Developer agrees to apologise – depaNews November 2010
Developer agrees to apologise in long-running Wagga Wagga unpleasantness
Our August issue speculated about why Peter Hurst, a developer at Wagga Wagga and the Vice Chairman (wow, sounds like a great job!) of the Wagga Wagga Branch of the Housing Industry Association is so unkind.
Hurst had made a range of inaccurate, baseless, derogatory and offensive allegations about our members at Wagga Wagga and a comprehensive internal investigation conducted by the Council’s Internal Auditor had dismissed the lot.
As part of an industrial dispute we were conducting in the Industrial Relations Commission, Deputy President Grayson had recommended that the Council seek an apology from Peter Hurst for baseless allegations and the damage done. In our August issue we said:
"This will be a measure of the man. We can we hope he will be big enough to acknowledge his mistakes, apologise appropriately and get on with the job. We will see."
In a response to the Council, Walsh and Blair Lawyers advised that they were acting for Peter Hurst and "we are instructed that our client will apologise to council staff. The form of that apology will have to be the subject of agreement."
Clearly he was big enough to do the right thing but it is not prepared to make the apology being sought by the Council. Drafted by us, endorsed by our members, agreed to for its reasonableness by the General Manager when we met in Wagga Wagga on 21 October and subsequently agreed to be reasonable in all the circumstances by Deputy President Grayson, the apology would have put all of this unpleasantness behind us.
But something is getting in the way of this reasonable solution. Walsh and Blair acting for Peter Hurst have written subsequent letters to the Council which they want to be confidential and where they don't want the contents provided to a third party - whether that be the union representing the staff attacked by Hurst or the Industrial Relations Commission in resolving the dispute arising from the baseless and incorrect complaint.
As far as we can understand it, Mr Hurst may have changed his mind. In a clear gesture against male hegemony and in advancing his claims for equal status with the sisterhood, Mr Hurst, wants to exercise the prerogative historically claimed only for a lady, a lady’s right to change her mind. You go girl!
So, it’s not entirely clear what is happening but on the resumption of the dispute in the Commission on 25 November, the Commission recommended (view IRC recommendation) that the Council have published in the local paper, the Daily Advertiser, (see note below) a brief summary of the dispute and the dismissal of the complaints made by Peter Hurst and the apology being sought by the Council. The Commission also acknowledged its disappointment that while prepared to apologise in October, Mr Hurst looked like he had changed his mind.
After all, if Peter Hurst was prepared to apologise, he clearly knew that he had done something wrong. The apology identifies all the things that we and the Council think he did wrong.
We will be happy to publish the apology as well in the December issue.