Chapter Four - Telstra’s B003 Arbitration Briefing Documents

The Australian authorities have yet to conduct an investigation into the claims I have presented on absentjustice.com regarding the conduct of the arbitration consultants assigned to the COT arbitrations. Despite the comprehensive identification of these individuals and others whom I believe have subverted the course of justice, no formal acknowledgment or response has been forthcoming. Should the evidence available on absentjustice.com substantiate my claims, it is incumbent upon the Australian authorities to expose their actions in order to prevent future injustices.

Example One

Exhibit GS 451 File GS-CAV 448 to 458 is Telstra’s principal Arbitration Submission submitted to Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) in November 1996. This arbitration document clearly discusses issues relevant to Telstra’s Federal Court action, which Dr Hughes was party to in 1990/92 and again was party to when he became the arbitrator hearing these same issues again in April 1994.  

Example Two

The following eighteen-plus extracts have come from Telstra’s 26 November 1996 ‘B003 Arbitration Briefing Document regarding “Graham John Schorer and others’’.’  In this document, the word ‘Claimants’ refers to Graham’s other companies, which were also named in his interim claim.  The following 19 examples discussed in the B003 26 November 1996 arbitration issues are the same 1990/92 technical issues that Dr Hughes originally assisted Mr Schorer with his 1990 Federal Court Action.

1. 14 February 1990: the Claimants complained of Intermittent Answering No Voice. The result of test was ‘A Reported Service Workable’ (ASW). The complaint was cleared 15 February 1990 with a clearance code of B53 which indicates that CPU PBU control board required reprogramming. Ref: C05281
2. 21 February 1990: the Claimants complained that one of their keypads was damaged. The complaint was cleared with a clearance code of DO1jf after replacement Ref: C05281
3. 26 February 1990: the Claimants complained of Unable to Transfer. A technician went to the Claimants’ premises but did not locate any fault and referred the complaint to the exchange. This complaint most likely related to the Flexitel as in fault below, call transfers at a customer’s premises do not use any function of an exchange Ref: C05281
4. 5 March 1990: the Claimants complained of Unable To Transfer. A technician was displaced to the Claimants’ premises. The complaint was cleared on the same day with a clearance code of D53H replacing and reprogramming a Flexitel CPU Ref: C05281
5. 6 March 1990: the Claimants complained of Not Receiving Ring, Unable To Transfer. The fault was cleared on the same day with clearance codes of D53H and D53J replacing and reprogramming a Flexitel CPU. Ref: C05281
6. 19 March 1990: the Claimants complained of Out of Order. The service after testing was passed to a technician to visit the Claimants premises. The fault was then cleared on the 20 March 1990 with a clearance code of D06W indicating that the problem was in the Flexitel Power Supply. Ref: C05280
7. 21 March 1990: the Claimants complained of intermittent Out Of Order. The complaint was cleared on the same day with a clearance code of D53H following the reprogramming of a Flexitel system CPU. Ref C05280
8. 22 March 1990: the Claimants complained of Cut Off Speaking on line (03 329 0055. The fault was passes to NPAC as a technical assistance report for further investigation. Ref: C05287
9. 30 April 1990: the Claimants complained of Transmission Noisy and Faint. A technician visited the Claimants’ premises. The fault was cleared with a clearance code of T31J which indicates the replacement of a minor item. Ref: C05280
10. 30 April 1990: the Claimants complained of Unable To Transfer. The fault was cleared with a clearance code of D53J which indicates a Flexitel CPU was replaced. Ref: C05280
11. 15 May 1990: the Claimants complained of Not Receiving Ring. The fault was cleared with a clearance code of D53J and D06J which indicates that a Flexitel’s CPU and power supply were replaced. Ref: C05280
12. 17 May 1990: the Claimants complained of Out Of Order. The complaint was cleared with a clearance code on the same day of D00X indicating that no fault was evident within the Flexitel equipment and the complaint was passed to exchange staff for further investigation. Ref: C05280
13. 18 May 1990: the Claimants complained of Busy Out Of Order & Out Of Order on line (03) 329 0055. The complaint was referred to the exchanges staff who, after investigation, could not locate any fault. Ref: C05287
14. 21 May 1990: the Claimants complained of Out Of Order. The complaint, after testing was referred to a technician to visit the Claimants’ premises. The fault was then cleared with a clearance code of D31F, indicating a minor Flexitel item was repaired. Ref:C05280
15. 21 May 1990: the Claimants complained of Crossed Lines in the (03 329 7355 the Claimants’ administration rotary group. After testing the complaint was passed to the exchange technician for investigation. The fault was cleared on the same day with a clearance code of XPBX which indicates an exchange fault was found in the PBX rotary group equipment of the (03) 329*** thousand group at NMEL. Ref: C05284
16. 22 May 1990: the claimants complained of a faulty keypad. The service after testing was referred to a technician to visit the Claimants’ premises. The fault was then cleared with a clearance code of D01N which indicates the problem was suspected to be related to a Flexitel keypad, however, no fault was located. Ref: C05280
17. 31 May 1990: the Claimants complained of Intermittent Not Receiving Ring on lines (03) 329 0055. The result of initial test was (RWT) Right When Tested. A hand written note indicates that between 4:00 and 4:30pm on 31 May 1990 a caller from Frankston experienced the reported problem. Frankston exchange staff were requested to investigate for any cause of the complaint and make test calls into North Melbourne exchange. Ref: C05287, 000710
18. 20 June 1990: the Claimants complained of No Dial Tone, Not Of Order. The records were cleared with a clearance code of D31F and D00W3 indicating that 2 Flexitel stations were Ref: C05280.

