Erik Ribsskog My Employment Case Against Arvato's Microsoft Scandinavian Product Activation The Indexed Files

CreateSpace-edition. (c) Erik Ribsskog 2012

Table of Contents
Foreword Explanation CAB. Enclosure 1 Enclosure 2 Enclosure 3 Enclosure 4 Enclosure 5 Enclosure 6 Enclosure 7 Enclosure 8 Enclosure 9 Enclosure 10 Enclosure 11 Enclosure 12 Enclosure 13 Enclosure 14 Enclosure A Enclosure B1 Enclosure B2 Enclosure C Enclosure D Enclosure E Enclosure F Enclosure G Enclosure I Enclosure II Enclosure III Enclosure IV Enclosure V Enclosure VI (The first page) Enclosure VII Enclosure VIII Explanation regarding Encl. IX and more Enclosure X Enclosure XI 4 5 60 62 64 74 83 92 93 135 139 142 151 153 155 159 161 164 171 175 178 180 181 185 188 189 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202

Enclosure XII Enclosure new1 Enclosure new2 Enclosure new3 Enclosure new4 Enclosure new5 Enclosure new6 Enclosure new7 Enclosure new8 Afterword

203 205 206 207 208 209 217 219 221 222

Foreword
In 2006, I started on an employment-case against my then employer Bertelsmann Arvato, where I worked on the Microsoft Scandinavian Product Activation-campaign, (MSPA). I explained about this employement-case, (and some of the process), in an e-mail to Citizen Advice, (CAB), on 23th May 2007. I use this explanation, in this book, to explain about my employment-case. Liverpool, 21th June 2012 Erik Ribsskog PS. Here is the mentioned e-mail to CAB, (from 2007): From: Erik Ribsskog [mailto:eribsskog@gmail.com] Sent: 23 May 2007 04:59 To: Follows, Saffron Subject: Complaint Hi, I'm refering to my phone-call on Friday 18/5, and I'm sending a complaint against the CAB in Dale St., Liverpool. I enclose a file called 'explanation CAB', in which the problems are explained. The last part of the explanation contains a section called 'Complaints against the CAB, Dale St., Liverpool', in which the complaints are listed and indexed. There is also a section called 'The complaint-process so far', in which this is explained about in more detail. Please just contact me if there is something else I should have remembered regarding the complaint. Yours Sincerely, Erik Ribsskog

Explanation CAB.
PROBLEMS WITH THE LIASONS WITH THE POLICE (AND MORE): 25/11/06: On this day there was an episode involving a team-leader at work following me on my way home from work. (Encl. 4) I had been having incidents involving this team-leader earlier (Encl. 4), and when he started following me on my way home from work, I started to fear that this could be connected with problems I had been having with organized criminals (without me myself having been doing anything wrong) in Liverpool, and probably also connected with almost similar problems I had been having in Oslo. Because of this, I thought that the most responsible thing to do, would be to contact the police about this. So I went to the St. Anne's Street police station, and reported this to a police-woman, I think maybe in her 30s with light blond hair. We agreed that she would log this incident, in case this would escalate into a more serious situation. We also agreed that I would return one of the next days with the name of the person. (Which I didnt know at the time). (Log. number: 0611251690). (Note: Encl. I). 26/11/06: The next day I return to the police-station after having spoken about this with my team-leader at work. She tells me that the persons name is Chris Baines. The person working at the police-station reception this day, is a heavily built police-constable, maybe in his late 40s, and with short blond hair. I explained that I had been there the day before, and that I was returning with the persons name, like I had agreed there the day before. (I think I also must have shown him the note with the log-number (Encl. I)). He wanted to know more about what the problem was about, so I gave him a copy I had brought with me, of the summary from the meeting I had been having earlier that day with my team-leader at work. (Encl. 4). I explained that the summary contained an overview of the problems I had been having with the team-leader.

He read about half of the document, and explained that these problems were work-related, and therefore I had to deal with these problems at work. I explained that the incident with the team-leader following me on my way home from work, had not been happening at work. He then said that it had got to be 'continious harassment', before I could report this to the police. He said that it had got to be numerous harassment-incidents, involving the same person(s), before it could be a matter for the police. I said that there had been several episodes (involving the team-leader), at work, but he said that he couldnt do anything about this matter, since it was an employement-case. I said that there had also been several (harassment) incidents been happening towards me different places in town, which I though was probably arranged by organised criminals, or "mob" as I have understood they are called, and that I also suspected that this could be connected with the incidents involving Chris Baines at work, and when he was following me on my way home from work. He didnt want to help me. He continued to say that it was an empolyementcase. And he didnt want to help me even when I said that I thought that the other harassment-incidents that had been happening which was not workrelated, surely would qualify to be 'continious harassment'. (without me being an expert on legal-terms). I had to raise my voice to get to explain this without being ignored. So all the people that were in the station must have heard all that was being said. But he wouldnt listen, and wouldnt give me any help. He wasnt responding to the things I was saying. He wouldnt even log the team-leaders name, like the other constable and I had agreed on the day before. Since he was only ignoring me, and didnt want to give me any help, it seemed to me like I wasnt very welcome there, so I decided to leave since I wasnt getting any help. (It seemed a bit to me like I was on the brink to being thrown out. It seemed a bit odd to me that I wasnt given any answer about what to this, but I didnt want to argue to much with the police eighter, so I just went home, even if I didnt get an answer). The non work-related incidents had been happening around town earlier, I hadnt reported them, because I had been in contact with the police a lot before about other, more important matters (the problems with organised criminals in Norway and at my old address), without getting any help on this, or getting in a proper dialog with the police. They said that they would call back, but they didnt, except for once, when constable Bolderstein from the police-station in Walton (where my old address was), called me at work, and said that the case had been put away/filed. Most of these incidents were often so strange and peculiar, that it would probably seem strange and peculiar reporting them. Therefore I thought I'd try to report the more important incidents, and the incidents that wasnt

so strange and peculiar first, and then get in a dialog with the police. And then, when I had gotten in a dialog with the police, and then when I had gotten to know the police-empoyes better, then I thought I could start telling about the other incidents which were often strange, peculiar and embarrasing to explain about. I thought that if I started telling about only these strange incidents at first, without knowing the constable/officer, then the constable/officer would probably think I was crazy or something, because so strange and peculiar were many of these incidents. 28/11/06 On the 28th of November, I was in two meetings at work. (Encl. 3 and 6). In the first meeting, Senior team-leader Aidan Tippins, lied, and said that there wasnt a team-leader with the name of Chris Baines in the company. (Encl. 6). And in the other meeting, (Encl. 3), Senior team-leader Aidan Tippins and Sarah Rushby from HR, were helping Chris Baines with covering up the incidents I had reported in Encl. 4. These meetings, together with other situations, (Encl. II point 5, and Encl. G), made me more and more certain that the company was having a problem with a criminal organisation having infiltrated or taken over the company. So I decided to go back to the police once more, even if they wouldnt give me any help two days earlier. I explained to a police-constable in his 40s, with short ginger hair, whom I later, on 01/03/07, found out that had the collar-number 2155. I explained that the Senior Team-leader had been lying, and that Sarah Rushby and the Senior Team-leader, had tryed to cover up for Chris Baines for the episodes I had reported in Encl. 4. I also started reading from a draft of Encl. 6, which I had been writing at home just before I went to the police-station. And he asked if he could read the draft. He said that they would call Chris Baines at work the next day. He logged this as a new case. I asked for the log-number, and he said that I should call back in about an hour, then they would have logged it. This was at about 11 pm. I called at about 12 pm, and they said that they would call me back. When they called a bit later, I got the lognr: 16. 29/11. The woman calling, Kim, said that due the problems I had been having with these persons, I should inform higher management about this.

