To all the new readers of this thread, take a look at the evidence posted on this thread to back up this submission below.....
Dear Select Committee,
1. Introduction
2. My name is Paul Gee, a certifying gasfitter and plumber from the Tasman/Nelson area. I am in full agreement with the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Federation’s submission, and only offer this personal submission under my own steam and banner to go toward showing how the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board (PGDB) have spent the illegally gained funds, needlessly savaging my life and terrorising my wife in doing so.
3. I have lost my business and reputation, my home and time with my young family, all for a situation that I had tried to warn about for 6 years previously, before an explosion nearly killed someone, i.e. dodgy certs covering dodgy work. With no one held accountable for this. As this situation spans almost 10 years of my life and is hugely personal to me I am truly thankful for all understanding and consideration shown for this lengthy submission and I thank you in advance for this.
4. I believe the Board have made a scapegoat of me to hide their own short comings and in-action.
5. Concerns
6. My concerns are centred on the illegally funded past and current prosecution and discipline systems of the PGDB within the gasfitting industry and the apparent covering up by the PGDB of either a badly designed gas safety certification system and/or incompetence/malpractice administering this system.
7. I believe that the Board ignored conflicts of interest and acted in bad faith, with out duty of care and against natural justice; leading to an unfair and needless investigation and the resulting decision by the Board in respect to me. Please note that I strongly believe in industry regulation and the holding of “cowboys” to account within the industry, which was why I had tried to warn about all of this from the outset.
8. I believe they undertook a needless disciplinary action against me, utilising these illegally gained funds spending over $200,000.00 on my case. What has occurred to me has since been made available to the Building and Housing Minister.
9. In particular, my concerns are not just about the afore mentioned conflicts of interests that were ignored, but also the misrepresentation and withholding of evidence and the resulting decision of the Board, and in particular the way the investigation was carried out.
10. Background
11. I am a qualified gas service engineer in the United Kingdom, trained by British Gas in 1989. I was registered by the PGDB as a craftsman gasfitter on 15 February 1999.
12. I began working for a gas company in late February 2003 in Nelson. At the beginning of this employment, I was instructed by the manager to fill out the work sheets only and the office staff would fill out the gas certification certificate and I only had to sign them, then the office staff would file them. Note: The manger and office staff was a family and related, i.e. a husband (manager), wife (office manager), daughter (office girl) and son in law (limited licence gasfitter, who worked unsupervised most of the time).
13. After approximately five months of employment with this gas company, I became very concerned about how gasfitting work was being carried out and the possible safety implications of this apparent malpractice. I attempted to raise this concern verbally with the manager; however it was dismissed by him. Toward the end of the period of this employment I handed back certificates to the manager, refusing to sign them as they were unfinished or unsafe.
14. On 10 November 2003, I attended a meeting with the Manager. At this meeting, I submitted a written statement outlining my safety concerns; this written statement was later provided to the Board and appears in my Hearing’s Bundle (HB).
15. On 13 November 2003, I was issued with a written warning by the manager for how I had expressed my concerns about safety to his son in law, (HB). In response to this written warning I indicated I would resign as soon as was practicable.
16. On 14 November 2003, four books of non-transferable gas certificates were ordered, for the one and only time, by some one at the gas company. It was done in my name, without my knowledge, (HB).
17. On 19 November 2003, I gave two weeks notice and resigned from this gas company, (HB).
18. I later found out, after the explosion, that on the 4th March 2004, three months after I left, someone from this gas company, on this company’s letterhead, wrote a letter in my name to alter a gas certificate to the PGDB, which was apparently acted on, (HB).
19. I then began work as a subcontractor for a different gas company in December 2003 where I immediately became aware of improper use of gas certificates that were in my name, actually one of the certificates I had refused to sign because the job was unsafe/unfinished, (HB).