Point 3 to point 8 on page 49:  ‘On 10 October 1992 a LEOPARD record shows that (03) 329 0055 was reported as DAF (Does not Answer – Faulty). The fault report was referred NPAC. There is no further documentation located in relation to this fault report.’ Ref: 000401 & C05370

1. On 21st October 1992, at 11:24 a.m., the Claimants allegedly attempted to ring (03) 329 7355 from (03) 828**** (Toorak) and received the engaged signal. Telstra has no information as to whether this number was, in fact, engaged.
2. On 21st October 1992, between 12:00 noon and 2:00 pm, a carrier driver made three unsuccessful calls from a mobile phone, 018547***, to Golden Messenger. The caller had received a ring tone, but calls dropped out. Call dropouts from mobile phones are commonplace. Telstra or any carrier cannot guarantee against dropouts due to the nature of radio signal strength variations and the diverse geographical locations of the users.
3. On 22nd October 1992 at 7:40 am a carrier driver calling Golden Messenger from (03) 688*** (Footscray) had twice received an engaged signal, a third call was successful. Telstra has no information as to whether this number was in fact, engaged,’

Throughout Telstra’s defence, they say, ‘Telstra has no information as to whether this number was in fact engaged.’  Attached to Graham Schorer’s – CAV Relevant Information file Exhibit 6, Part 3, is a Telstra FOI schedule entitled Schorer FOI Data Base. This document confirms that non-legal documents pertaining to Graham’s business for October 1992 (the period under discussion in the B003 Briefing Report) were withheld under Legal Professional Privilege during Graham’s arbitration.

Claimants Complaints

(37) In the period July 1987 to date, Telstra has been able to locate records of 236 complaints made by the Claimants. This analysis does not include complaints relating to the Claimants’ leased line services. This is an average of 2.15 complaints per month or less than one complaint per service per annum.

(38) Of these complaints, Telstra was able to identify the cause or the probable cause of 88 complaints (37.3%). The causes of these complaints were as follows:

• 25-exchange or network faults (28.4%);
• Customer Access Network (4.5%);
• 40- Claimants’ Flexitel (45.5%);
• 14- Claimants’ other CPE (15.9%); and
• 5 – Claimants misoperation or other conduct (5.7%).

Therefore the majority of complaints with identified causes were either the Claimants responsibility (Claimants’ other CPE and Claimants’ misoperation or other conduct) or due to the Claimants’ Flexitels (which are excluded from this Arbitration) which when combined equates to 59 or 67% of the causes.

A comparison of Telstra’s November 1996 Arbitration Briefing Paper (B003) with the information so far documented in our report, Against All Odds, proves that, particularly in relation to the way Telstra had misled and deceived Graham over many years in relation to the well-known and ongoing exchange faults at the North Melbourne Exchange, not only did AUSTEL find heavily against Telstra in their draft Golden Messenger Report, but they were also aware that Telstra had knowingly submitted false information to the arbitrator on that same subject.  All of this makes it clearly important to note that, if AUSTEL had not concealed the draft Golden Messenger Report from Graham before he signed for arbitration (thereby clearly breaching their statutory obligations to Graham), then Telstra’s misleading and deceptive conduct would have been fully uncovered and addressed in 1994.

I reiterate, when Dr Hughes became Mr Schorer’s April 1994 to December 1998 arbitration, he, Telstra and Mr Schorer were again discussing the same technical issues they had previous discussed in Mr Schorer’s 1990/92 Federal Court battle with Telstra. It is clear after reading the exhibit Proof Hughes and Telstra raised the Flexitel issue in arbitration. that some of the faults relevant as well as being raised in Graham Schorer and Telstra’s arbitration process were linked to the Flexitel and North Melbourne telephone exchange problems that both parties, Telstra and Mr Schorer as well as Dr Hughes, were subject matters raised in both Mr Schorer’s Federal Court action and in his arbitration. 

