DTWD paid EUPA $350k - and it made a $120k loss

Tags:   kyle kutasi, eupa, kevin peachey, david love, serena panas

Web Site:  

Got hold of the EUPA budget from Kevin recently - can you believe this? EUPA gets paid $448,174, almost quarter of a million dollars from the Department of Education, and they're spending a whopping $347,437.50 on wages? This scenario apparently leads to a predicted loss of $118,844.10; it's no wonder Mr. Love tried to kick out Jeremy to "reduce cost"! It's also astounding how the greedy Mr. Love takes home a huge $140k+ pay check, earning around $500 per day - more than most people earn in a week! Also, that he gave himself a generous $12k bump in his salary in the past financial year (despite the financial crisis).

EUPA Training Council Budget 2011/12

(Executive Officer, 1 x Project Officer , Administrative Support)

> Income

DTWD Service Agreement - Operating Grant: $418,174.00

DTWD Curriculum Services: $20,000.00

Interest (estimate): $10,000.00

TOTAL: $448,174.00

> Predicted Expenses

Office Rent & Variables: $28,000.00

Office Expenses/Bank fees etc: $2,000.00

Electricity: $3,000.00

Telephone: $8,000.00

Subscriptions & Periodicals: $2,000.00

Photocopier & Printing: $6,500.00

Postage & Courier Costs: $1,000.00

Computer & Stationary: $5,000.00

Internet Expenses: $2,500.00

Insurances: $7,500.00

Fuel & Motor vehicle expenses: $15,000.00

Fringe Benefits Tax: $5,000.00

Parking: $1,250.00

Travel: $15,000.00

Promotion/Publications/Expo attendance: $15,000.00

Meeting & Conference expenses: $17,500.00

Professional Development: $2,500.00

Office Cleaning: $3,500.00

Security: $3,000.00

Audit Fees: $3,000.00

Book keeping assistance: $2,000.00

Salaries & Wages: $267,437.50

Superannuation: $24,069.37

TOTAL: $439,756.87

> Contingent liabilities

Motor vehicle replacement: $10,000.00

Redundancy provision : $9,423.75

Long Service Leave provision: $9,337.48

TOTAL: $28,761.23

TOTAL COSTS (Est): $468,518.10

PREDICTED LOSS: -$20,344.10


EUPA Training Council Budget 2011/12

(Executive Officer, 2 x Project Officers , Administrative Support)

> Income

DTWD Service Agreement - Operating Grant: $418,174.00

DTWD Curriculum Services: $20,000.00

Interest (estimate): $10,000.00

TOTAL: $448,174.00

> Predicted Expenses

Office Rent & Variables: $28,000.00

Office Expenses/Bank fees etc: $2,000.00

Electricity: $3,000.00

Telephone: $8,000.00

Subscriptions & Periodicals: $2,000.00

Photocopier & Printing: $6,500.00

Postage & Courier Costs: $1,000.00

Computer & Stationary: $5,000.00

Internet Expenses: $2,500.00

Insurances: $7,500.00

Fuel & Motor vehicle expenses: $17,500.00

Fringe Benefits Tax: $5,000.00

Parking: $1,250.00

Travel: $18,000.00

Promotion/Publications/Expo attendance: $15,000.00

Meeting & Conference expenses: $17,500.00

Professional Development: $2,500.00

Office Cleaning: $3,500.00

Security: $3,000.00

Audit Fees: $3,000.00

Book keeping assistance: $2,000.00

Salaries & Wages: $347,437.50

Superannuation: $31,069.37

TOTAL: $532,256.87

> Contingent liabilities

Motor vehicle replacement: $10,000.00

Redundancy provision: $12,423.75

Long Service Leave provision: $12,337.48

TOTAL: $34,761.23

TOTAL COSTS (Est): $567,018.10

PREDICTED LOSS: -$118,844.10


Salaries are explained here:

David Love:

- Base salary (2010/11): $116,138.38

- Increment: $11,613.84

- Leave loading: $1,719.74

- Super: $11,652.48

- TOTAL PAY: $141,124.44 68a Alderbury St, Floreat WA 6014

> ---

> Kim Schofield [Public sector]

> ---

> Neil Hooley [Water]

> 38a Raleigh Rd, Sorrento WA 6020

> ---

> Ray Harris [Electrotechnology]

> ---

> Toni Beverley Walkington [Public sector]

