Help
Word has just come to hand that some former case manager's are about to sue ACC for constructive dismissal.
Apparently the cases are about to hit the Employment Court early next year on the grounds that while ACC has a duty to provide entitlements to claimants under s165 (1) (B) and elsewhere in the IPRC Act 2001, the policies, practices and financial incentives put in place by ACC executive management effectively prevent case manager's from doing that.
Apparently it is also alleged that they are bullied by executive staff and their directives and that the ACC CEO is not a good employer.
They also say (apparently) that they did not agree to work for ACC on that basis and that the job advertisements were essentially false and misleading.
The service agreements and Government policy directives issued to ACC by the Minister are also likely to come under scrutiny.
Former Staff Suing Acc? Former staff suing ACC?
#1
magnacarta 
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 484
- Joined: 22-October 04
Posted 01 December 2004 - 11:17 AM
#3 Guest_IDB_*
Posted 01 December 2004 - 03:27 PM
please help direct upset staff to here:
remember too the media report where gary himself basically said if his staff dont like their workplace then they should leave or something to that effect,
Topics of interest to read:
Dyson Told of ACC Bullies
ACC worker tried to kill herself
Staff Say ACC A Bully
Reasons Case Managers leave ACC
Download and view the video:
Video - Acc Staff Bullied What ACC Staff Say.
once youve been through that lot,
you will understand why people H8 ACC eh gary
remember too the media report where gary himself basically said if his staff dont like their workplace then they should leave or something to that effect,
Topics of interest to read:
Dyson Told of ACC Bullies
ACC worker tried to kill herself
Staff Say ACC A Bully
Reasons Case Managers leave ACC
Download and view the video:
Video - Acc Staff Bullied What ACC Staff Say.
once youve been through that lot,
you will understand why people H8 ACC eh gary
#5
accvictim
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 04-November 03
Posted 04 December 2004 - 04:56 PM
THE FORMER CASE MANAGERS ARE DAMN LUCKY TO HAVE THE MONEY TO SUE ACC,, (no doubt bonuses from multiple exit of claimants), ANYWAY IT COSTS IN THE VICINITY OF $35.000 TO SUE ACC, CERTAINLY PUTS THE CLAIMANTS OUT OF THE RUNNING, , , WILSONS BLOODY THIEVES!.
Attached File(s)
-
ACC_ANIM.gif (13.39K)
Number of downloads: 2
#6 Guest_IDB_*
Posted 05 December 2004 - 11:08 AM
it is said that there were a number of staff at acc whangarei that were exited unfairly and won compensatin for it if they signed a silence clause agreement, but this is hearsay.
acc whangarei - it is said a former branch manager was caught defrauding the corporation by abusing the claims denial process - claims that were declined welll, were not actually fully declined, it is said the claims were tampered with and the funds from those claims re-routed to another bank account. again - this is hearsay but it is true that the branch manager got caught and fired (i think they were charged for it).
so then david templeton was brought in to clean up the mess - but claimants are saying they were not treated very well.
claimants have discovered entries in their payment sheet data where they had payments NOT go into their account when they should have, but years later discover the entries say "acc pay acc".
then the plot thickens. dave templeton leaves.
the acc corporate secretary is mysteriously demoted to branch manager level - hearsay says the corporate secretary fell out with the top echelon of management over something the secretary didnt agree with and was sent to whangarei to sort out the mess there and to manage there until retirement. what really went on? was the secretary paid a silencing bonus?
it is reported that the whangarei branch no longer handles any payments to claimants - hearsay suggests that the branch staff are using that as a means to further frustrate claimants - claimants waiting unreasonable time frames to get paid their entitlements, others being given wrong payments and so on. who is really directing the branch? is it the corporate secretary cum branch manager or are they under pressure from upper management to poorly treat claimants? someone has to be accountable somewhere.
claimants who deal with acc whangarei are reporting they are not able to get rehabilitation, the corporation have removed independance allowances to long-term disabled people, claimants are reporting many gross errors in their files that the corporation is very reluctant to correct.
something is terribly wrong at acc whangarei.
acc whangarei - it is said a former branch manager was caught defrauding the corporation by abusing the claims denial process - claims that were declined welll, were not actually fully declined, it is said the claims were tampered with and the funds from those claims re-routed to another bank account. again - this is hearsay but it is true that the branch manager got caught and fired (i think they were charged for it).