I asked if she meant the Managing Director, and she said yes. Notes: Encl. III. The day after I had a meeting with the Managing Director. I also thought it would be irresponsible of me not to make more people aware of the problem in the company, so I also choose to alert the parent-company Bertelsmann in Germany, and also some newspapers etc. This was because there was no way for me to know how far upwards in the organisation these problemes streched. So it was clear to me that the only thing responsible would be to alert more people than just higher management. First I sent an email to the Managing Director (Encl. 2), where I asked for a meeting as soon as possible (Encl. 5). In the meeting, I adviced the Managing Director to seek help from competence outside of the company, which had expert knowledge on these problems. The police had the day before said that they were going to call Chris Baines at work. The Managing Director asked me if it was anything else I thought he should do about the situation, and I adviced him to contact the police. He asked me if I could give him the lognumber, and later email him the evidence of organised crime in the company, that I had explained in the email (Encl. 2) and in the meeting (Encl. 5) that I had got. I gave him the lognumber I had got from the police when they called me at home something like 12 hours earlier. (It took about 3 or 4 hours from I sent him the email, until the meeting was started. I asked a Key-Acount Manager (I think her title was) in the company where the Managing Directors office was, and knocked on his door at around 10 I think it must have been, but he was then busy in a meeting, speaking with a man in his 30s or 40s with shirt and tie, and dark hair, If I remember correctly. And they had a few sheets of paper lying beetween them on the meeting-table). The Managing Director gave Sarah Rusby the responsebility of investegating the problems I had reported in the email (Encl. 2), and which we had discused in the meeting (Encl. 5). The Managing Director also said that he was responsible for my security at work. And that due to the risks to my security that I had informed about in the email and in the meeting, he could not be responisble for my security at work, so he said that I should stay home with pay, untill they would call me at a later time, when they had finished investigating the matter. (I remember he seemed relived/content with that I was not going away on holiday

in my holidays. I said that it wouldnt be a problem for me asisting the investigation (I had in mind an investigation led by someone outside of the company. I hinted several times in the email and in the meeting that I didnt trust Sarah Rushby. I wrote that she was involved in the covering up, and reminded her in the meeting that the police were inpartial etc.), even if it was on one of my holidays). I asked the Managing Director first if it was alright if I stayed at work, but only worked on finishing the summaries from the quite many meetings I had been on in the last weeks, but he declined, giving the reason mentioned above. I then asked if it was alright if I worked on finishing the summaries at home, and that he said was ok. In the next days and weeks, I was sitting at home finishing the summaries. I reckoned that Bertelsmann probably would have their own investigation about/ take some action regarding the problems I had alerted them about. I had sent the same emails (Encl. 2, Encl. 4 and Encl. 6), to both Arvato Germany, and to the Bertelsmann hq. in Germany. I also reckoned that the Managing Director would follow my advice and contact the police. Especially since he had asked for the log number for the case. He gave me the impression that he would follow my advice and contact the police. And I also thought it if he didnt get help from the police, that he might contact some kind of expertise from outside the company which could help investigating this. (Without me knowing who that would be, but it seems like a good general advice at least, if companies get problems they havent got expert-knowledge on how to solve, that they bring in experts from outside the organisation). I also reckoned that the police would investigate the case. They had told my the day before that they would call Chris Baines about this on work the next day, the same day we had this meeting. And since I also had reported about the problems to the media, I was really waiting for reading about this in the news and/or being contacted by at least one investigation about these problems. But nothing happened. Letter from Arvato The only thing that happened was that happened was that I recieved a letter from Arvato, about the problems Ive reported from Arvato 13/12/06. (Encl. 1). The letter was signed by Sarah Rusby, whom I therefore presumed was still leading the investigation. The letter was delivered on my door in the afternoon/evening 13/12, and the letter invited me to a meeting at 10 am. the next day, 14/12.

If I hadnt by chance gone to the gym to work out in the evening 13/12, I wouldnt have seen the letter before I would have goon to pick up the mail the next day, 14/12, at around 12 am. And the meeting was scheduled at 10 am. the same day. In the letter, it said that I could bring a member from the Union to the meeting. But it wouldnt have been possible for me to contact someone from the Union and then inform them about the case, in time for the meeting (which was scheduled about 2 hours earlier than the time on which I normally would have recieved the letter inviting me to the meeting). I concluded that this letter was so unproffesional that I couldnt take it seriously. I also considered the letter to be a continuation of the harassment. (since I thought the letter was unprofessinal, and also delivered to me on my door when I had explained about the team-leader following me home after work. I thought that a company like Arvato should send their letters by Royal Mail, and not getting someone, who I presumed was an Arvato employee, to deliver the letter on my door. Especially not when I had earlier, in the same case, complained about Arvato employees following me almost to my doorstep). Ive explained more about this in Encl. II. Summaries I first wrote the summaries by hand in Norwegian. Then I started transfering them to English. I thought it would be smartest to transfer the summaries to English. Naturally because English was the language used at work. And I also reckoned that these summaries could assist a more serious investigation led by eg. the Police or Bertelsmann. So I continued working on writing the enclosures 2 to 7 in English. I had also used some time to sort all the work-related documents, which I hadnt got to sort properly before. I got quite a few more letters from Arvato. Some of the new letters were delivered on my door, and some were sent by Royal Mail. I didnt open the new letters, because I thought the first letter they sent had been

so unserious/unprofessional. I only opened the letter they sent me around the end of the month, which contained my pay-slip. I didnt have that much money left, so I was wondering how much money I would recieve. The Managing Director had said on the meeting (Encl. 5), that I should stay at home, but that I still would recieve my salary. He also said that they would call me. But they didnt call. I checked my pay-slip (Encl. IV), and in the same envelope as the pay-slip, I also recieved a form called 'Details of employees leaving work', from the Inland Revenue. (Encl. V). On this form, it said that my last workday was 18/12/06. This was the same date as my contract (Encl. VI) expired. I then naturally asumed that the work-relationship had ended due to my contract having expired. I thought that this was fine by me. I didnt want anything to do with the company anyway, until the problems with organised crime were sorted. I was starting to run of money, so I decided I had get myself a new job. But I understood that if I started in a new job, then this would take away much of my focus on the summaries etc, and make it easy to forget details from my old job. This due to that one often have to reset one self, and have to cope with many new things when starting in a new job. I understood that it could be important that the summaries were as accurate as possible, I therefore decided that I would finish them while I still had the details fresh in my head. And then start applying for work when I had finished writing the summaries. I thought the Police had acted a bit strange when I was seeing them at the police-station on three different occations in the end of November. On one of the occations, the Police wouldent even log what I reported. They also asked me to contact higher management, even if I on the three occations informed them that this possibly (on the first occation), most likely (from what I explained on the second occation) and certainly (from what I explained on the third occation), had got to do with organised crime. But when the police called me on 29/11/06, they sounded worried, and it seemed clear to me that they had knowlegde about these persons from before (and that this is why they sounded worried).

But they still didnt offer to help me. They still told me to go back to the company and contact higher management.

When the Police called me on 29/11/06, I was sitting and wondering if I should escalate the matter to the Manager of Operations Phil Jones, or to the Managing Director. (There were a lot of things going on in the company at the time (see Encl. 7), and I felt that my job was threatened due to the many attacks from team-leaders etc. etc. I was working on describing all of the irregularities that I found to be going on in the company. (in Encl. 7). This work wasnt finished, and I didnt want to get fired due to breaching company policy etc, or for any other reason, before I had finished writing that summary. This because I thought that the problems with org. crime in the company, could be related with the problems I had been having with org. crime in Norway, and also elsewhere in town which were non work-related. I hadnt managed to get any help with these problems, so I thought that if I could document all the problems in the company, then it would that all these problems couldnt be coincidental, there had to be a logical reason for why a company like Arvato, which are part of a big mulitnational company like Bertelsmann, had such many irregulareties going on from the management. I thought it was unlikely that the lightning would struck at the same place twice, (that I would get problems with criminal organisations both in England and Norway, without these problems being connected). So I thought that if I could start to nest from one end of the problems (the problems at Arvato), then it might in the end also solve the other problems in England and Norway. Thats why I though it was import to finish the summaries, and thats I would have risked going back to Arvato even if understood the situation. I was determent on finishing the summaries, to describe what was going on. I thought that since there were so many people working at Arvato, then there wasnt that risky working there. (I would risk going there to finish the summaries, since I found the situation I was in very difficult, not getting any help etc.) (But when I later had finished the summaries, then I didnt find it worth taking any risk to go back there. Going back then would also seem very stupid. Because then the people at Arvato could eg. say to eg. Bertelsmann, that whatever I meant with my alerts, it couldnt be that serious, since I now had returned to work, and was working as usual.)