The matters discussed on absentjustice.com are said in Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013

© 2017 Absent Justice

Please note: The following exhibits (which we might have missed in the text of the chronology of events above) can be accessed by placing the cursor over the relevant number range.

AS – CAV 1 to 47 – AS-CAV 48-A to 91 – AS-CAV 92 to 127 – AS-CAV 128 to 180 – AS-CAV 181 to 233 – AS-CAV 234 to 281 – AS-CAV 282 to 323 – AS-CAV 324-A to 420 – AS-CAV 421 to 469 – AS-CAV 470 to 486 – AS-CAV 488-A to 494-E – AS-CAV 495 to 541 – AS-CAV 542 to 588 – AS-CAV 589 to 647 – AS-CAV 648 to 700 – AS-CAV 765-A to 789 – AS-CAV 790 to 818 – AS-CAV 819 to 843 – AS-CAV 923 to 946  AS-CAV 1150 to 1169 – AS-CAV 1103 to 1132 AS-CAV-1002 to 1019 – AS-CAV-996 to 1001 GS-CAV 1 to 88 – GS-CAV 89 to 154-A– GS-CAV 155 to 215– GS-CAV 216 to 257  – GS-CAV 258 to 323 – GS-CAV 410-A to 447 – GS-CAV 410-A to 447 – GS-CAV 459 to 489 – GS-CAV 490 to 521 – GS-CAV 522 to 580 – GS-CAV 581 to 609

Download Attachments

Proof Hughes and Telstra raised the Flexitel issue in arbitration. - See Exhibit GS 451 File GS-CAV 448 to 458 /Chapter 4 - Telstra’s B003 Arbitration Briefing Documents

CONCLUSION 

Only Graham Schorer, Dr Gordon Hughes' ex-client and the group's spokesperson, received special privileges from Dr Gordon Hughes that were not extended to the other claimants.

The fact that Dr Hughes allowed his client two more years to prepare his claim and respond to Telstra's defence of an interim claim resulted in his client not submitting a fully completed claim. Despite this, Graham Schorer was awarded 3.6 million dollars from Telstra without filing a final claim.

The one-sided arbitration process was a blatant injustice, particularly in light of the statement made by John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator to the arbitrations, on September 26, 1997, two years after most of the arbitrations had concluded. In his address to The Senate Committee (refer to ( Prologue Evidence File No 22-D), Mr Pinnock unequivocally declared that the process had failed the COT cases because:

"...In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures—and I was not a party to that, but I know enough about it to be able to say this—the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act."

“… Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process because it was a process conducted entirely outside of the ambit of the arbitration procedures”

When did the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman uncover the arbitrator had no control over the arbitration process? 

During my pending arbitration appeal, Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia agreed to investigate my claims against Dr Hughes for misconduct during my arbitration. Now, I did not know that Graham Schorer had been a client of Dr Hughes. Had I known this in 1996, I would have raised this issue with Lauire James.

23rd January 1996:  Dr Hughes writes to John Pinnock, re Laurie James, and notes:-

“I enclose copy letters dated 18 and 19 January 1996 from the Institute of Arbitrators Australia.   I would like to discuss a number of matters which arise from these letters, including:

• the cost of responding to the allegations;
• the implications to the arbitration procedure if I make a full and frank disclosure of the facts to Mr James. (AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233 - See AS-CAV 205)

Why wasn’t Dr Hughes fully frank with Laurie James?  Why didn’t Dr Hughes inform Laurie James, who had already advised Mr Pinnock’s predecessor Warwick Smith, that the arbitration agreement was flawed and needed revising?

15th February 1996:  Dr Hughes writes to Mr Pinnock regarding a draft of a letter he proposes to send to the Institute of Arbitrators in response to one of my complaints. He states:-

“I would appreciate your confirmation that there is nothing in the proposed letter which would embarrass your office or jeopardise the current arbitrations.”

“You may consider it appropriate for you to provide an independent letter of support. This is of course a matter for your discretion.” AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233 - See AS-CAV 206

Why would Dr Gordon Hughes need a letter of support if he had nothing to hide concerning the conduct of the arbitration?

Dr Hughes spins a tall story to Laurie James.