so then david templeton was brought in to clean up the mess - but claimants are saying they were not treated very well.
claimants have discovered entries in their payment sheet data where they had payments NOT go into their account when they should have, but years later discover the entries say "acc pay acc".
then the plot thickens. dave templeton leaves.
the acc corporate secretary is mysteriously demoted to branch manager level - hearsay says the corporate secretary fell out with the top echelon of management over something the secretary didnt agree with and was sent to whangarei to sort out the mess there and to manage there until retirement. what really went on? was the secretary paid a silencing bonus?
it is reported that the whangarei branch no longer handles any payments to claimants - hearsay suggests that the branch staff are using that as a means to further frustrate claimants - claimants waiting unreasonable time frames to get paid their entitlements, others being given wrong payments and so on. who is really directing the branch? is it the corporate secretary cum branch manager or are they under pressure from upper management to poorly treat claimants? someone has to be accountable somewhere.
claimants who deal with acc whangarei are reporting they are not able to get rehabilitation, the corporation have removed independance allowances to long-term disabled people, claimants are reporting many gross errors in their files that the corporation is very reluctant to correct.
something is terribly wrong at acc whangarei.
#7 Guest_IDB_*
Posted 07 December 2004 - 10:08 PM
acc whangarei - in the spotlight - perhaps another protest?
now 3 more names pop into view for examination until exhausted Stephen McKernan, G Corbett Branch Medical advisors and Mary Cooke Team Leader- for ACC Whangarei - hearsay says it is they who gave and give directions to the case managers.
Do the case managers feel comfortable at the directions they are given?
Another Ex ACC Whangarei Case Manager told me a few things, very interesting i might add too.
Learning from what they have said about their working conditions, former staff have identified their role is largely processing 1 large pile of paper from the inbox to outbox, with timelines to meet.
when claimants respond to case managers with letters, questions, file corrections and so on, it pressurizes the case managers day even more - when they get a tough question - they ask for guidance - the guidance im told comes from the team leaders, branch managers and medical advisors.
So i can understand that case managers can make mistakes with the enormous amount of information being communicated, but theres no substitution for correct information.
I can also understand that if an employee is under presure at work, and under direction from management and co-workers on how to behave and respond that if practiced long enough, becomes habit. Could this be causing my case manager mental harm?
Could there exist a situation where both claimant and case manager ought to be prescribed group therapy to ease the burden of the system they both interact because the system is so harsh on us both?
There are the arseholes by nature, but i doubt all case managers are but are made to be, and that is unhealthy.
Im sure there are genuine case managers, current and former, who know first hand the wrong that has gone on at ACC, like many others are uncomfortable about speaking out -
well soon there will be a solution: A confidential means to communicate with this forum where information received will be treated as per instruction or confidentially kept.
now 3 more names pop into view for examination until exhausted Stephen McKernan, G Corbett Branch Medical advisors and Mary Cooke Team Leader- for ACC Whangarei - hearsay says it is they who gave and give directions to the case managers.
Do the case managers feel comfortable at the directions they are given?
Another Ex ACC Whangarei Case Manager told me a few things, very interesting i might add too.
Learning from what they have said about their working conditions, former staff have identified their role is largely processing 1 large pile of paper from the inbox to outbox, with timelines to meet.
when claimants respond to case managers with letters, questions, file corrections and so on, it pressurizes the case managers day even more - when they get a tough question - they ask for guidance - the guidance im told comes from the team leaders, branch managers and medical advisors.
So i can understand that case managers can make mistakes with the enormous amount of information being communicated, but theres no substitution for correct information.
I can also understand that if an employee is under presure at work, and under direction from management and co-workers on how to behave and respond that if practiced long enough, becomes habit. Could this be causing my case manager mental harm?
Could there exist a situation where both claimant and case manager ought to be prescribed group therapy to ease the burden of the system they both interact because the system is so harsh on us both?
There are the arseholes by nature, but i doubt all case managers are but are made to be, and that is unhealthy.
Im sure there are genuine case managers, current and former, who know first hand the wrong that has gone on at ACC, like many others are uncomfortable about speaking out -
well soon there will be a solution: A confidential means to communicate with this forum where information received will be treated as per instruction or confidentially kept.