> 197 Washington St, Victoria Park WA 6100

> ---

> Gary Fitzgerald [DTWD]

> ---

> Geoffrey Thomas Wrigley [Oil & gas]

> Cheryl Anne Wrigley

> 7 Mayor Rd, Coogee WA 6166

> ---

> Kay Lesley Gerard

> 38b Pearl Rd, Cloverdale WA 6105

> Gordon Duffy

> Gabriella Duffy

> 20 Burragah Way, Duncraig WA 6023

A female user named Hilary then responded:

> It's hilarious how if you search for "Joe Fiala CEPU" on Google

A male, Gordon then comments:

> "David Love is a psychopath. This guy has some sort of serious narcissistic personality disorder."

> Then a lady named Beck responds:

> "People like David Love who are dying of cancer - do tend to behave narcissistic - didn't you know? Psychology 101. Cancer tends to bring out the psychotic sides of a person's character. Mr. Love would be a classical example, perhaps."

Finally, a user named Jane then states:

You should check out JOO/GCLM/4/2012 filed with the Magistrates Court of Western Australia on January 3, 2012. Doesn't exactly paint Mr. David Love in the brightest light:

> 1 Mr. Love stated on Dec/2 he wouldn't receive/pay for $14,896 services left on 0.5yr research contract (Aug/22-Feb/24), since:

> 1.1 "Casual employment" allowed for cessation whenever: Mr. Love failed to comply with ATO requirements for "casual employee" treatment, hence this point was rescinded.

> 1.2 There'd been insufficient quality of work: Quality of work similarly rescinded based on reference amount, length of document, originality of information, appraisals from other TC's.

> 2 In a surprise jab, reasons in conciliation were altered to "unethical, if not illegal" conduct, later explained to be use of proprietary university databases to conduct private work.

> 2.1 WAIRC fees (29.6km * 2 @ $0.63 / km (ATO)=$37.30, and $50 application fee = $87.30) asked for in addition due to lack of want to conciliate in good faith, and "put all cards on table". Respondent claimed this was apart of his "legal strategy".

> 2.2 Advised Respondent contemporaneously in conciliation "proprietary database" used datasets created by self; and no resources were used of the University's to conduct work.

> 2.3 Mr. Love is aware of Uni contacts because he asked to apply for an Australian Research Council grant. Mr. Love discarded the grant application before any serious work was actually done.

> 2.4 Although Mr. Love knew university resource not used to conduct work, when faced with difficulty finding data in public admin, Mr. Love requested their "database" use, because "that's what I want - I don't care how you get it - just get it".

Mr. Love is being sued for $15,242.40 in total. I smell bankruptcy here?

I contacted the WAIRC (raised in 2.1) for more information, and they directed me to case No. U 199 of 2011:

> I (Jeremy) worked for the EUPA Training Council (which primarily reports to the Department of Training and Workforce Development DTWD, and is of ABN 76 710 050 832 ELECTRICAL UTILITIES AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION TRAINING COUNCIL INC) as a researcher, beginning Monday 22 August 2011, intended until Friday 24 February 2012, pending a one month probationary period remunerated at $35/hr, paid fortnightly, with the employment offer delineated it "equates approximately $69,000 per annum". On successful completion, this hourly rate was boosted to $40/hr. This employment ceased after being dismissed at approximately 9:20am on Friday December 2 2011.

> Dismissal was on the grounds, as delineated on Friday December 2:

> - Work done was "unusable" and that the Managing Director had paid the "best part of twenty thousand dollars" for "nothing": In response, I (Jeremy) suggested that non-delivery was not possible, because checks were made in the first week essentially every second day; and subsequently, every week, along with fortnight submissions. If the MD was disappointed with the result, that the onus was on him to ensure the requisite quality was met, and instruction given earlier to remedy.

> - That "when requested a wall to be painted in green, received a red wall instead", in particular, development of such tools as the web site, in lieu: In response, I (Jeremy) delineated, and came to agreement with the MD, that the e-scan had been "completed" for the electrotechnology, electricity supply, gas supply, waste, water, and local government - and that the shortfall, was only for corrective services, public safety, and public sector - of which I was asked by the MD specifically to spend 1 day on, and hence the quality of those sections reflected the singular day effort. On the following Monday 28 November, I approached the MD to obtain a clarification given the inconsistency from the completion of the various e-scans and the "you've given me nothing", with the MD stating that on Thursday, he intentionally delayed a while before speaking to me, because he understood he was "angry", and that with several points, he had "retreated" - with the exception of the three e-scans (below).