So, since I had planned to do this, then this new situation that had arrised, with the team-leader following on my way home from work, with the Senior team-leader lying, with the covering up in the meeting etc, was really a bit of a distraction from what I had really planned to do. But when the police called, and sounded worried, and said that I should report this to higher management, then I thought this was a bit strange, why wouldnt they help me when they obviously thought this was serious. But it was already clear to me that there were problems with org. crime in the company. (Encl. II point 5, Encl. G etc)., and when the police called and it seemed clear to me that they were also worried due to the persons that were involved in this. Then this confirmed even more what I from before was clear to me, and it also gave me an oppertunity. Because now, I could escalate it how much I wanted I thought, without fear of loosing my job, and the chance to finish the summaries. So this was a new situation now, I though what do I do now, how do I deal with this in the most responsible way possible. Id learned on management courses in the company I used to worked with in Norway, that the company wanted employees who could think by themselves (make decisions) and act responsible. The things we were thought about the Norwegian companies policies when it came to management etc, looked very similar to the Bertelsmanns priniciples that I had been reading on the poster on the wall on the 4th floor in the Arvato offices in the Cunard building. So I recked from this, and from what Ive read about the Bertelsmann Principles, that also Bertelsmann wanted to have employes who though by themselves/made their own decisions, and acted responsible. So I thought, if I look at this in buisness perspective, its my responsibilty to act as responisble as possible with this, and make my own desicions, (as an Arvato/Bertelsmann employee). I understood that it would be an advantage in a situation like this to act fast. So that the criminal organisation wouldnt get control, if you acted to slow. So I thought that I, as an Arvato/Bertelsmann employee, now probably was the only employee in the company that had a chance to do anything about this. Because of the information I had got, and the contact from the police which it seemed clear to me supported the way the situation seemed to me. So I thought, that I had to find the most responsible way to act.

Since there was no way for me to know how far upwards in the organisation this problem was streached, then I would act responsible if I only alertet the Managing Director. So I decided that I had to alert Arvato Germany and Bertelsmann as well. But I also though that since they were in another country, then it could be that the Liverpool-branch was quite indipendant, and that Arvato Germany and Bertelsmann didnt have that much control on the English department. (I though this was likely, since these problems existed). So because of this, I thought maybe Arvato Germany and Bertelsmann could be calmed down by the English department, even if they recieved my alerts. They could be persuaded to think that it wasnt serious or something like that. This seemed like a possible scenario to me. I thought that it was very important that this didnt get covered up. To try to reduce the risk of such a scenario happening as much as possible. So I decided that I also had to contact the Media if I wanted to act responsible. I had already alerted the police, but I wasnt totaly convinced about that they would deal with it responsibly, due to what happened when I went there 26/11/06, and what they said in the call just at this time, that I should go back there and contact higher management, even if it was clear what was going on. I though that to deal with situations like these really was a job for the police, and that they shouldnt advice employees to return to the company under these circomstanses.

To complete the summaries, took a bit of time. The reason was that, like one can read in Encl. 7, it was layed to much work on my shoulders the last months I was working in the company. So I was very exchausted. I hadnt had much holiday eighter. Most of my holidays were to be taken in December (Encl. 25). This was much to do with that when I aplied to get my holidays in October and/or November, I didnt get holidays on the days I had applied for them. I instead got my rest-days moved, so that I had rest-days on the days I had

applied for holidays. The reason I wanted holidays in the automn, was because I was over-worked. I needed to work over-time to pay my bills, and there were often needed extra workforce on the campaign. So I tryed to get to work extra on my restdays (about 2 days a month), to get extra money to pay my bills. But I was tired, so I applied for holidays, because then I cope with working over-time on my rest-days, and get extra payed. (You didnt get extra payed if you worked on your holidays, then you only got a lue-day). But I only got the rest-days moved, and not the holidays I had aplied for. I brought this issue up with my line-manager, Line Slettvold, but she said that this practise was normal when one applied for holidays. She said that if one wanted the holidays one applied for to be taken from your remaining holidays, (and not being moved rest-days), then one had to specify this when one applied for holidays. This lead to that I had to work more days than 5 days a week, to pay my bills. And the shift-plans were also quite peculiar, when it came to me being given very few rest-days in the beginning of the month (which I would need to work in to get the money on the next salary, due to the cut-date). Also new restictions were interduced on swapping shits with other employees, and more. So I was a bit tired when I was home from work, so I needed to some restdays as well in December. I was really exhausted, due to the workload. But in the middle of January, I had finished working on the summaries. On Monday 15/1 I was thinking about how I would do it regarding finding a new job. I didnt have a letter from Arvato to show new employers (cant remember the English word), so I though it could be tricky finding a new job. And I was almost out of money, so I decided to go to the jobcenter, and register as unemployed. I reckoned that the jobcenter probably would be asking me about the details on why I ended working for Arvato. I also reckoned that there probably would be a court-case or something because of all this.

So I though I probably shouldnt discuss this in detail at the jobcentre. Also I thought that it could be a for employees at the jobcentre to be involved in situations like these. So I wasnt sure what to tell them. So I though that because of the risk to the jobcentre employees, and the risk of probably be asked questions that it seemed to me should be treated in a court-room, I thought I could bring my summaries to the police, and ask them for advice on how to deal with the jobcentre. The reason I wanted to bring my summaries, was that on earlier occations, I had been having problems convincing the police that it wasnt an employementcase, but a criminal case. So I thought that if I could show them the summaries, since it was a complicated case. Then it would be possible for me to show them how the things were connected, without having to start to raise my voice and almost having to argue etc. to try to explain to the police what was going on. Eg. like if you see the letter from Arvato (Encl. 1), then someone could say that of course you should have gone to the meeting. But if you look at the contence of the email (Encl. 2), and the summary from the meeting the same day, then you can see that the Managing Director was warned about Sarah Rushby taking part in the covering up on the harrasment-meeting, and then its easier to explain why one didnt go to the meeting. Instead of maybe having to 'argue' about these things. It would also help on any language problems etc, to have this readily explained in English. So I brought with me the enclosures 1-25, the letter from Inland Revenue (Encl. V), and went to the police-station on 16/1. 16/01/07 In the reception it was a constable that I hadnt seen before, more or less shouting at me if this had got to do with the harassment-incidents, I had reported earlier (in the end of November), because this I had to deal with at work. The constable was Keith Holmes, collar-number 9723. I showed to him Enlosure V, and explained that I wasnt working there any longer, and that I didnt know what to say at the jobcentre. So Holmes let me speak to Sgt. Camel (or it could have been Connel, O'Connel (?)), and also another constable.

They had collar-numbers 1718 and 1183). The sergant went through some of the documents (Encl. 1-25), and said that this was an employement-case, and that I should go to the CAB and ask to get to speak with a solicitor. (I hadnt really prepared to discuss this, I had just finished writing the summaries and now I had to start applying for work, because I was running out of money.) I said that if a lawer went through the documents, they would see that this surely was a criminal case. He said I should tell the jobcentre that this was a case that I had reported to the CAB, and that would be dealt with by the Crowns court. Jeg tryed to explain that the company I had worked in was infiltradet by a criminal organisation. (I had of course told them this before, and I had alerted a lot of organisations, the media etc about this, so I of course reckoned that something was done about this. But I couldnt be sure until I knew for sure. I though that this would be in the internet-papers, on the tv news etc, or that someone would ask me to assist a proper investigation etc.). But I didnt know what has had been going on, and I needed money, so had to register as unemployed. But I wanted to act responsible, and ask the police what I could tell about this at the jobcentre, so that I wouldnt do anything wrong when it came to dealing with the jobcentre. And I wasnt really prepared to discussing the other stuff, it came as a surprise, I thought it most probably had been dealt with. I had only written the summaries, I hadnt actually prepared to explain that it was a crime-case. I had prepared to explain the problem with what to tell the jobcentre. I wanted to bring the rest of the documents to the police-station the next day to better explain why it was a crime-case. But the Sergant said that this wasnt necesary.

17/01/07 I went to the jobcentre, and got told to call an office to register as unempoyed. -

18/01/07 they called me from the jobcentre, and got details about my address, bank-details etc. etc. I told them the clerk that there were special circomstances surrounding why I ended working for the firm, but I didnt go to more detailes than this. It was made an appointment, that I should go to the jobcentre at Williamsons Square, for a meeting with P. Chopra on the 22/01 at 2.30 pm. I thought that I should really go to the CAB before the meeting on the jobcentre. If I were going to tell the jobcentre that the case was being investigated by the CAB/Crowns Court. On the meeting 16/1, they had told me that if this was a police-matter, then the solicitor given to me by the CAB would return the matter to the police. But I really thought it would be irresponsible of me to involve a Solicitor in the details about a organised crime case. Especially since I didnt know how the situation was. I didnt know for sure that things were ok, so I had to act like it wasnt. It was obvious that this was a police-matter. I didnt actually know where I had the police, I didnt know if I could trust them due to the problems when I went there in November, and with the advice to contact higher management etc. So instead of going to the CAB, i decided that I should instead try to go to the police again, to try explain to them again that it was a police-matter. So I tryed to sit down and describe it in a letter, some of the reasons that this was a police-case. In a way that I could document. I tryed to do this in a way so that it couldnt be disputed that this was a police-case. So I wrote the letter that is enclosure II, and went back to the police

on 22/01. 22/01/07 At the police-station, I again spoke with Keith Holmes. I had brought my laptop. At the last meeting the police hadnt been to interested in the documents. And there were a lot of other documents than the enclosuers 1-25. So I thought I could just show them the letter (Encl. II), on the computer-screen. And also the other documents, the ones who werent indexed yet, to browse through them, since these documents supported what was said in Encl. II etc. (and it would save time and also ink from the printer, and maybe also look more professional/less boring than only having the documents in the form of paper-sheets.) Because even if I wasnt sure about the police, like mentioned before, I wanted to give it a try. I wanted to cooperate with them, and deal with this in the most professional manner I could. Holmes said that he couldnt look at my computer due to the data protection act. He wanted me to contact Crimestoppers about this, or the CAB. I explained that if I got to show them the new letter and the unindexed documents, then it would be clear to them that this was a crime-case. It was obvious to me that this was a police-case, so even if I didnt know what the situation was, I still wanted to deal with this in a professional and proper manner. Therefore I tryed to get him to have a look at the documents. I said I had also recently found some new information, (which I had, and wanted to discuss in a meeting, which I presumed we would regarding the new letter etc). So in the end I got him convinced to have a look at it. We agreed that I would go home and print out the documents, and return the police-station with this as soon as possible.

