AV File Notes : Legitimate comments by management or defamation?
When an AV employee will not succumb or comply with the improper will of AV, a standard approach of AV is to turn the ‘attack’ on the employee. AV managers begin to place File Notes on the employees Personnel File.
These file notes contain comments about the employees behaviour, clinical or professional performance. These file notes are placed on the personnel file without the knowledge of the employee. The comments are generally the ‘opinion’ of a manager who the employee has raised concerns with and appear after it is apparent to AV that the employee won’t bow down to the will of their AV ‘masters’. The comments are usually about matters to which there were no witnesses other than the manager and the employee, or if there were witnesses AV deems that the managers word is all that is needed. These comments are totally uncorroborated by any evidence and can include allegations of aggressive, threatening and generally improper conduct.
Should the employee continue and not bow down and conform to the will of AV, then eventually there will be a point where a formal and serious allegation is leveled at the employee. All of these past file notes of uncorroborated past happenings are then marched out by AV to supposedly substantiate the improper conduct of the employee.
These file notes are uncorroborated and therefore inadmissible evidence, and yet AV uses these file notes as factual evidence to substantiate the allegations of the formal complaint against the employee.
Should the AV employee challenge these fraudulent file notes, they are further accused of a failure to have any insight about the inappropriateness of their past and present behaviours. This ‘lack of insight’ is used as a further failure of the employee on which they are counseled.
AV will steadfastly stand on the premise that these are legitimate observations about an employees performance. If an employee has the temerity and long term determination to hold AV to account via a legal, just and fair process, all of a sudden AV becomes ‘shy’ with the ‘evidence’.
Should an authority direct AV to produce documents that have been used to make allegations about the performance of an employee, AV will attempt all sorts of deception to deny the production of these documents.
Some of AV’s standard tactics are to : deny the documents ever existed; state that should the documents have ever existed, that they no longer exist; state that they can’t find them; state that they are not relevant to the proceedings; not comply until they think the documents will assist AV’s case and so belatedly they supply then and say that they have ‘found’ the documents; or simply say they will comply and provide the documents, but just not do it.
Clearly AV acts in an improper manner. Kangaroo Court is one saying that springs to mind.