> - That even the three documents produced over my (Jeremy's) weekend "wasn't what I [David] wanted": Although my (Jeremy) copy was asked to be deleted by the MD, we desire to obtain discovery of these documents, which would tend to show that the quality of the work, met, if not exceeded that, of work over the weekend (which is unpaid for, and further to the required work) - with appropriate referencing, gathering of secondary data facts, and prima facie analysis.

> - Publishing changes on the web site without prior approval: I (Jeremy) have obtained permission, asked, but on numerous occasions, the MD has forgotten that approval was given (or it was given without him knowing what the consequence was). Commonly, prior discussions later raised with the MD, would be responded in "no, I don't remember - could you refresh my memory?", which goes to propensity to recount facts correctly. In any circumstance, this is just a minor misunderstanding, and doesn't warrant the termination of contract.

> - That the terms of "casual employment" are such that, the Managing Director, can, at his own discretion, terminate the employment at his own will: My response to him was that I had felt "exploited" as a result of not knowing what "casual employment" constituted. However, the terms of employment were delineated as between a fixed period (Monday 22 August 2011 - Friday 24 February 2012, for 26 working weeks), with the "maximum 38 hour working week" delineated by the MD as meaning "that's all I [David] can pay you; you can work more, but that's up to you". Furthermore, if the employment agreement was such that the termination could occur at any time, the "probationary period" thus becomes moot, and could constitute a misleading and deceptive clause of agreement (and its presence suggests that termination can only be made during the probationary period). It is also notable, following the probationary period, remuneration was bumped up from $35/hr (+9%) to $40/hr.

> - That the "contractual" arrangement had no veracity, as a result of the fact that it wasn't written: This is a question of law that is disputed, as being wrong.

> Prior, on Thursday November 24, the Managing Director requested my pay check to not be put through on Wednesday November 23, which was reinstated on Friday November 25. On Thursday November 24, the MD brought up:

> - Utilizing organizational time to do other organization's work: The response provided was that this was based on hearsay evidence from a colleague, and that direct evidence would tend to directly contradict this (namely, that an employee, if desiring to work on another organization's work, wouldn't tend to turn the direction of the computer screen, as to be directly in view of a person who walked into the room). It is believed, given the MD hadn't raised prior issues with me, and that the first time he did was on Thursday November 24, that this fact lies, within his interpretation, as the pinnacle issue; given that I'd departed the organization at Wednesday November 23 at 4.30pm, and that only Kevin (my colleague) and the MD discussing were the only between events.

> - That he had an issue with the level of noise: After conferring with Kevin (colleague), it was decided that this was likely due to a single conversation (in particular), several weeks ago, which was directly work related, although "didn't seem to be going anywhere". On Monday, 28 November, Kevin brought up that he had been disappointed about the lower levels of conference, and that he had hoped the workplace could still involve chitter chatter to "make the workplace fun".

> - That the work could not be understood by stakeholders, as it contained jargonacious and loquacious language: Of which I (Jeremy) responded that I would work on between Tuesday November 29, and intended on submitting on Friday December 2. This was never even read.

> I (Jeremy) also brought up, in response, contemporaneously in response to being dismissed, on Friday December 2:

> - That I (Jeremy) felt there had been a history with the employer (David Love), given that the person I was replacing (Lee Pritchard), also underwent a "forced resignation" (as delineated by Kevin), suggesting that the employer think about reaching an amicable solution rather than resolving to the courts.

> I (Jeremy) am seeking for compensation of and/or reinstatement of employment for the remaining months. The pay check is up to date until November 23. Including the Christmas exclusion of December 23-January 3, is $3,040 due December 7, $3,040 due December 21, $912 due January 4 (pro rata for 3 days, December 22, January 3 and 4), $3,040 due January 18, $3,040 due February 1, $3,040 due February 15, and $608 due February 17 (pro rata for 2 days). This amounts to $16,720.

> The payable amount from Fri 25/11 to the end of contract is $14,896.1 The defendant (Mr. David Love) contests that as a result of the word "casual", the contractual arrangement can be broken at any time. The plaintiff argues that the arrangement was contractual, and there is thus breach of contract. Even if it is construed there is casual employment, it is argued that simply delineating the words "casual" doesn't mean a worker doesn't have the right to expectation of continued employment, where delineated, and can be demonstrated by constructive facts.

> The WAIRC filing undertakes the defendant's (David) assumption employment was casual (as stated on Fri 2/12). The right is reserved to dispute this classification. The plaintiff is willing to accept this point uncontested, such that the WAIRC is directed employment was contractual, and thus ultra vires to its jurisdiction. The matter can then be contested in Court for contractual breach. Where contest is made employment was casual, WAIRC costs will be requested.

> Kindly requested is also that non-disputed facts are agreed to:

> - Monday, 15 August 2011

> Advertised job on Seek.com.au that requested for a worker with an "ABN" (showing intent to contract)

> Job interview, followed with acceptance. Asked if prefer contract or employee, replied don't mind, [David] responded am able to offer better rate with contract, but can't offer long service leave, sick leave (never noting discrepancy was that casual employment - or at that point, contract, could involve early at-whim dismissal). Asked if had ABN, replied not, but would obtain one. Stated would start on casual employee, and change to contract as necessary. Job offer sent via e-mail, accepted by telephone call back. Never billed as casual, super not paid into superannuation account, PAYG payroll tax not withheld, did not provide pay slips, did not deduct student loan repayments, TFN not filed with ATO, only 4 invoices issued over contracting period - all showing intention to contract.

> Requisite standard of recent university graduate, non- specialized knowledge within industries, well known (and later confirmed within your knowledge, on Thursday, November 24)

> - Monday, 22 August 2011

> Start of job, with intended finish date of Friday 24 February, delineated as "26 working weeks".

> Asked on Monday, with regard to what "maximum 38 hour working week meant", noting concern it seems to mean can be offered no hours, and hence paid for less than 38 hours; response delineated, as meaning "you can work more than 38 hours, but that's all I can pay you for"

> - Monday, 22 August 2011 to Friday, 2 September 2011

> 2-week completion and check for the electricity supply e-scan. The amount of $1,824 ($16,720-$1,824=$14,896) was invoiced until Thu 1/12.

> - Monday, 5 September 2011 to Friday, 16 September 2011

> 2-week completion and check for the gas supply e-scan

> - Friday, 16 September 2011

> Discoverable evidence showing bill on 16/9 for electricity supply and gas supply e-scans

> - Monday, 19 September 2011

> Review of performance, along with upgrade of remuneration from $35/hr to $40/hr

> - Monday, 19 September 2011 to Friday, 23 September 2011

> 1-week work on electro technology e-scan

> - Monday, 26 September 2011 to Wednesday, 28 September 2011

> 3-day completion for the center of excellence non-e- scan work task

> - Wednesday, 28 September 2011

> Discoverable evidence showing bill on 28/9 for electro technology e-scan and center of excellence work task

> - Thursday, 29 September 2011 to Thursday 6 October 2011

> 1-week extra work for 2-week completion on electro technology e-scan. "Full two weeks" was designated despite small sector, to pursuing overturning DTWD opinion on antagonistic organization, NECA (a competitor)

> - Friday, 7 October 2011

> 1-day work on public sector, public safety, local government and corrective services. It is notable these 4 sectors were never billed.

> - Wednesday, 12 October 2011

> Discoverable evidence showing bill on 12/10 for electro technology e-scan

> - Monday, 10 October 2011 to Friday, 21 October 2011

> 2-week completion of waste sector

> - Monday, 24 October 2011 to Friday, 4 November 2011

> 2-week completion of water sector

> - Wednesday, 9 November 2011

> Discoverable evidence showing bill on 9/11 for waste and water e-scan

> - Monday, October 31 2011

> Deadline for the executive summaries by DTWD, which should have tended to have been based on the e-scans produced (but yet, no disapproval expressed yet)

> - Monday, 7 November 2011

> Advised final completion of all e-scans

> - Monday, 7 November 2011 to Tuesday, 22 November 2011

> 2-week review of work (as requested), and to ensure "yellow tab" changes was included. Asked on Monday 14 November, "do you really have nothing to do?" and answered "am going through work to review, but likely, better use of time once the workforce development plan is completed".

> - Wednesday, 23 November 2011

> Earliest notification of issue, in relation to the lack of delineation of "how big, how large" sectors are, though after agreeing these had all been contained for electro technology, gas, waste, water, and local government - was actually only lacking for local government (and unnecessary in public sector, public safety and corrective services) - for which 1 day was spent on.

> Although it can be argued, due to busyness, Wednesday, 23 November 2011 was the first time David actually reviewed work; this is five business days off from the DTWD deadline.

> - Wednesday, 23 November 2011 to Friday, 25 November 2011

> 3-day completion of local government e-scan. It is notable local government was never shown on a bill.

> - Wednesday, 23 November 2011

> Discoverable evidence showing bill on 23/11 for public sector e-scan. It is notable this wasn't put through, until Friday November 25, which may possibly be seen as unconscionable conduct.

> - Wednesday, November 23

> Had amicable conversation with David before leaving. Only discussion David had in between was with colleague (Kevin Peachey). Kevin recalls conversation causing anger was likely relating to reference made to questions asked with regard to a research "system" (which I subsequently explained I developed over a single weekend, with only a few hours).

> - Thursday, November 24

> Was advised is angry in the morning, several hours later, am asked immediately "how much of this is EUPA's work - and how much of this is other's work?" Told is disgruntled by work (coming as a surprise, though reference to earlier conversation is made). Though settled e-scan is there for all sectors, except public sector, public safety and corrective services

> - Friday, November 25

> 1-day and weekend completion of the 3 e-scans for public sector, public safety and corrective services

> - Monday, 28 November 2011

> After having a discussion, where David recalls being angry, come to amicable recognition e-scan is there; only need is to simplify English to reduce loquacious language.

> - Monday, 28 November 2011 to Thursday, December 1 2011

> Simplified English. It is notable this remedial work was never received or analyzed.

> - Thursday, December 1 2011

> Received call for need to come in and talk about "what you're [Jeremy] doing for us"

> - Friday, December 2 2011

> Termination of employment at 9.20am, along with hand back of keys

> - Friday, February 24 2012

> Intended completion date

> Facts that are suggested to be agreed upon, as inferred from the timeline, are:

> - Work has been completed in a tight deadline, with 5 e-scans completed within 2 weeks each, an e-scan and report produced in 3 days each, and 3 e-scans produced all within a 2 day period

> Disputed questions of law:

> - Whether casual employment (simply by way of the term being enlisted) affords the reasonable right of ongoing employment for the fixed term, if expressly stipulated

> - Whether it is lawful to state that a fixed agreement is "casual", given that the standard definition of "casual" is employment on an irregular basis, with no set roster or routine, only retained on an as needs basis. Factors that point to non-casual employment include:

> o Numbers of hours work per week is 38 hours, full time o A roster system is not published in a week advance

> o The employment pattern is regular and systematic

> o Reasonable expectation of continued employment

> o Employer requires notice of absence

> o Starting and finishing time was designated at 9am to 4.30pm

> - Whether the employment capacity can be considered casual, if superannuation was not paid to a superfund, taxation obligations were not upheld by "employer", monies was paid to a corporate (not personal) account

> - Whether an orally agreed to contractual employment arrangement, can constitute a legal agreement

> - Whether estoppel can permit the contractual arrangement to be expressly stated by the court, as a result of constructive reliance on such agreement

> Disputed questions of fact:

> - Whether the quality of the work met the requisite standard that would be reasonably expected of an employee, of the same caliber

> o Will be argued consideration should be given to the number of references given, the length of documents, the originality of information (i.e. not plagiarized)

> o Will be argued that the quality of work by the other training councils should provide indicia of what is reasonable

> o Will be argued that statements of other training councils, notably, Jane Piercy (RAPS T/C)'s "wow", and comment that the work had been completed (1) so quickly; (2) with such rigorous referencing; and (3) in such stylish design; noting that it took her T/C 4 weeks in 2010 to develop each e-scan, though an entire team of 3 people were working on it

> - That there was never intention of employment beyond 3 months, but that, delineation of this on Seek.com.au and/or the job offer, would have caused a reasonable person to turn down the offer

Cause Created by: Gordon Love View other causes created this user here  Bookmark and Share

We need another -3 signatures so that we can .
Become a 'supporter' by wearing the badge opposite or sign the petition to make your voice heard.

View Signatures Sign up Here

Help promote this cause


Cause Supporters, Comments & Statistics:

This page has been viewed 1699 times. This cause has 0 supporters and 3 signatures.
To view all signatures & comments click here

Report this cause

Does this cause contain offensive or libellous content? Click here to report this cause.