Dear Callaghan Innovation,

In October 2018 I posted the following inquiry on Callaghan Innovation’s Facebook page:
‘Callaghan claims no formal complaints of bullying in 2018 Annual Report, but responded to an OIA request for the same period stating 3 personal grievances involving bullying. Please Explain.’
Within hours the post had been deleted.

Request under The Official Information Act, 1982

I request the following information as pertaining to this matter:
• Who deleted this post?
• Who authorised the deletion of this post?
• Why was this post deleted?
• What is Callaghan Innovation’s policy in relation to removal of public posts or other -censorship of public comments on its Facebook page or other social media?
• All communications, notes and information in relation to the deletion of this post.
• How many other posts has Callaghan Innovation deleted from its Facebook pages or other social media accounts over the past 12 months?
• Who deleted each such post?
• Who authorised the deletion of each such post?
• What was the content of each such deleted post?
• What were the individual reasons for deleting each such post?
• All communications, notes and information in relation to each of the identified deleted posts.
• A written statement from Callaghan Innovation as to whether it considers that its deletion of public comments from its public social media sites is likely to breach the Bill of Rights Act.

Yours faithfully,

Marc Phelt

Dear Ministerial Services,

Dear Callaghan,

You have confirmed that the “Harassment and Bullying Prevention” section of your Annual Report is factually incorrect. Your organisation is legally required to report its compliance with its obligation to be a “good employer” in its Annual Report under the Crown Entities Act (s151(1)(g)), and this is one of the seven key elements of being a “good employer”. As such, please advise how you propose to correct this material error in your 2018 Annual Report.

As you know, there is a material difference between reporting the number of bullying complaints that have been formally reported and reporting the number of bullying complaints that have been “substantiated”. The below diagram from the State Services Commission shows that these stages are four steps apart in the formal investigatory process:
______________________________
Option 3: Formal Complaint

- A complaint is made to the complainant's Manager, Human Resources or Chief Executive

- Decision to proceed to formal investigation

- A formal investigation is carried out in accordance with this policy

- Complaint substantiated or not

(http://www.ssc.govt.nz/sexual-harassment...)
______________________________

By changing your annual reporting standard to include only “substantiated” complaints about bullying, Callaghan Innovation appears to be minimising the true extent of bullying within the organisation.

It is recognised that the public sector is incentivised to “contain” complaints or find that complaints are unsubstantiated or unfounded so as to reduce the prospect of legal liability and protect their public image (James, 2015). Tactics that may be used by such organisations to protect their public image include deliberate use of nuanced wording in formal reports to obscure facts, and manipulating investigations (both internal and external) to ensure the likelihood of an outcome in their favour. James (2015) states, ‘… many public service agencies’ procedures either lack necessary detail or their preliminary inquiry/investigation processes have shortfalls, which bring into question their legitimacy.’ James (2015) goes on to explain how these procedural ‘shortfalls’ are ‘… more of a strategic design to simply protect the agencies’ interest.’

For example, I brought your attention to the clear statement in your 2018 Annual Report that Callaghan Innovation had NO formal complaints about bullying. In my opinion, this is a blatant lie which paints your organisation in a good light. You now claim this ‘could’ read ‘We have had no substantiated formal complaints about bullying’, a slight alteration and nuance of wording which continues to paint Callaghan Innovation in a good light. The more accurate, factual and neutral response would be, ‘We have had 3 formal complaints of bullying’. I believe the SSC process and material differences between your two statements as illustrated at the top of this communication, as well as reading James’ statements above on internal and external bullying investigations, brings into sharp focus the reasons for your suggested alteration. It would appear to me that even your suggested alteration of the initial statement is nothing but a cynical attempt to further obscure the truth.

As a further request for information under the OIA, please advise for each of the past five reporting years:

1. How many informal complaints of bullying has Callaghan Innovation received;
2. How many formal complaints of bullying has Callaghan Innovation received;
3. In relation to each complaint of bullying, did Callaghan conduct an internal or external investigation, or not investigate at all;
4. In relation to each investigated complaint of bullying, which internal business unit or external company/contractor undertook the investigation;
5. In relation to each complaint of bullying, was the complaint of bullying substantiated, unsubstantiated or partially substantiated;
6. In relation to each complaint of bullying, what action did Callaghan Innovation take to prevent further bullying from occurring and/or to prevent further behaviours from occurring that are perceived as bullying;
7. In relation to each investigated complaints of bullying, how long did the complainant remain employed by Callaghan Innovation after the conclusion of the investigation (for contractor complainants, how long did they remain contracted to CI after the conclusion of the investigation). If the complainant is still employed or left CI’s employment during the investigation then CI’s response to this question should make this fact explicit;
8. In relation to each investigated complaint of bullying, how long did the alleged bully remain employed by Callaghan Innovation after the conclusion of the investigation. If the alleged bully is still employed or left CI’s employment during the investigation then CI’s response to this question should make this fact explicit.

Yours sincerely,

Marc Phelt

Reference:
James. J. (2015). Bad Behaviour in the Public Service: A Guide to Dealing with Workplace Bullying, Harassment, Victimisation and Discrimination in Public Service Agencies (1st ed.). Critical Social Work Publishing House

Dear Ministerial Services,

Please disregard any ill fitting OIA's to this chain, I may have cross posted an alternative request.

On 30 November 2018 you responded to my OIA request (Social Media Censorship – 5 November 2018) by stating ‘Your post has not been deleted from Callaghan Innovation’s Facebook page.’ This is a factually incorrect and misleading comment. The post you are referencing as still being active on your page is the second post I made, to replace the one which was deleted. The deleted post which I am inquiring about was posted on 25 October 2018. The post you have referred to in your response was posted on 30 October 2018.

To Clarify;

On 25 October, 2018, I posted the following inquiry on Callaghan Innovation’s Facebook page:
‘Callaghan claims no formal complaints of bullying in 2018 Annual Report, but responded to an OIA request for the same period stating 3 personal grievances involving bullying. Please Explain.’
Within hours the post had been deleted.

Request under The Official Information Act, 1982
I request the following information as pertaining to this matter:

• Who deleted the 25 October 2018 post?
• Who authorised the deletion of this post?
• Why was this post deleted?
• Did Callaghan Innovation report my post/account to Facebook?
• What is Callaghan Innovation’s policy in relation to removal of public posts or other -censorship of public comments on its Facebook page or other social media?
• All communications, notes and information in relation to the deletion of this post.
• A written statement from Callaghan Innovation as to whether it considers that the deletion of public comments from its public social media sites is likely to breach the Bill of Rights Act.

Yours sincerely,

Marc Phelt