequences are borne by you. While these errors are a normal part of the process, they should be resolved by management. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. Managers may choose to overlook, excuse, or even deny mistakes to protect the organization or their colleagues.

 

If managers knew they were liable to demotion, dismissal and in certain cases criminal charges, they would be less likely to cover up the mistakes of their colleagues. If managers did not cover up mistakes, then frontline staff would take more care and less people would suffer.

 

Managers who engage in cover-ups should not be granted leniency. Covering up mistakes to merely shield the organization or colleagues reflects a lack of integrity. Such actions are indefensible, and those responsible should be held to account.

 

If managers knew they were liable to demotion, dismissal and in certain cases criminal charges, they would be less likely to cover up the mistakes of their colleagues. If managers did not cover up mistakes, then frontline staff would take more care and less people would suffer.

 

 

Managers use duplicitous tactics to facilitate cover ups

For most of us it is difficult to understand what a manager tells themselves to justify covering up mistakes merely to protect the organization or their colleague, especially when the mistakes cause so much suffering to innocent members of the public, it seems immoral.

​

In years gone by managers would resolve complaints fairly but nowadays that is rarely the case. Managers have developed specific tactics to help facilitate the cover ups. For instance, the police will rarely communicate in writing, preferring to communicate in person, that way you have no verifiable record of what took place. The police however will write things down, which allows them to control the narrative, which is most likely to be slanted in their favour.

​

Other duplicitous tactics include gaslighting where the manager will deny that the incident took place, even though there is evidence to prove it. They ignore the complaint in the hope that you will give up and go away. They use diversion, where they do not respond specifically to your complaint, instead they respond to some other part of the incident that they can justify.

 

These are all the tactics of a bully, and like bullies, if you call out their behaviour they will play the victim and accuse you of out wrongdoing, and as a last resort they will threaten you - just like a bully will do.

 

Note: Justice Matters has documented evidence against several senior NSW police up to the commissioners office who used diversion to cover up a perversion of justice by 2 constables. When the diversion did not work, 2 professional standards officers threatened the complainant with prison if he kept following up.   Read article

​

​

Cover up tactics by the Fair Work Ombudsman

Justice Matters has evidence against a frontline consultant from the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) who refused to provide her findings in writing. When she was asked why the FWO refused to provide written findings, despite requiring a written statement from the complainant, she falsely claimed that the FWO did not require a written statement.

​

This was untrue because the same consultant had sent an email advising the complainant that the matter was liable to be dismissed if a written statement was not provided.

 

It is deeply concerning that a frontline consultant from a regulatory body such as the FWO is comfortable telling falsehoods to try and cover up an unfair policy.

​

When the consultant was asked why the FWO did not provide written findings in a legal matter, she said it was not a legal matter. This was also untrue, because during the process the same consultant said that the FWO could only act in accordance with the legislation.

​

It is deeply concerning that a frontline consultant from a regulatory body such as the FWO is comfortable telling falsehoods to try and cover up an unfair policy.

 

 

It isn't just mistakes, public servants also bully customers

When you are mistreated by a government department it isn’t always a mistake, often it is intentional bullying. A Centrelink employee was forced to resign because the bullying she witnessed was too distressing. She sat next to frontline Centrelink consultants who refused to give customers their entitlements, on many occasions the customers needed their entitlements desperately, just to put food on the table.

 

The consultants did not care, they would laugh about it with one another. Even the police make jokes amongst themselves, read the Daily Mail article by Alana Mazzoni: ​​Inside the 'Dog Pound' police chat: How a group of cops created a secret WhatsApp group to discuss 'rootable' new officers at their station and joke about rape and Aborigines.

​

At least nine officers from Sydney's Botany Bay Local Area Command used the encrypted messaging app to joke about rape and make sexual remarks about women.

 

 

Government departments request to be treated with respect

If you call a government department you are likely to hear a message asking you to treat staff with respect, which is reasonable. However, it goes both ways, customers also deserve to be treated with respect.

 

Justice Matters acknowledges that there are many decent public servants who would never mistreat a customer, they do an amazing job. Unfortunately, there are also bullies and managers who are prepared to cover up for them.