So I went and had to buy some ink to the printer. I think i got the numbers for the ink-cartrigde mixed up with an old ink-cartridge number for a printer I used to have in Norway. (I was a bit tired and stressed). So I couldnt find the right cartridge, so I ended buying a new printer for 19 at Argos. Then I went home and started printing the documents. We had agreed that I would return with the documents eighter later that day or the day after. I thought since there had been some problems with the contact with the police etc, that I had to show that I wanted to deal with this as profesional as possible, and try to give a good impression. So I decided that I wanted to go there the same day with the documents, and not the day after, it could seem like I didnt take it seriousy. So I called the jobcenter in Cressington. (It said that one should call Cressington to change the appointment time, on the cover-letter that came with Encl. D). When I called Cressington, I got told that I should call the Williamsons Square jobcentre at 0151.801.5700. Which I did at 1.55 pm. I called from my mobile, so the time is possible to read on the call-registry. I called the jobcentre twice, but noone answered. So I decided to instead go there the next day and explain about the situation. Why I didnt show for the meeting. Then I printed the rest of the documents, and delivered the letter (Encl. II), together with all the indexed and unindexed documents. All of these became Encl. VII. (There were some hassle with the printer so some documents were printed twice, and there could be that some documents were missing, but I had an overview over which documents that had been printed and which who hadent, so I was sure that I had included the most

important documents, and also more or less all of the documents, maybe missing a few, but there shouldnt have been any of the documents I regarded as most important missing). I also thought it was important to try to deliver them quite fast, to show that I took this seriously, so I didnt want to go out and buy more ink, I thought that the most important stuff was there. These dokuments I delivered to con. 3847 Victoria Steele, at around 5 pm the same day. I showed her the collar-number for the constable I had been speaking with, which I had written on a note. (Encl. VIII, I think this enclosure has a tag which says Encl. VIII in Norwegian, and if I remeber correctly, then the tag is hiding the collar-number on the scan, but it should still be possible to see con. Steeles own collar-number there, which she wrote herself on the note.) Steele said that the constables name was Keith Holmes, wrote his name on the same note (also hidden I think), and refered to him as 'the superintendant'. I asked her if she could give him the documents, and she said that she would do that. (notes: Encl. VIII).

23/01/07 I went to the jobcentre, and explained that I couldnt come to the meeting the day before, due to a police-case, and that I had tried to call, and that I was there to set up an appointment for a new meeting. I got to speak with a clerk called Michelle, and she asked several times (Encl. D), why I didnt show for the meeting. She told me (complained to me) how important it was that one were activly applying for jobs, (even if I had only been registered unemployed since 16/01). She asked several times about why I didnt show, and she wasnt content with hearing that it was due to a police-case, but she also wanted to know the details about what type of police-case it was etc.) I said she would have to contact the police to get the details. (The next time I was at the jobcentre, at the meeting which I got the

appointment for by Michelle at this meeting. At this, the next meeting, the new clerk (sitting at the same table as Michelle did, if I remember right). He was a bit elderly clerk, who checked details about my name etc., and copied my passport. This clerk asked for the lognumber for the police-case, when I explained to him why I couldnt show for the first meeting). There was also a couple of other incidents at the jobcentre this day. (23/01). A lady wanted to know if I was Swedish, when she heard me talking to the guard about my errend at the reception-point at the ground-floor. I had been living in Liverpool for some time, and sometimes I speak almost scouse when I am in shops etc. because of this. So when I spoke to the guard at the reception-point, I that I spoke more or less scouse. (I refered to the job-centre as 'job-centah' etc.) And I dont really think I used a particularely distinct Scandinavian accent at all when I was speaking with the guard there. Yet, as soon as I had explained my errend, a woman in her 40s or 50s turns towards me from the phones-area, and ask if Im Swedish. The way she acted seemed unnatural to me. I answered 'Norway, neigbour country, impressive'. I dont think what I said must have confused her, because she just turned numb, and I think turned back to the phone-area. And when I walked up the stairs to the first floor, to speak with Michelle. (or really the guard downstairs asked me to speak with a guy I dont remember the name for, or Michelle. He said the names quite unclear, and quite fast). Then in the staircase up to the first floor, another unnatural-acting person started talking to me. It was a clean-cut guy in his 20s I think, a bit more 'snobbish' than the average Scouse-person maybe, from London or something maybe. And he follows me up the stairs, and starts talking commenting on the guards scouse-accent. Complaining about the scouse accent. Im not sure how to explain it but I really sounded scouse when I spoke myself, so I didnt quite get the way this person acted to fit in with the situation.

It seemed like he had practised for a different scenario. And I dont think it would be usual for a 'snob' kind of person from probably a big English city, to start talking in a stair-case to a stressed looking person, in a like mate-ish/trusting/ confinding(?, Im not sure if thats the word) way, with a stressed Norwegian. It would have been more beliveable if I had been a guy from London, or wherever he was from, myself. Then I could have understood it. But when the woman asked me load and clear if I was from Sweden, and I answered Norway. I dont think a guy like that normally would confind in me about his disliking of the scouse accent. And I usually speak quite load and I am usually not that relaxed in places like English jobcenters where Ive hardly have been before. And acutally, people very rearly level with me at all, so that he suddently wanted to be my friend/level with me. I thought it was a bit peculiar. And he looked like a clean cut, well adapted guy, with new, probably expensive clothes. And probably from London. What was he really doing in a Liverpool jobcentre at all? And then starting to make remarks that didnt fit in eighter. It seemed very odd. (peculiar). And then when on top of this Michelle starts to asking questions about the details about the police-matter, then the whole experience started to take form of a visit to a local amatour teater or something like that. After the meeting I was a bit stressed, and I had already planned to go to the food-store, so I did that. On my way home, a lorry driver wanted me to tell him the way to St. Annes Street, I was still stressed but I tryed as good as I could. (I think I managed to show him the wrong way actually, stressed as I was). But the peculiar bit, was that the lorry-driver didnt want some English guys passing to explain him the way. He insisted on me, a stressed Norwegian, to explain him the way, even if he must have understood that I wasnt British. I was really tired and stressed, I just went on auto-pilot home to get some rest. -

24/01/07 I went to the police-station again. Victoria Steele had told me when I was there the last time, that she would get Keith Holmes to call me. (About a meeting about the documents i reckoned. I thought this would have been a natural way to go forward with the case). But noone had called. So I decided to go back to the police-station again, to ask why noone had called, and to tell about the peculiar insident at the job-centre etc. When I got to the police-station, it was the same light blond police woman working there, that was working the first time I went there to log the incident about Chris Baines following me on my way home from work on 26/11/06. But she just turned when she saw me, looking nervous/frightened/ shocked almost. Something like that. She went back again, and out came another police-woman. I had got into the habbit of writing down the collar-number of the policeconstables I was speaking with, to keep track of who had said what etc. But this one didnt have a collar-number. She had a blue or black blazer over her shirt. She had a broad gold-ring on her left long-finger (?), and a band-aid on her other long-finger, it must have been. I think she must have been in her 40s, altough she looked younger 24/1, than when I went back 25/1. I showed her the note on which Steele had written her collar-number, and her collegues, Holmes' collar number. Steele had called Holmes 'the superintendant'. And I refered to Holmes as the superintendant. Then the police-woman answered 'thats not the superintendant', when I showed her the note where Steele had written Holmes' name and

number. Then she continued, before I could explain why I was there, that she would ask Steele to call me later the same day, as soon as her shift started. The police-office was full of youths, and the police-constable seemed quite nervous, and didnt want me to finish it seemed. It could be because of all the youths in the office, that she didnt want them to hear to much. Without me knowing this for sure. But it seemed that way to me. And it seemed a bit strange that they switched police-constable, and that the new one didnt want to let me finish expaining. And also that Holmes wasnt the superintendant any longer. And that she didnt have a collar number. 25/01/07 Steele ringte meg ikke, s jeg gikk tilbake neste dag. Det var samme politidama som dagen fr i resepsjonen. Hun sa at hun hadde gitt beskjed, og at hun skulle gi beskjed igjen. I asked what I should do if other things happened in the mean-time, like for instance the episode on the jobcentre. She said that then I should makes note of it on a piece of paper, and report it when Steele called me. She seemed a bit stresset. The whole room was full of youths, like the day before. And it was a guy standing in the door into the reception-room who wasnt smelling very nice. And I thought it was a bit strange that neighter Holmes or Steele had called like they said they would. I really thought that the police had been acting strange all the time since November regarding this. But I thought I should just wait and see if they called, they probably had their reasons. I didnt think I could go there every day eighter, when I had been there 4 times the 4 last days, and about 10 times the last 2-3 months. notes: Encl. VIII.