20. In response, I contacted the PGDB by telephone, which was when I became aware of the 4 books ordered in my name, and again in writing on 6 January 2004. In response, the PGDB replied to me, dismissing my complaint and providing what I believe are inconsistencies and incorrect facts. (HB)
21. A year later I came across yet another irregular certificate in my name, covering unsafe work. I contacted a lawyer, as the Board refused to talk to me without one, on 13 January 2005. (HB)
22. I also contacted my former employer, the gas company mentioned above, which had a new manager, on the 24 January 2005.
23. The outcome of my lawyer’s inquiry to the PGDB was there were over a 1000 certificates in my name and it would cost $25 per certificate to check. I could not afford this potential sum of $25,000 and told them so by phone. The letter from the Board’s lawyer had inconsistencies and incorrect facts. I had only worked at this gas company for some 10 months.
24. I approached a Member of Parliament on 24 May 2006 after hearing no further from the PGDB. A letter was written to the PGDB on 6 June 2006. No response was made to me. I followed up this letter by sending a fax to a member of the PGDB on 21 August 2006. Again, I had no response. I later contacted another Member of Parliament by email, outlining my concerns for health and safety. This was passed on to the Minister for Safety and Health at the time. This Minister replied indicating he would look into the matter; however I received no further contact. Most, if not all, of the proof of this correspondence is in the possession of the PGDB, (HB).
25. On 8 July 2009, the Board received a complaint from the Department of Labour, regarding a gas explosion at 136 Milton Street, Nelson. An “impartial” investigator was appointed according to section 40 of the Act.
26. I requested an impartiality hearing with PGDB, it was held on 22 February 2011 where I raised concerns about conflicts of interest. They were dismissed.
27. Disciplinary action was taken against me under section 42 of the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act 1976 (“the Act”) as a result of the investigation. The matter was heard between 3 and 5 May 2011 by the Board. The decision was given in July 2011 where I was found guilty under section 42(1)(c) of the Act in relation to only one of the seven properties that were investigated by the “impartial” investigator.
28. Out of 44 charges laid by the Board, I was found guilty of only two, neither of which was at the site of the explosion that initiated the complaint by the Department of Labour. No one else as far as I am aware was questioned about the site of the explosion, whether as part of the initial investigation or since.
29. The Board required I undertake a course of instruction as an extra condition of re-licensing as a certified gasfitter for the 2013/2014 licensing year.
30. This “course of instruction” had to be custom made for me at my expense. I have recently carried out an “assessment”, rather than course of instruction. I passed with a 90% mark and was told by the assessor that I would be in the top 10% of the people he had ever assessed.
31. Of the “impartial” investigators initial audits of my work, none of his initial concerns made it to charges that later surfaced in a second audit. This second audit was ordered by him on the basis of these initial audits and “concerns”. A letter from the Board’s lawyer states that three years worth of my work was audited, but the “impartial” investigator only claims to have audited 10% of my work for that period.
32. On 2 October 2009, the then Acting Registrar of The Board sent letters to the owners of six properties where the PGDB alleged I had carried out gasfitting work and that were identified by the “impartial” investigator’s investigation as having compliance issues.
33. These letters, which covered each and every area that I had ever worked in for my own business, from the West Coast to Havelock of the top of the south island, with Nelson and Motueka in between, one or two letters per area. By far the most damaging was the one to Motueka High school, the only high school in what WAS my main centre of business, and my business disappeared not long after these letters. I wasn’t made aware of these letters until the Motueka High school contacted me.
34. These letters noted there was an issue with a number of gas certificates illegally sold affecting a number of homes from Northland to Waikato and the Bay of Plenty, and that the certificate pertaining to their address was one of these. I have never carried out work in these North Island areas and these letters caused me the loss of my business, distress and loss of reputation.
35. By far the worst event on a personal level was during the build up and preparation for my Hearing, the “impartial” investigator’s lawyer sent to my home, unmarked child sexual abuse case notes to prove his point on probabilities. As they were unmarked of their vile content, my long suffering wife read them and I came home to find her hysterical. At this time she was facing living in a caravan for the winter with her husband working away, minding our two young sons, as we were financially forced to sell our home. This situation that my wife faced later happened and I have had to work away for nearly two years since. I have told the present CEO of the Board about this, he has no problem with it and another PGDB member’s solution that he offered to me was “…had I thought of returning to the UK or going to Aussie”.
36. I filed a notice of appeal to the decision of the Board on 16 November 2011. The appeal was heard in the High Court on 5 March 2012 and the decision given on 14 March 2012. The focus of this appeal was on the finding I was guilty of an act or omission contrary to the integrity of the gasfitting trade. The appeal was dismissed.
37. On 22 June 2012, the Boards external assessor and QC released an opinion on eight complaints I raised. She concluded that under the Board’s Historical Complaints Resolution Policy, only one of my complaints fell within the scope of the Policy: that the letters sent by the Board’s Acting Registrar on 2 October 2009 did cause me a disadvantage. I have heard nothing since.
38. Impartiality
39. My claim is that the “impartial” investigator was not an impartial investigator as is required for natural justice. He is a member and fellow of the NZIGE and a member of IPENZ, GANZ and the Kennedy Trust and at the time my old boss was also a member of NZIGE and other gas groups.
40. In addition, I believe that the “impartial” investigator was the person who granted my old boss his full craftsman status, after just one oral exam and with no apprenticeship served.
41. The “impartial” investigator also was nominated by GANZ to co-author the NZ 5261, the standard that I had offered an alternative to in defending against my two founded charges. This is a conflict of interest that should not have been ignored. I tried to raise the issue at the impartiality hearing in February 2011, where my concerns were dismissed.
42. I believe that the table 16 of NZ 5261, which he refers to within this Standard and is particular to my charges, is contradictory and confusing. Table 16 had also been amended which gives the tradesman the impression that the table is not strict in its application, not to mention it is in the non-mandatory part two of the standard.
43. The present Chairman of the PGDB and a panel member of my hearing is also a member of IPENZ, of which NZIGE is an arm of that according to a press release from IPENZ – “NZIGE collaborates closely with IPENZ”. This same person released a press release just after my Hearing stating I lacked fundamental knowledge of my trade, this appeared in my local newspaper.
44. I also believe there was a conflict of interest between the “impartial” investigator and the Presiding Board Member at the disciplinary hearing. The “impartial” investigator and the Presiding Board Member have served together in numerous organisations, NZIGE, GANZ, and the Kennedy Trust, and have made numerous presentations together as a duo to the gas industry.
45. The Presiding Board Member was on the executive of GANZ, the nominating organisation for the “impartial” investigator to co-author the referenced standard NZ 5261.
46. The “impartial” investigator was the technical adviser to the Presiding Board Member at GANZ. I believe this would lead to the Presiding Board Member to put more weight in the “impartial” investigator’s opinion because of their personal relationship and their work on NZ 5261. They would both, in all probability, want the integrity of NZ 5261 to remain intact because of their involvement in developing it.
47. The “impartial” investigator was also heavily involved with the deregulation of the gas industry and a driving force behind self certification for gasfitting. In light of this I believe he would also have a vested interest in maintaining the integrity of this certification system he had helped create, which has some apparent serious flaws in its application and the PGDB’s administration of it, most if not all of this was raised at the impartiality hearing I had requested, but was dismissed.
48. Further, at the site of this explosion no one has been held accountable, although all copies of the last certificate issued for work carried out at this site of an explosion; lack any gas leak test entry which is a compulsory field on the now electronic website. This certificate is totally in my old manager’s name and was signed for a year after the initial installation and at least a year after my leaving the employment of the gas company mentioned above. The PGDB claim never to have received or registered this certificate, but an electronic version appears on the electronic register on their website. This electronic register also carries a disclaimer stating the inaccuracy of the register.
49. Unfair Investigation
50. I believe I was unfairly investigated, as were the charges brought against me regarding seven properties. Only two, out of 44 charges, regarding one property were upheld, which would be dismissed by a well used British Standard, if it was allowed.
51. As a result my business and reputation was damaged and my ability to earn an income suffered. I believe that the PGDB appointed investigator was not an impartial investigator and that serious evidence was misrepresented or ignored at the Hearing. I was presumed guilty, having to prove innocence and disadvantaged by not allowing me to submit further evidence, which would clear me of all wrong doing, for a situation I had tried to warn about for 6 years.
52. My appeal was dismissed because I could not, due to limiting PGDB policy, give any further evidence. The evidence I tried to adduce was a British Standard that would show what I had done was safe and a relevant alternative to the non-mandatory part two of the NZ 5261 standard that I was found guilty of contravening. Of note, the only other certifying gasfitter in the room at the hearing was on the panel for the PGDB, and he was British.
53. I also tried to adduce an email from another, co-author of NZ5261. This email said I could use a British Standard if it was relevant, and I believe it is. This would have left me completely innocent of any wrong-doing.
54. At the actual hearing I had offered other information and illustrated how I knew the fumes would behave on the appliance I had been later found guilty for installing and certifying. The owner of the same dwelling said he had no problems with it in the previous six years since installation, and it was the only obvious place to put the appliance in question. Even the “impartial” investigator also commented that if the fumes were not entering the building then I would have complied with Part one of NZ5261 which is mandatory, and so I would have done nothing wrong. All of this evidence was apparently ignored, with no further evidence put forward by the PGDB, other than the above mentioned “Table 16”, to go to show what I had done was dangerous, which I still believe it was not.
55. In light of this treatment, and it is very brief and incomplete and a pick of the worst, I would like to ask a question and make a suggestion to the Select Committee
56. My question is-
• Is the Committee comfortable for the PGDB to enforce over a 1000% increase in discipline levies in under a decade and then claim it illegally from tradesman, BUT THEN (and this is my main point and reason for my submission) to use this ill gotten money as a fund to persecute and disadvantage innocent, well meaning, registered trades-people, using this illegal discipline levy as a war chest to bring down any opponents within the industry, or anyone they have a grudge with? As is evidenced by my treatment. They openly boast of a 100% conviction rate.
57. My suggestion is-
• While you are being asked to amend this Act, please consider changing the Act so that the Board is a liable entity or at least open to more than just recommendations, which they routinely ignore. As it is now the Board is non-liable under the Act, and accordingly the PGDB apparently acts with scant regard and impunity The PGDB have done this even while hiding behind, and trying to maintain, the façade of a registered charity, spending as far as I am aware over $46,000.00 in appealing their de-registration as a charity, apparently using the same clause** that is limited to $500.00 when used in making a compensation payment to me because of the letters sent to my customers.
**The Part 148 of the 2006 Act enables the Board in any financial year, to expend for purposes not authorised by any act, a sum not amounting to more than $500.
58. I thank the Committee for your time. And ask with all due respect and humility are these the actions and the behaviour of an organisation that are moral or ethical? Are they the people best suited to lead our industry? Can you trust these people to have a blank cheque as it were, which is what will happen if this is bill is validated and acting with impunity as they are non liable for their actions.
59. There is a huge decline in the industry and training sector, of which I fear we are just seeing the tip of this huge iceberg, the future is bleak. The PGDB is still apparently acting in a corrupt, nepotistic and incompetent manner, continually acting against the best recommendations of the damming OAG report and in the face of the best practice recommendations of the NZ Law Commission, acting apparently in bad faith.
60. If you were in a position to, and are able to appoint a public enquiry, I will provide proof and substance to back my claims.
Yours Sincerely Paul Gee
Share Topic
Topic: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014 (Read 235438 times)
December 10, 2014, 09:43:07 AM