No matter how soft-a-tone I take on to address my fellow
ex-colleagues with, (second removed) from the large Balfour Beatty family and
ask for some information that could hardly be considered confidential or even
provocative – a deep silence is all I get.
For a while I thought I had a direct-line into the ‘brotherhood’,
an official person, ready to be spoken to through the language of reason.
Today he cut off this perceived life-line :
“Please treat this
email as bringing a close to our correspondence.” wrote Andrew Hayward to me in an email as
a response to another message sent to someone else within his company
(Andrew Hayward: Balfour Beatty plc: Head of Ethics, Risk
and Assurance;)
I don’t know if Kafka, Kundera or even George Orwell’s
writings had ever featured in Mr Hayward’s education but I personally can’t help
but see his ‘remarkable arrogance for an appointed judge and jury’ worthy of
some of these writers’ protagonists, when he notes in the same message to me:
“I also refer to my
earlier email, explaining that, in my opinion, Gammon has acted in accordance
with its contractual rights and that no breach of Gammon’s or Balfour Beatty’s
Code of Conduct has been credibly alleged. As such, no further investigation is
warranted under our whistle-blowing policy or otherwise.”
Of course, we are still quibbling over the Gammon affair.
Or I am.
He dismisses the allegation with no interest in the
evidence.
Or my side of the evidence, anyway.
This statement of his also nonchalantly draws a ‘fat
black line’ over my professional credibility as the person making those allegations
– something that I continue to find hard to tolerate.
It would be easier to swallow this idea of being a deceptive
tell-tale if I had the assurance of Mr Hayward that those professionals that
hired me in the first place (such a lowlife) at a significant expense to the
company had been put through the wringer for negligent behaviour themselves and
will never place the company into the risk of a person of my ‘calibre’ being
appointed, let alone supported aggressively into such un-unfitting position as
I had been.
As for one of my allegations, that the mismanagement of a
group of directors of one of the projects the subsidiary is involved in has put
the parent company under undue risk and will potentially cause high loss of
revenue in the future, that according to Mr Hayward ‘has no credibility’, I
have written another post on my other blog;
Not as much to ‘clear my name’ but to reignite some
dialog on how mandated BIM on mega sized rail projects works (or does not as in
this case), partially because the Qatar Metro development is presently getting kicked
into action and other large global-BIM projects are scrambling for advice on
how to handle some pretty ambitious BIM specs.
This story is definitely about how not to do it…
Check it out:
picture from here
No comments:
Post a Comment