30/1 30/1 I was on a new meeting at the job-centre. It was on this meeting that the jobcentre-clerk wanted to know the lognumber for the police-case. 9/2 The days passed, and I still didnt hear anything from the police. I think it was eighter 9/2 or 12/2, that I went back to St. Annes, and explained that Steele was supposed to call me, but didnt. The guy that was working there took a couple of phone-calls I think in the other room. He returned after a while, and told that Steele was working from 10 pm til 7 am from tuesday 13/2 and the two next days. After this she was going on vacation. I remember I tought that it was a bit strange that she was going on a vacation in February. Most people are going on vacation in the summer-time or at Christmas etc. 13/2 So I tryed to call her back 13/2. I got her phonenumber from the central on 777.4100. But she didnt answer.

14/2 So on 14/2, I went to the station after 10 pm to try to see if she was there. Holmes was working in the reception again. He said he had recieved the documents (Encl. VII). He said that he had read a little on the top, a little in the midle, and a little in the bottom of the pile of documents. But he said that it wasnt anything about organised crime there, it was only an employement-case. I hadnt really prepared to discuss this, I had only prepared to speak

with Steele about why she hadnt called. And since it is a quite complicated case, and I had been aplying for some jobs etc, I had been having a lot of other stuff on my mind. So I just answered 'ok', when he said I had to take it to the CAB. Earlier I had been telling him that I didnt think it would be safe to involv a solicitor in this. And that it was a police-matter. So I thought that probalby the police dosent always say what they mean, but that it should probably be alright to bring it to a solicitor, when the police advice me to do it all the time. And I was also a bit tired of aruging with them, and I am a Norwegian citizen, so I thought it was a limit on how far I could go with arguing with the British police. While I was standing there thinking about what to do, another guy came into the police-station. Then I just said that I would contact the CAB. I also said that there was another episode I also had to report to them. (The incident at the jobcentre, Encl. D). Men I didnt want to talk about the details when the new guy was there, so I told the constable that I would call him about that later.

Then on 16/2, I recieved a letter from the found property department at the police. (Encl. C). It said that MISS Erik Ribsskog should meet at the police-station as soon as possible, to get some papers they thought were mine. (Encl. VII). I thought it was a bit strange that they would write MISS Erik Ribsskog, due to Eric being a quite common name in the USA and the other English-speaking countries. I asked Liz Murphy at the Norwegian consulte in Liverpool if she also didnt think that this was a bit strange. She answered that she tought it was. She thought it had to do with the people writing it being uneducated. I think that she probably is right in that they could need to be a bit more educated. No matter if the reason is that they are uneducated, or if they write it as a joke, or any other reason, I at least think that this is a

couse for consern, when the police treats a serious case like this, who is affecting so many Norwegian and Scandinavian citizens, in such an unprofessional way. 17/2 I went to the St. Annes police-station, and got the documents (Encl VII), and then I went to the CAB. But the CAB was closed for drop-in, so I decided to go back there again on the Monday. 19/2 I went back to the CAB, and explained that the police had adviced me to go there. I said like Holmes had said 14/2, that it was clear to him that there had been comitted wrongdoing againt me, I think was the words he used. The CAB set me up with a meeting with a Solicitor on the 27/2. 27/2 I was on a meeting with solicitor Eleanor Pool from Moorecrofts Solicitors. On the meeting i brought the enclosures 1-25, and the letter that is enclosure II. I also bring some new encloseres that are about things that has happened since I delivered the documents to the police 22/1. The new enclosures were encl. A-G, that are described in Encl. XI. Pool says that its clear to her that this is both a crime-case and an employment-case. The meeting is set to last for 30 minutes, so we havent got time to go through all the files. But she reads Encl. II and also Encl. A. (++) Ive also brought with me a letter from the jobcentre (Encl. B2), where they want med to answer questions like 'What grievances did you have and who where they against', 'Why did you use the email system without first trying to rectify your grivances throug the appropriate channels, please', etc. They wanted to ask me this, because Sarah Rushby had informed them that: 'It was proven that Erik displayed inappropriate behavior by using the email system for personal use, making allogations about employees and forwarding this info. to third parties before allowing the Company the oppertunity to resolve these issues through the greveance procedure

and bringing the Company in disrepute. As the Company can bring the employement to and end during the probationary period, for any reason and without reference to the diciplinary procedure, the rest of the questions are not applicable.' If i didnt answer these questions within a week, I could lose my jobseekers-allowance, it said. There were also to be sent copies of my answers to my old employer. It also said in the letter that I had been dismissed. I thought it was a bit strange that I suddently had been 'dismissed' now, when it in the letter from the Inland Revenue (Encl. V), says the same leave-date as in the empoyment-contract (Encl. VI). I thought that this meant that the reason for the employment ending was due to the contract having expired. I had also explained about these questions in the meeting with the Managing Director 29/11. (Encl. 5). And I meant that I when I contacted the police on 25/11/06, 26/11/06 and 28/11/06, and also later. And by on 19/02/07 going to the CAB and set up at meeting with a solicitor. I meant that I by doing this, have started a process of getting these issues treated by the government/legal system/court system. So I meant that these questions were already being dealt with, (at a higer level than at the jobcentre). So I meant that these issues shouldnt be treated by the jobcenter untill this, the first process, had ended. Also because I thought these issues were to serious to be dealt with at the jobcentre. They should be dealt with by police or others who are trained to deal with them. So because of this, I asked the Solicitor, if she could have a look at the letter. I asked about this, even if the 30 minuttes were over. This was because that I had only got 7 days to sort this by the jobcentre. And I thought it wouldnt be time to set up a new meeting. Since it was only this day and three other days left of the seven days I had got to answer. And I didnt know that the meeting only lasted 30 minutes, untill I got told so when the 30 minutes had past.

So the Solicitor looked at the letter, and said that I should answer it. But this was a complicated case, I would have had to send them the enclosures 1-25 and more, to get to explain them the reasons. An as mentioned earlier, I didnt think the jobcentre was the right place to deal with this. But the meeting had ended, so I didnt get to explain this properly. Due to that the time for the meeting had really ended, and I thought she could might have overlooked some of the details, since there wasnt much time to look at the letter. So I wasnt sure if she due to this could have overlooked the fact that the jobcentre would send copies of my answers to the employer. And I wasnt sure if this was right eighter. I really would have had to send Encl. 1-25 ++, to the jobcentre, to explain them this properly. So I wasnt sure about this, and I didnt think it would be possible to sort with a new meeting in time for the time-limit (and this would also had cost me 140/hour, which I didnt have). 28/2 I got the letter sent (Encl. X) from the Solicitor, regarding the meeting the day before at the CAB. She writes that they can help me with the harassment-part of case. (But this would cost me 140/hour). Neighter the Police or the CAB had informed me that it would cost 140/hour to get help from the Solicitor. So I thought that the situation was a bit confusing when I read about the 140. Before the meeting with the Solicitor, I had been sitting up more or less all night sorting with the new enclosures (A-G). So I was a bit tired on the 28th, so I was only at home in my flat relaxing this day. So I didnt actually find this letter before I went out on the 1/3. But I remember thinking when I found it, that it must have been laying there from the day before. I dont remember excactly now, why I thought this, but it could be with that I had noticed earlier that we didnt get any mail on some