16th February 1996:  There are many inaccuracies in this letter, but the most important is at point 1 on page two, where Dr Hughes states:-

“contrary to Mr Smith’s assertion on page 3, his 24,000 (sic) documents were all viewed by me, Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory, DMR Group Inc (Canada) and Lane Telecommunications…”

This statement, however, is wrong and highlights just how far Dr Hughes was prepared to go to cover up the unconscionable way Alan’s arbitration was conducted. AS-CAV Exhibit 128 to 180 - See AS-CAV 157)

For the record:

The 24,000 FOI documents, referred to by Dr Hughes in his letter to Mr James, relate to my original letter to Senator Evans (also copied to Laurie James).  On page 4 of this letter, Alan alerts Senator Evans to the 24,000 documents, stating:-

“As a result of viewing the previously referred to 24,000 late FOI documents and sorting them into bound volumes it became apparent that there were still many areas I could not include in my written submission since I did not have enough technical knowledge.” (AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233 - See AS-CAV 208)

On page 3, I state:-

“Telstra presented their defence on 12th December 1994. At this time I was still waiting for FOI documents to be supplied. Eleven days after Telstra presented their Defence I was finally supplied with 24,000 plus documents. The first notification I had of these documents arriving was a phone call from Kendall Airways on 23rd December 1994, announcing that 72-74 Kilograms of documents, addressed to me, had arrived at the Portland Airport.”

It is obvious from Dr Hughes’ letter to Laurie James that he was concerned about the content of my letter to the senator and the ramifications if the truth was revealed.

Why didn't Dr Hughes provide a copy of his letter to Warwick Smith dated 12 May 1995, where he damns the arbitration agreement he had just used the day before in which to bring down his findings, as the following shows?

On 12 May 1995, 13 months into my arbitration and one day after he brought down my award, Dr Hughes condemned the Telstra-drafted arbitration agreement as not a credible document to use in the process; however, he used it to my detriment as a claimant and stated:

“…as far as I could observe, both Telecom and Smith co-operated in the Smith arbitration;

“the time frames set in the original Arbitration Agreement were, with the benefit of hindsight, optimistic;

“in particular; we did not allow sufficient time in the Arbitration Agreement for inevitable delays associated with the production of documents, obtaining further particulars and the preparation of technical reports; …

“In summary, it is my view that if the process is to remain credible, it is necessary to contemplate a time frame for completion which is longer than presently contained in the Arbitration Agreement.” (Open Letter File No 55-A)

 

 

I use the Senate Hansard records of 20 September 1995, showing a very emotional Senator Ron Boswell discussing the injustices we four COT claimants (i.e., Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer and I) experienced during our so-called government-endorsed arbitrations, in the previous chapter. It is also most important to raise the following statement made by Senator Boswell, concerning the TIO and his annual report:

“...Eleven years after their first complaints to Telstra, where are they now? They are acknowledged as the motivators of Telecom’s customer complaint reforms. … But, as individuals, they have been beaten both emotionally and financially through an 11-year battle with Telstra" 

“Then followed the Federal Police investigation into Telecom’s monitoring of COT case services. The Federal Police also found there was a prima facie case to institute proceedings against Telecom but the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions), in a terse advice, recommended against proceeding".

“Once again, the only relief COT members received was to become the catalyst for Telecom to introduce a revised privacy and protection policy. Despite the strong evidence against Telecom, they still received no justice at all". 

“These COT members have been forced to go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman to force Telecom to comply with the law. Not only were they being denied all necessary documents to mount their case against Telecom, causing much delay, but they were denied access to documents that could have influenced them when negotiating the arbitration rules, and even whether to enter arbitration at all. …

"This is an arbitration process not only far exceeding the four-month period, but one which has become so legalistic that it has forced members to borrow hundreds of thousands just to take part in it. It has become a process far beyond the one represented when they agreed to enter into it, and one which professionals involved in the arbitration agree can never deliver as intended and never give them justice." 

"I regard it as a grave matter that a government instrumentality like Telstra can give assurances to Senate leaders that it will fast track a process and then turn it into an expensive legalistic process making a farce of the promise given to COT members and the unducement to go into arbitration. “Telecom has treated the Parliament with contempt. No government monopoly should be allowed to trample over the rights of individual Australians, such as has happened here.” (See Senate Hansard Evidence File No-1)

Senator Boswell’s statement that “a point confirmed by professionals deeply involved in the arbitration process itself and by the TIO’s annual report, where conclusion is described as ‘if that is ever achievable’

By 20 September 1995, the following Senate Hansard had condemned the arbitration process. So why did Mr Pinnock (TIO) and Dr Hughes, eight months later, conspire to mislead and deceive Laurie James concerning the truth of my claims, which were registered with the proper authority, i.e., the president of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia?