Employment Services Case Study: Albanese Government set to cancel 54 year-old disabled man’s payment after failing to investigate bullying by job agency
AUWU launches Parliamentary Submission builder to help participants capture these nightmare experiences with Employment Services so that the government cannot avoid addressing this systemic abuse
Today, AUWU announces our Parliamentary Submission builder to assist people who have had to deal with the Employment Services industry to prepare a submission on their experiences to the House Select Committee. A full release will occur on Monday 20/02/23, with the addition of an interactive survey tool.
We encourage as many people as possible to make a submission, and today we highlight a recent egregious case study of an AUWU member’s bullying by a job agency.
Since August 2022, Murray has been relentlessly bullied, threatened, and punished by his job service provider. The Department of Social Services (a delegate of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations in administering the Disability Employment Services program) refused to help him, so he started recording his conversations with his provider.
The recordings give a rare insight into the level of brazen hostility providers freely inflict on their clientele. And the unwillingness of a government department to intervene, and reign them in, to defend job seekers’ basic rights. Murray’s provider is fully aware of 54 year old Murray’s multiple physical and mental health conditions, which makes their decision to systematically bully and punish him over the last several months particularly galling.
As it stands, Murray’s JobSeeker Payment is in jeopardy, because he won’t submit to his provider’s relentless bullying. Murray and the AUWU have brought all this to the attention of the Department; however they have told us, in no uncertain terms, that they refuse to help him.
This is a gruelling case study in how Employment Service Providers, and the government, work together to immiserate poor, disabled people on welfare. Given the seriousness of Murray’s situation, and the lack of help or proper process in the system, AUWU has no choice but to make his case public.
We call on Ministers Amanda Rishworth and Tony Burke to immediately reinstate Murray’s payment, wipe his illegitimately applied demerits, and launch a full independent investigation into the following debacle.
Murray’s ordeal
All the events and details that follow have been confirmed via audio recordings, and written materials Murray was able to provide to the AUWU.
During a provider appointment on August 5, 2022, 54 year old Murray was bullied by his employment consultant into volunteer roles in disability and aged care support to meet his “mutual” obligations, despite being assessed (in an Employment Services Assessment, or ESAt for short) as having a baseline work capacity of 8-14 hours per week. The Department of Social Services considers this assessed capacity as being not ready to enter the workforce.
The agency was well aware of Murray’s limitations, because, as part of the same “consultation”, they suggested that he make an application for the Disability Support Pension (knowing full well he wouldn’t be eligible for it based on his ESAt). Seeing as they had their client caught between a rock and a hard place, his provider started pressuring Murray into activities more physically and mentally demanding than he could reasonably cope with.
Murray immediately asserted his rights, under the legislation and the DES provider service guarantee, to negotiate “mutual” obligations that are tailored to his circumstances. But, instead of working with him to find more appropriate activities, his employment consultant asked Murray to leave the office, claiming he was “getting aggressive.” Not taking this treatment lying down, Murray put in a written complaint. Following up on advice he had received from the job agent, he also asked for a letter from his provider in support of an application for the DSP.
In response, the job agent called Murray, telling him that they wouldn’t respond to his complaint, and wouldn’t deal with him again at all until he changed his “attitude.” After this lecture, the job agent hung up on him.
A few days later, on August 9th, Murray rang the Department’s National Customer Service Line (NCSL), which, at first, refused to help or intervene, and tried to simply direct him straight back to the provider’s site manager. After Murray pressed them further to do their actual jobs, the NCSL finally advised him that they will send a formal complaint to the provider.
In the meantime, on September 20th, Murray got called into another meeting where his provider began the process of updating his JobSeeker snapshot (JSCI score). Murray asked them to provide a record of the changes they planned to make, but they refused. Instead, the agency threatened Murray – telling him that he must immediately agree to the JSCI change, or they will suspend his payment. In response, Murray lodged another complaint with the NCSL.
The next week, on September 28th, Murray was forced to attend another appointment with the agency. In this meeting, his job agent went further on the offensive, increasing his job search from 0 per month, to the maximum possible 20 per month. Murray protested, telling them that this was completely inappropriate, given his ESAt results, age, and the local labour market conditions (Mandurah has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country). Yet again, he provided details of this to the NCSL as part of his original complaint.
The next week, on October 6th, Murray’s provider issued him with a demerit and a payment suspension, because he refused to sign the job plan upping his job search requirements from 0 to 20 a month. A plan which they failed to set correctly in the first place, nor negotiate on once disputed, in violation of the guidelines on managing and monitoring mutual obligations.
On October 21st, the NCSL closed Murray’s complaint, telling him that, after a review, a “satisfactory resolution” had been achieved. Murray’s demerit was not removed, despite the clear error made by his provider in giving full job search requirements to a participant with 8-14 hours capacity. That demerit remains in place today.
The NCSL then offered to switch Murray to a new job service provider that was too far for him to travel. So, despite a now-months long complaint process, Murray was again forced to continue dealing with his current provider. Charitably, they reduced his maximum job search requirement of 20 down to… 15.
On January 13th, despite his valid requests for a phone appointment, Murray’s provider forced him to attend an in-person meeting in violation of the Contacts guidelines. At this appointment, the agency again asked him to sign a new Job Plan. Before agreeing to sign, Murray requested the 48 hour “think time”, that’s granted to every job seeker under the Social Security Guide, in violation of the DES Grant Agreement.
This basic request was effectively denied. His employment consultant told Murray that the earliest time they could see him again was January 17th; seeing as that date fell outside the 48 hour window, he would be automatically breached if he didn’t immediately sign onto the plan.
Indeed, the provider guidelines indicate that in this case, the provider should have rescheduled the appointment with the reason “provider unable to deliver requirement”. Instead, they told Murray he would be automatically breached and have to attend a re-engagement appointment. Not because he did anything wrong, but because they failed to comply with the legislation.
The next day, Murray lodged another complaint with the Department. Yet, on January 18th, he still received a threat of payment suspension from his provider. A further complaint to the Department resulted in an admission that this suspension threat message should never have been sent.
After finally complying with basic provider guidelines, his employment consultant held a phone appointment with Murray in late January. Murray tried to get his job coach to tailor his job plan to his circumstances, and in response his consultant demanded that he sign an unsatisfactory job plan, and threatened to suspend his payment if he did not comply. Here, the AUWU directly intervened, helping Murray lodge another complaint to the Department.
Instead of affording Murray the right to a fair job plan, The Department contact told us that his provider had accused him of threatening behaviour, that there are “two sides to every story”, and ultimately there’s nothing more they can do to help him.
In this phone appointment, conducted on February 8th, Murray’s provider again tried to force him into an inappropriate and inconsistent Job Plan (ultimately forcing him to perform 10 job searches a month despite Murray’s incapacity to actually enter the workforce). Murray requested for multiple alterations to the job plan to take into account his circumstances. He was rebuffed at each attempt and told his plan would be left “as is”, in violation of the guidelines mandating that providers work with clients to tailor their job plans to their circumstances.
Murray asked for further information to be provided such as feedback on his job searches, and excerpts from the Social Security Legislation which justify the items included in his job plan. Murray was promised he would get this information to consider with his job plan. This information has not been provided since.
Finally, Murray requested his 48 hour “think time” in line with the Social Security guidelines. And again, his request was denied. He was dismissively told he’d had “enough think time” and that he would have to sign the job plan that day. These intimidating remarks were delivered in direct violation of the Social Security Legislation.
On February 13, Murray was threatened by his provider by email with payment suspension if he refused to sign their illegitimate job plan. At this point, AUWU Secretary Daniel Levy emailed a Department of Social Services official to make the Department aware of these breaches of the guidelines, and to demand an investigation and review of these events.
On February 14, while Minister Bill Shorten was posting insultingly tin-eared memes about loving Services Australia (a government Department known for terrorising welfare recipients en masse), the Department used Services Australia infrastructure to send Murray some of their trademark Valentine’s Day love. They notified Murray that his payment had been suspended for not signing the Job Plan he actively disputed, and for which his requests for tailoring had been ignored.
On February 15, the Department official replied to Daniel to allege multiple untrue facts about his provider’s conduct, having seemingly believed their version of events without any attempt to verify if they were true. Daniel expressed his “extreme disappointment” in this sub-par response, and then meticulously documented the factual errors in the official’s response. Daniel also asked several quite specific questions about the circumstances of this situation, and how these sub-par complaint mechanisms could possibly comply with the National Standards for Disability Services, to which the Department bound itself in the Disability Employment Services provider guarantee document.
The Department followed up on February 16 by threatening to cancel Murray’s payment permanently if he refused to attend a reengagement appointment and sign this inadequate and disputed job plan. At this reengagement appointment, his provider raced through the notification required to be given under Social Security Legislation at breakneck pace.
Murray’s provider would know from his ESAt results that Murray has significant cognitive impairments. When asked if he understood the terms, Murray said no, and his provider then failed to help him understand the terms as required by the legislation.
On February 17, two days after Daniel corrected the record of events with the Department, the following response was sent to us by that Department official which we will quote verbatim:
“Hi Daniel
Given you found my response ‘extremely disappointing’, I won’t further waste your time by following up.”
That’s right, the Department official — a delegate of the Employment Secretary — refused to assist with a decision review, or to even answer general questions about Department policy. We are utterly appalled by this behaviour, and have requested a formal review of this conduct from both the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, Ray Griggs, and the Secretary of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, Natalie James.
With no apparent recourse available to Murray, and a Department that refuses to comply with its own legislation or assist participants with complaints, Murray is now faced with the false choice of either signing a job plan that is not tailored to his circumstances, or having his payment cancelled.
We reiterate our call for Ministers Amanda Rishworth and Tony Burke to immediately reinstate Murray’s payment, wipe his illegitimately applied demerits, and launch a full independent investigation into this debacle.
Last updated 21/02/2023
Media contact: Jeremy Poxon - 0404 089 575 / media at auwu.org.au
Sign up to receive AUWU statements in your inbox as soon as they are published.