#8
doppelganger
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1740
- Joined: 19-September 03
Posted 08 December 2004 - 09:20 PM
I know from experance that there is knowledge of wrong doing. this wrong doing is to be covered up by all that comes accross it. this even goes far as a review officers. when you hit your head against a brick wall it is ysually because there is a bit of miss leading information in the file.
had a good one the other day
Showed a reviewer a letter from ACC to me and Dr report to the ACC. the information did not match, but the reviewers reply to the suitition was to claim me an unreliable whitness. it seams that the reviewers are there to make money and give the ACc lawyers more income in defending there decisions.
had a good one the other day
Showed a reviewer a letter from ACC to me and Dr report to the ACC. the information did not match, but the reviewers reply to the suitition was to claim me an unreliable whitness. it seams that the reviewers are there to make money and give the ACc lawyers more income in defending there decisions.
#9 Guest_IDB_*
Posted 09 December 2004 - 07:48 AM
it certainly looks that way doppel, if case managers made correct decisions, then the former acc staff working for the acc subsidiary drsl would not be needed as much for medation and reviews - so where then would drsl make up the extra work to keep employing the reviewers.
is is unconstitutional / in conflict the way both the office of the complaints investigator, the code of claimant rights( no real enforceable penaltes) and drsl mediation and review hearings are all set up?
is is unconstitutional / in conflict the way both the office of the complaints investigator, the code of claimant rights( no real enforceable penaltes) and drsl mediation and review hearings are all set up?
#10 Guest_IDB_*
Posted 20 December 2004 - 10:49 AM
just thinking about the latest amendments that are due to go ahead - and the acc crocodile tears later on.
how is this going to affect case managers - being the front people to the public - taking on the anger of the denials - would that affect their health? have medical studies been done on acc staff to determine if their potential lifespan might be shortened by stress related heart atacks and strokes? maybe a gormonite quack could look into it.
how is this going to affect case managers - being the front people to the public - taking on the anger of the denials - would that affect their health? have medical studies been done on acc staff to determine if their potential lifespan might be shortened by stress related heart atacks and strokes? maybe a gormonite quack could look into it.
#11 Guest_IDB_*
Posted 14 January 2005 - 07:19 PM
Union says it warned Dyson about bullying managers
21.04.2004
9.00am
Union officials say they warned ACC minister Ruth Dyson a number of times that the crown agency responsible for preventing workplace injuries had been bullying and overworking staff.
Ms Dyson had told Parliament in answers to written questions that there had been no claims identifying work-related stress as the "primary stressor" within ACC since records began last July.
The Dominion Post reported today that union officials took exception to that answer, saying they had raised the issue on numerous occasions.
The National Union of Public Employees wrote to Ms Dyson in February 2002 about workplace stress and raised similar issues in meetings with her afterwards.
The union then wrote again last September alleging ACC managers were bullying staff.
Ms Dyson replied that she was concerned and referred the matter to ACC.
The newspaper said it asked Ms Dyson why she had told Parliament there had been no cases of work-related stress reported to her when staff had raised concerns.
Ms Dyson said she had been referring to actual cases rather than allegations.
The Dominion Post said she denied the response was splitting hairs.
Workplace Occupational Safety and Health has in the past confirmed it had received complaints of stress, work overload and bullying within ACC.
It said it had investigated the complaints and was still monitoring the situation. As a result, ACC had introduced a system to manage workplace stress.
But ACC said complaints had not been substantiated, and it had confidence in its systems to manage stress.
However, staff said recently they knew of colleagues who had nervous breakdowns as a result of working in a stressful and persecuting environment.
A former case worker said she was still on anti-depressants months after leaving ACC. She knew of a colleague who had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, a condition usually associated with war veterans or the survivors of very abusive situations.
Other allegations include:
* A staff member, labelled a trouble-maker after challenging workloads, was required to write a log every 15 minutes of what she was working on, forced to have 10 performance reviews in three months and work in her own time to complete the workload expected of her.
* Angry claimants' death threats against ACC case managers not being taken seriously. In one case, a former case manager said she was forced to continue working with a client who had threatened to harm her.
* Staff concerns about increasing workloads being brushed aside.
* Staff who question their own ability to cope being asked to undergo psychiatric assessments.