Fridays, so I thought maybe they dont deliver mail as often as five days a week. (I checked it now, and the 28th was a Wednesday, and the 29th a Thursday, so it couldnt have had anything to do with this. It could have been that I went downstairs earlier than 11-12 am, and that it couldnt have been delivered yet on the Thursday. I was very tired these days, because of working quite much with Enclosures A-G, printing a lot of documents, and I was also a bit stressed because I didnt undestand what was going on regarding the things described in this case. (Why the police wouldnt look at the case etc.) 1/3 I had promissed Keith Holmes at the St. Anne St. Police-staion on 14/2, that I would call the him/them regarding the incident at the jobcentre on 23/1. I hadnt done this earlier, because the police-woman at the station 25/1, had told me to wait until Steele called me with reporting this and other new incidents. But, when I spoke with Holmes on the police-station on 14/2, he adviced me to contact the CAB to speak with a Solicitor. And because I thought it was a bit strange of Holmes to say that it wasnt a crime-case, even if he had given him Encl. 1-25 and Encl. II ++. But I had argued so much with the police about this, so I thought it might be an idea and follow their advice and go to the CAB, because I rembered Camel/Connel had said that if the Solicitor found that it is a crime-case, then they would send it back to the police. So I thought that since I thought Holmes was acting a bit strange with this, then maybe it would be best to ask the solicitor about advice about what they thought about the incident at the jobcentre on 23/1 as well. I was going there anyway, so I thought this was a good idea. But, the meeting with the Solicitor lasted only 30 minutes. And I didnt know this untill the 30 minutes had pased. And I started with presenting the most important files. (Encl. II, Encl. A, etc).

So I didnt get time to explain about the incident at the jobcentre to the Solicitor. But I still had this in the back of my head, because I thought I had do what I promised. And also I wanted to ask the police about how it was supposed to work with the 140/hour for the Solicitor. Why noone had explained this to me, because it was the police who had sent me to the CAB to get to speak with a Solicitor. I though that this probably meant that one would get help even if one were, like me, unemployed and quite broke. I had told the police that I was unemployed, and Im certain that I must have explained to them that the reason that I had to register at the jobcentre, and try to get a new job, was because I was running out of money. So I thought it was a bit strange that they would send me to the CAB and a Solicitor if this costs 140/hour, when they knew about my economical situation. Because I thought that when they repeatedly adviced me to go there, then they should have informed me about how this worked. So I wanted to ask them about this now, now that I had read the letter, and read that it costs 140/hr. (I asked them about this at the police-station, but they didnt give an answer. I asked the constable with the ginger hair, and he mentioned it to O'Brian, but none of them really answered me about this, and the conversation just went on. This took place in the reception-area). Also, if I had to pay for the Solicitor, why did they advice me to go to the CAB? I hadnt had anything to do with the CAB before, so I though this must mean that I get free help or something. Especially since the police must have known that I was running out of money when they adviced me to go there. If not, then why did they say that I should go to the CAB? They could just have told me to look on Solicitors in the yellow pages, couldnt they? Except then I would have had complained more, because I thought the CAB had to be something with the Government. And in the meeting in January, Camel/Connel also mentioned the Crowns Court in connection with the CAB and my case.

So to me it seemed that to do it the way he said, certainly had to an official/Government way to sort this. If they had said yellow pages, then I would have understood that I wasnt actually getting any Government help. And I would also have understood that the way the police adviced me to sort this wouldnt be free. And the last, but not least, thing I wanted to speak with the police about, was that the Solicitor had said in the meeting two days before that she tought this was both a crime-case and an employement case. In the letter (Encl. X), she said that they could help me with the harassment cases, but that they dont work with criminal law (the org. crime bit it must have been, se Encl A). It must have obviously have been this, because the only other things in the case that could be discribed as crime, is the harassment-cases, which they could help me with. She thought that the police would be assisted by looking trough the documents, in relation to the criminal-law (org.crime)part of the case. So I obviously thought I had to contact the police about this. Really, Camel/Connel had said that the Solicitor would bring it back to the police if they thought it was a crime-case. But it didnt seem this way from the letter, so I decided to take contact with the police again and explain what it said in the letter. (And what she said in the meeting). I tryed to call the police about this, but it was a bad line the woman at the central said, so I wrote some notes (Encl. XII), and went to the police-station. In the reception on the police-station, it was the same constable working, who I spoke with when I went there on 28/11/06. It was the constable with ginger hair, and collar number 2155. I told him that I was there regarding three things.

I had also brought the documents I had with me to the meeting at the CAB with the Solicitor. I showed him Encl. A, problems detailed, and Encl. II, and he answered that it was an employement case. Then I showed him the letter from the Solicitor, Encl. X, and told him that the Solicitor in the meeting had told me that this was a crime-case (and an employement-case). So then he had to agree with me on that. Then we got to the second point, and I told him about the episode at the jobcentre where the woman there, Michelle, asked me several times (or twice), if I could tell her the details from the police-case. She had asked me twice to tell her what type of policecase it was that made me miss the meeting. When I answered her on her initial question, why I wasnt on the meeting. That this was to do with a police-case. Then she wasnt content with that answer, but she continued to ask me what type of police-case it was. This happened twice, once in the beginning of the conversation, and then she asked the same two questions again at the end of the conversation. She had also asked me questions like why I hadnt called them and told them that I couldnt get to the meeting. Then I told her that I had called them twice (on the phone-number I got from the Cressington Jobcentre), but that they didnt answer the phone. She asked me what time this was, that I had called them, and I checked this on my mobile, it was at 13:55:24 on 23.01.07 (I have it on my mobile still), and the number was 0151.801.5700, the number I had been given from Cressington. I remember that I had been calling them twice, and waited many rings each time, but that I hadnt got any answer on the calls. She also reminded me that it was important that I was an active job-seeker, even if I hadnt been registered as unemployed for more than a few days. I went to the jobcentre first on Wednesday 17th to register, and spoke with a clerk named Dave on the jobcentre-phone. Then on Thursday, a clerk called Thom called me to get the address and bank-details etc, and set up the meeting on

Monday. Then on Monday I couldnt come to the meeting due to the police-case, but I had called both the Cressington and the Williamson-square department. And on Tuesday I went to Williamsons-square department again to set up a new meeting. So I dont think you really could say that I hadnt been active, I had only had contact with them for a period that contained five working-days. And in those days, I had gone to the jobcentre twice, and called different job-centre departments three times, and also answered a scheduled call from another jobcentre department. I remember that Michelle was not calm. She was tense, and a bit 'agressive'/non-trusting (cant remember the word) sometimes during the conversation, like when she asked at what time I had called them and they hadn't answered. Ive explained it a bit more in detail here than in the conversation with the constable. I think I focused mostly on telling him that she wanted to know the details about the police-case. The constable answered that this sounded like things they would normally ask for at the job-centre. I didnt explain to him about the woman who asked if I was Swedish, and the guy in the stair-case, because I wasnt sure about how to explain this understandably. I thought he would just say that this was just chit-chat, and that it is usual to ask people if theyre Swedish and confind with them about their disliking of North-Western accents. And then I wouldnt have known what to answer. So I decided that I would instead focus on things I thought I would be better at explaining, so that I wouldnt look stupid, and then maybe not being taken seriously when it came to the more important points. But he asked if there had been any other incidents like this that were not work-related. There had been many incidents more or less similar to the

ones at the jobcentre since I moved to town. But from the recent ones, I chose to tell him about when I went to the food-shop (Spar in Dale Street) on 24/1, to buy electricity-tickets. Just before I was going into the shop, I could hear a crazy-sound being howled in my direction. Then I turned my head back, and could se that the echomans friend was making a sound towards me. I managed to spot his mouth moving as he made the sounds. He stoped making the sound then, but I managed to spot him making the sound before he stopped. I didnt really know to act then, he was standing there with the echo-man, and I didnt really know what to say. I was a bit stressed then, since I was unemployed, and I didnt know what the situation was regarding the case, and I didnt understand why the police didnt want to look at the case etc. This was also the day after I had been at the jobcentre and speaking with Michelle, and with the woman there asking if I was Swedish, and the guy in stairs who didnt like the Scouse accent. This was also the day after the lorry-driver asked me if I knew the way to St. Anne Street, and insisted on me explaining him, not letting his compatriots do this. So I was a bit stressed, but I couldnt really understand why the echo-mans friend should make sounds at me, I was really just walking bye on the pavement. I was also a bit tired in this meeting, and a bit stressed since I had argue about whether or not this was a crime-case, and about the clerk at the job-centre etc, and all the questions in English. So I think I just told him that the echo-man had made a crazy sound. But I was a bit hot in my head then, and a bit stressed, it was acutally his friend. But I thought it was a bit embarrasing explaining about incidents