* Volatile relationships between staff and management, characterised by mistrust, a culture of blame, favouritism, and crisis management.
Former and current staff said problems were especially rife in ACC's sensitive claims unit, which has 36 staff and has handled more than 20,000 sex abuse claims since January 2003.
Information from ACC shows that nearly a third of sensitive claims unit staff have resigned, been sacked, seconded or transferred out of the unit since the start of last year. Ten staff, including five from the sensitive claims unit, had received payouts totalling $139,249 since the start of 2003, with the biggest payout $36,052.
http://www.nzherald....storyID=3561766
21.04.2004
9.00am
Union officials say they warned ACC minister Ruth Dyson a number of times that the crown agency responsible for preventing workplace injuries had been bullying and overworking staff.
Ms Dyson had told Parliament in answers to written questions that there had been no claims identifying work-related stress as the "primary stressor" within ACC since records began last July.
The Dominion Post reported today that union officials took exception to that answer, saying they had raised the issue on numerous occasions.
The National Union of Public Employees wrote to Ms Dyson in February 2002 about workplace stress and raised similar issues in meetings with her afterwards.
The union then wrote again last September alleging ACC managers were bullying staff.
Ms Dyson replied that she was concerned and referred the matter to ACC.
The newspaper said it asked Ms Dyson why she had told Parliament there had been no cases of work-related stress reported to her when staff had raised concerns.
Ms Dyson said she had been referring to actual cases rather than allegations.
The Dominion Post said she denied the response was splitting hairs.
Workplace Occupational Safety and Health has in the past confirmed it had received complaints of stress, work overload and bullying within ACC.
It said it had investigated the complaints and was still monitoring the situation. As a result, ACC had introduced a system to manage workplace stress.
But ACC said complaints had not been substantiated, and it had confidence in its systems to manage stress.
However, staff said recently they knew of colleagues who had nervous breakdowns as a result of working in a stressful and persecuting environment.
A former case worker said she was still on anti-depressants months after leaving ACC. She knew of a colleague who had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, a condition usually associated with war veterans or the survivors of very abusive situations.
Other allegations include:
* A staff member, labelled a trouble-maker after challenging workloads, was required to write a log every 15 minutes of what she was working on, forced to have 10 performance reviews in three months and work in her own time to complete the workload expected of her.
* Angry claimants' death threats against ACC case managers not being taken seriously. In one case, a former case manager said she was forced to continue working with a client who had threatened to harm her.
* Staff concerns about increasing workloads being brushed aside.
* Staff who question their own ability to cope being asked to undergo psychiatric assessments.
* Volatile relationships between staff and management, characterised by mistrust, a culture of blame, favouritism, and crisis management.
Former and current staff said problems were especially rife in ACC's sensitive claims unit, which has 36 staff and has handled more than 20,000 sex abuse claims since January 2003.
Information from ACC shows that nearly a third of sensitive claims unit staff have resigned, been sacked, seconded or transferred out of the unit since the start of last year. Ten staff, including five from the sensitive claims unit, had received payouts totalling $139,249 since the start of 2003, with the biggest payout $36,052.
http://www.nzherald....storyID=3561766
#14
Chrissy
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 45
- Joined: 25-August 05
Posted 12 April 2008 - 09:38 AM
ACC certainly does have a case to answer when it comes to treatment of its staff. Hmmmmm perhaps it is time that
CEO and the board investigated these cases.
For example how many staff members have been demoted and agreements made without predjudice?
How many confidential payouts have occurred compared to the number that have gone to the Employment Tribunal?
How many ACC staff been shafted by upper-management and used as scape-goats, either performanced managed out (resulting in constructive dismissal cases and confidential payouts) or just paid to leave without predjudice? I suspect if these questions were raised we would find that the number is quite significant. (of course given the confidentiality clause in the payments how many will ACC admit to).
One senior manager within ACC has a history of such practices...several staff under her have been treated appallingly...but of course these never see the light of day because of confidentiality clauses and payouts (which are not that good compared to the trauma staff have been subjected to!
I think it is time that New Board chair Mr Wilson looked at this situation, especially given his CTU past, one would think he of all people would take a dim view of the culture of staff bullying within the organisation and their method of dealing with the situation is to payout rather than actually deal with the issues (of which there are many).
Claimants wonder why they are treated like shite? It is called downward pressure...staff are not happy folks...despite Jan Whites 'culture of success' initative...this is really just lip service to what is ultimately a problem with some senior ACC managers who should be replaced with decent human beings!
Media attention is something to be considered on this one, which is only possible if some staff are brave enough to tell ACC to stick their confidential payouts and go public...wouldn't that be embarrassing for ACC? That situation may not be too far away!
CEO and the board investigated these cases.
For example how many staff members have been demoted and agreements made without predjudice?
How many confidential payouts have occurred compared to the number that have gone to the Employment Tribunal?
How many ACC staff been shafted by upper-management and used as scape-goats, either performanced managed out (resulting in constructive dismissal cases and confidential payouts) or just paid to leave without predjudice? I suspect if these questions were raised we would find that the number is quite significant. (of course given the confidentiality clause in the payments how many will ACC admit to).
One senior manager within ACC has a history of such practices...several staff under her have been treated appallingly...but of course these never see the light of day because of confidentiality clauses and payouts (which are not that good compared to the trauma staff have been subjected to!
I think it is time that New Board chair Mr Wilson looked at this situation, especially given his CTU past, one would think he of all people would take a dim view of the culture of staff bullying within the organisation and their method of dealing with the situation is to payout rather than actually deal with the issues (of which there are many).
Claimants wonder why they are treated like shite? It is called downward pressure...staff are not happy folks...despite Jan Whites 'culture of success' initative...this is really just lip service to what is ultimately a problem with some senior ACC managers who should be replaced with decent human beings!
Media attention is something to be considered on this one, which is only possible if some staff are brave enough to tell ACC to stick their confidential payouts and go public...wouldn't that be embarrassing for ACC? That situation may not be too far away!
#15
doppelganger
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1740
- Joined: 19-September 03
Posted 12 April 2008 - 06:26 PM
Isn't is correct that Mr wilson was previously a board member of ACC a few years back.
If so why wasn't the problem sorted out previously.
If so why wasn't the problem sorted out previously.
#18
Chrissy
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 45
- Joined: 25-August 05
Posted 13 April 2008 - 09:50 AM
MINI, on Apr 13 2008, 09:43 AM, said:
What have ACC workers got to bitch about?? They are not on ACC, we are!!!!
I know were I would rather be...................
I know were I would rather be...................
Actually Mini, you'd be rather surprised, if you think working for an organisation that has a culture of staff bullying and under-handed employment practices would be much better than being a claimant...think again. Staff have plenty to bitch about, huge case loads just to start with, wonder why there are so many 'errors' made at ACC, that might just be one reason...we should be bitching about this too, because ultimately ACC's culture of 'maximum productivity' is more important than the well-being of employees or claimants because in the end it is claimants who suffer the most!
#19
Dreamboat
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 24-April 08
Posted 24 April 2008 - 08:39 PM
MINI, on Apr 13 2008, 09:43 AM, said:
What have ACC workers got to bitch about?? They are not on ACC, we are!!!!
I know were I would rather be...................
I know were I would rather be...................
What do you think happens to the some 2700 ACC staff when they have an accident?
ACC staff can be on ACC just like any other person in this country. ACC claims are managed by a special staff claims unit thus mitigating fraud. ACC staff follow the same process as any other client.
Things arn't always so black and white... However I am quickly realising how one sided and ignorant many of the posters here are.
#20
Sparrow
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 534
- Joined: 22-March 07
Posted 24 April 2008 - 11:36 PM
WELL DREAMBOAT, MY WISH FOR ACC STAFF WHO GET INJURED AND GO INTO ACC "CARE" HAVE A CASE MONGREL JUST LIKE MINE, FOR THAT IS WHAT THEY DESERVE!!!
ONLY THEN WILL THEY REALISE JUST WHAT DAMAGE THEY ARE DOING DENYING INJURED PEOPLE THEIR RIGHTS.
WHICH BRANCH DO YOU WORK IN DREAMBOAT????
ONLY THEN WILL THEY REALISE JUST WHAT DAMAGE THEY ARE DOING DENYING INJURED PEOPLE THEIR RIGHTS.
WHICH BRANCH DO YOU WORK IN DREAMBOAT????