like this, and I get more problem with the language when Im stressed, so I just said it was the echo-man. The constable continued to ask me if there had been more incidents like these, and I answered that there had been a lot of more or less similar things happening. But that I hadnt got to report these incidents yet, due to all the things that had happened in Norway (which I had tryed to report to the Merseyside police). And that also many things had been happening at work (this case), and that I also had reported other non-work related incidents that had been happening at my old address in Walton. (And that due to all the things going on, that I had been at the police-station very often, but what always happens is that when I go there to report something, they usually tells me that they cant help me (that I cant report treats until something has actually happened), that I should call to Norway instead (and that they cant help me with this). Or that I get to report a few things, and then say that they are going to call me back, but never do. And that if I was going to report all of this incidents that are going on, then I would probably have to go there every day, or sometimes many times a day, and then theyd probably think Im crazy if I go there that often. (I didnt explain him it this thorrowly, but something like this). But I explained that when things like this happen, then I try get them written down on a note, so I found a note I had and gave him. He said that he didnt actually get any sense out of the note. I explained that it was because it was written in Norwegian, and that I just wanted to show him that Id written it down. The constable got hold of the Sergant, and showed him the letter from the Solicitor, and I think I mentioned that it said it costs 140/hour with the Solicitor, and the constable

mentioned this to the Seargant. We went to the meeting-room, and then I sat down in the same chair as I had sat in the meeting with Sgt. Camel/ Connel and his collegue in January. Then I got told by this Sergant (Sergant O'Brian, collarnumber 1334), that I couldnt sit in that chair, that chair was for the police, I had to sit on the other side of the table. So I had to move to the chair on the other side of the table. Then the meeting started. The meeting was a bit caotic. I told the constable when I got to the station that I was there regarding 3 things. We had only talked about the 2 first out in the reception. So guessed that I was supposed to explain it all again from the beginning to the Sergant, so I started doing this. Then the constable wanted to explain this to the Seargent. The Sergant said that he thought that the lack of progress in the case, was due to too many officers and constables being involved in the process. He said that for us to find out what the different officers and constables had been doing regarding the case, I should write my phone-number on a note, and then con. Steele would call me and explain about what she had been doing with the documents I gave her (Encl. VII). (Of which Holmes earlier had said he had recieved) I remeber I thought this sounded very strange, but I was tired from before I went to the station. I really had only wanted to call to the police-station this day. I hadnt really expected a lot of questions and meetings etc, when I called them that day. And I had to argue about if it was crime-case as usual, and answer a lot of questions and exlain about silly and embarresing incidents. And also move from the chair I had sat in the first time I was there, at the beginning of the meeting. And also from not getting to explain about the case myself. So I wasnt really ready for starting to argue with one Sergant and one Constable in English.

And the constable had explained for the Sergant, but I wasnt sure if he was going to argue with the Sergant as well, or if this was only my job. (I reckoned the latter, but I was a bit tired). I was used to more or less being thrown out of there, so I thought it was progress just getting to the meeting-room. So I thought Id just listen to what the Sergant had to say, and then write it down, and then just do it his way, and see where it led. The Seargant was quite intense. I was confused, embarrased, tired and stressed. I tryed to say that Con. Steele had been supposed to call me earlier, and hadnt called, but I dont think he really listened. I reckoned he was a bit stressed or something, he seemed intense, but not very easy to comunicate with. Like he didnt want to listen when I started explaining that Steele hadnt called before. But I thought I could just call O'Brian and report it if Steele didnt call again. At least now, something was supposed to happen, and I thought that this was progress in itself. A start of a process at least, something like that. And I was quite used with the officers and constables there acting a bit strange and peculiar, so I wasnt really expecting that much. So even if I thought it was a bad idea to leave the responsibilty of finding out what had happened before to me, I thought that maybe this was because he was a bit afraid to get to much involved in the case, since it had got to do with organised crime. And I had noticed when I had been there earlier, that some of the Constables seemed a bit shocked/afraid, and went and got their collegue instead, when I contacted them in the reception .He had to ask the constable all the time about who Holmes was and who Steele was etc, so I reckoned that he was quite new there, and I thought that this maybe could be why he was a bit difficult to communicate with, that he was stressed or something.

After I had written my name on the note, they acted like the meeting was ended. But in the reception I had only got to explain about 2 of the 3 things I had to explain about, so I had to hold them, to ask them about the third point. I asked them if they thought it was ok if I wrote to the jobcentre, and told them that the problems were part of a process who would be pursued through the court-system, and that it shouldnt be dealt with at the jobcentre until the first process was finished. They said that it was alright that I wrote this, but it seemed like the Sergant had a quite strong reaction when he heard that I was unemployed. I didnt really think myself that this would be that surprising, due to this being an employment-case. And when the employer had been infiltrated or taken over by a criminal organisation. This also meant that I didnt have a reference to show when I applied for new jobs, so it wasnt that easy getting one. But it didnt seem like the Sergant thought about it this way. So when I showed him Enclosure B2, he started to say in a very intense way, repeativly, that I had to make sure that the jobcentre and Arvato contacted eachother. I thought this was a very strange thing to say, since its obvious from Enlosure B2 that they already had been in contact with eachother. But I thought from his quite strong reaction, that he obviously was in an affected state, and I think that comunicating with people that are in an affected state often is a bit stressing and sometimes not very rewarding. So I decided that I would just pretend to agree with the Sergant, so that he then hopefully would calm down and get a grip on himself. Then he started to ask if I went regularly to the doctor, and if I was taking medicines etc, so I thought it was clear that he didnt like that I was unemployed. I didnt really understand why it should be so suprising that one was unemployed when one recently had quit working for a firm that had

been infiltrated/taken over by a criminal organisation. And I was quite tired after discussing quite long with the Constable whether this was an organised crime case or not, so I didnt know how I to deal with the situation about the Sergant being in an affected state. So the meeting ended with us agreeing on that con. Steele should call me and tell what she had been doing with the documents. I reacted on the fact that it was me who was the person who should find out what had happened. I would presume that the usual way to deal with this was that Sergant O'Brian himself would check up on this. Instead of me having to wait for a Constable to call, who never calls. Later I thought that this was a peculiar way of solving this problem, but the Sergant was so intense, and I was quite tired from discussing with the Constable. And on the meeting it was myseld, and two British police-officers/ constables. And Im a Norwegian citizen living in Britain. And after the two last meeting where they didnt want to help me at all, I was more or less happy as long as they didnt throw me out, so I didnt get as far as bringing up the subject regarding why it was me Con. Steele should talk with, and not him. But when I think back at this now, it seems to me like a cause of concern, that he himself didnt take upon him this responsibility, even after the Constable had showed him, among other documents, Enclosure II point 5. So Im a bit worried that a police-officer dont take more responsibility in a case that involves many people that are under control by organised criminals. That he himself didnt want to do anything about this, other than letting the responsibility on me on finding out what has happened earlier. Whats important for the case has got to be to investigate more on this, go through the documents/evidence, transfer the case to the department in the police that specialises on org. crime. Instead, he only gives me the responsibility to find out what has happened with the documents earlier, instead of taking the responsibility himself, and progress with the case. (Notes from meeting: Encl. XII).

9/3 I didnt hear anything from the police this time eighter. So on 9/3, I tryed to get contact with Sgt. O'Brian. I call the central on 0151.777.4100, and asks to speak with him. They give me his number, which they say is 0151.777.5772. I tryed to call the number, but noone answers.

12/3: I tryed to call back on the Monday, 12/3. I call 777.5772, and then someone answers, and says that Ive got through to the Smithdown Rd./Liverpool North police-station, which if I remember right is the police-station in Walton. I asked for O'Brian, and they said that he had quit working there. Then I called the central and asked to speak with O'Brian, since Steele hadnt called. The woman on the central says that Steele will be back from holiday on 15/3, and we agree that I'll just wait til she returns from holiday, and she'll call me then.

15/3: I still dont hear anything from Steele, so I try to call her on 777.4043, but I dont get any answer. I try to call several times, but no answer. The central says that O'Brian is on duty from 9 pm and is on 777.4051. I try to call after 9 pm., but doesnt get any answer. I call St. Annes, and they say that he is on 777.4046. I try to call that number, but doesnt get any answer.

16/3: Tryed to call Steele on 777.4043 at 14.58, but didnt get any answer. I tryed to call O'Brian, but no answer. I calles St. Annes, and they said that Steele was gone home sick. St. Annes said that O'Brian was on 777.4051, and on duty. I tryed to call 777.4051, but no answer.

Solicitor: I have been calling the Solicitor regularly since the meeting at the CAB. She was having one week holiday, but other than that Ive called and explained that Ive talking with the police about the case. And that I also would ask for more advice from the CAB. Since the police didnt call like they said they would. And since I'd already been at the CAB, but they didnt explain to me that it would cost 140 an hour to get help from the Solicitor, I decided to contact the Norwegian Conulate and hear if they could help me with these issues.

Norwegian Consulate: Since I didnt know much about the British legal-system, and also since I was quite worried about the way the police treated the case, I thought I should contact the Consulate, and ask for advice. Since the police didnt call me back (I was planning to ask them about the 140 pounds/hr), and since the CAB hadnt informed me about this eighter, I wanted to ask them for advice about this as well. So I went to a meeting with Liz Hurley there on 19/3. Liz Hurley took some phone-calls about this, and told me that she had spoken with O'Brian, and she said that O'Brian had told her that he remembered the case. But I still, to this date (19/04/07), havent heard from eighter O'Brian or Steele. Not even after Liz Hurley called on the 19/3, and spoke with O'Brian about the matter.

CAB: After the meeting at the Consulate, I called the Solicitor later on 19/3, and said that I would go to the CAB for more advice the next day. So I went to the CAB on 20/3, and asked in which cases one would need a criminal solicitor. (which the Solicitor had said that I might need, since Moorecrofts didnt deal with criminal-cases). And I also wanted to speak with them about legal-aid. I had wanted to go there before and ask them about legal-aid. But I thought it was right to ask the police about how this worked, since it was them who had sent me there in the first place. Telling me to take the case to the CAB and a Solicitor, without telling me that this would cost 140. I wanted to ask the police about how they intended this to be. Had they intended that I should pay 140 pounds an hour, or had they intended that this was goving to be covered in some sort of way. (I didnt really read about legal-aid untill maybe one or two weeks before this. I read about it in a leaflet I had picked up at the CAB earlier, but that I hadnt got time to read properly before. I just by coincidence find the leaflet again, and then I understood that there was something called legal-aid.) But since the police never called me, there wasnt much progress regarding this. So when I didnt hear anything from the police, even if I tryed to call both Steele and O'Brian about this, I decided to rather ask the Consulate for advice before I went to the CAB again. But it got a bit delayed due to this, thats why I didnt go to the CAB before and asked them about the legal aid system. The Solicitor that I spoke with on the phone when I was at the CAB, told me that it was only in the cases that me myself had been charged in a case, that I would need a criminal Solicitor. She said that the part of the case that was a criminal-case, should be dealt with in liasons with the police.

I asked her who I should contact if there was problems with the liasons with the police, and she said that I should contact the CPS or the Law Society. At the CAB, I also asked them for advice on how the legal aid system worked, and I got told that on the CLS website, there was a calculator that one could use to calculate if one were eligable to get legal aid. But when I tryed the calculator at home later that day, it got clear that the program couldnt calculate if I was eligable. This was because I was working as self-employed now, (doing research for a company called Packaging Europe in Norwich). And when one were working as self-employed, then one had to contact a legal advisor to get help with calculating this. So I searched on the same website, and it said that the nearest legal advisor to my address, was the CAB. The CAB was closed the next day, but on 22/3, I went back there. I told them that the website had said that if one were self-employed, one the program couldnt help you calculate if you were eligable for legal aid, but you would need help with this from a legal advisor. And the CAB set me up with an apoinment with a new legal advisor there on 5/4. (Encl. New1) Later on the same day, I went to the Solicitors, and told the Solicitor that Is was going to a meeting about legal aid on the CAB on the 5/4. The Solicitor said that one never gets legal aid in employementcases. I told her that noone had told me this earlier. (I thought I had at least hinted to her on the phone earlier that I didnt really understand the legal-aid system, or how I was going to solve the problem with the 140/hour, which I wanted to ask the police more about. (I had planned to ask the police more about the 140 pounds and hour which they didnt explain to me before they sent me to the CAB to get to speak with a Solicitor throught them. On the notes I prepared for the meeting at the police-station on 1/3, Encl. XII, I had written a note about asking the police to

explain about this. But the meeting was so caotic. I got stressed/embarresed from being told to move to the other side of the table etc, after that I first had sat down on the same chair where I had sat the first meeting I was on there (16/1). And I got embarrased and tired from the questions in the reception. I was tired from before I went to the meeting, I had really only intended to call them. And I lost a bit control on my presentation, when the constable started to explain to the Sergant. I wasnt really that clear to me what my role in the meeting was. And then when the sergant in the meeting (O'Brian), who was very intense, started to saying strange/unreasonlble things, (like that I should be responsible for finding out what all the police-constables and officers had done with the documents/ case). They told me to write my phone-number on a note, for the police (Steele) to call me, and then they acted like the meeting was finished. Then I got a bit stressed, because I knew I had to answer the letter from the jobcentre, where they treatened to discontinue my jobseekers-allowance, if I didnt reply within a week, and 2/3 (the day after this meeting), was the last day I could reply within the time-limit). So then when they started to leave the table, then I thought I at least had to ask about the jobcentre-letter first, since I didnt think I would get another chance to get advice about this before the time-limit expired. So then, I think, in the chaos that was the meeting, that the issue with the 140 was forgotten. After the meeting, I thought that I would just sort this when the police called. And that if Steele, like last time, didnt call, then I could try to call O'Brian about this, who hopefully had managed to calm down by then. But Steele didnt call, and O'Brian didnt answer when I called, so this got a bit delayed.) -

The Solicitor said that Moorecrofts only accepted payments from private founds. I said that I still didnt really understand the system with the legal-aid, and I thought that maybe I could get legal-aid by applying from the Government, or whoever gave them, and then maybe they could be seen as part of private founds, or something like that. I was a bit confused by how this worked, so we agreed that I would go the meeting at the CAB on 5/4 as agreed with the CAB, and then I was going to contact her back again one of the first days after the meeting.

CAB 5/4: On the 5/4 there was a meeting on CAB at 1.30 pm. (Encl. new1). I was printing out some documents right before the meeting, to bring with me at the meeting. The documents thought a bit longer than I thought, so I had to hurry for the the meeting. I was a couple of minutes late when I got to the State Building, so I tryed to hurry up the stairs to the CAB. When I got almost to the floor where the CAB is, I noticed there was a small girl sitting in the staircase, right outside the door that leads into the CAB. Ive neven used to meet someone in the stairs, and I thought at once that it was peculiar that a young girl would sit there. I though that the State Building had to be an office building, with a reception and with the CAB being there, with the name, and Id only seen buisnesspeople in the building before. So since I hadnt used to met so many people in the stairs, and because I thought it was a bit strange that she was sitting there, I cougth a glimpse of her while i stressed passed. She sat like on display. She was very young, looked like maybe 11, 12, 13 I thought first, but she could have been even younger, because I think she was dressed up do look older, because her face really looked like even younger than that when I think of it. And she looked like she wasnt comfertable at all sitting there, from the look in her eyes one could see that she was a small child who just sat there for some reason, but uncomfertable, like she had been put there, to sit there on display.

I was used with many particular incidents happening almost everywere in streets and in shops etc. in town, (which I have written about in Norwegian, and showed to the ginger constable at the St. Anne str. station). And I thought that the girl sitting there like on display for no seemingly particular reason, could look like almost similar with some of the other incidents that had been happening earlier in town (like when I was at the jobcentre 23/1, Encl. D, and many other more or less emarresing situations that has happened around town). So when I see something that seems peculiar to me, like this, I to be alert. So i rushed to the door to CAB, and rang the button twice before a man answered. (I think this could have been the person I later called back and spoke with thats called Steve). I explained that I was there for the meeting for the legal advisor at 1.30. I was let in, and it was dark there, the lights were turned off, there were no people there. Since there werent any people there at all, I just grabed a leaflet standing in a plastic-display in the reception-area (Encl. new2). (This leaflet was the same that I had found laying around at home some weeks earlier, which I must have picked up on the CAB probably the first day I was there, when I got the apointment to see the Solicitor from Moorecrofts. It was from this leaflet I first had heard about that there was something called legal-aid, when I browsed through the leaflet a few weeks earlier.) Since noone showed up, I just sat down in one of the chairs, and browsed a bit through the leaflet, and got my notebook ready, things like that, for maybe a couple of minutes. Then a clerk around 25 years showed up, who was maybe from Pakistan, India or Sri Lanka or something like that. He was well-built, very groomed, with a feminin face and skin-tight clothes, and a bit feminin voice, so I reckoned that he was probably gay. I could hear from his voice that he was not the guy who had let me in the door, and who I had talked with on the calling-system. This person (Steve I think it must have been), sounded like a man in his fifties maybe, and with a much lower voice. But he must have been sitting in another room, because I didnt see him there at all during my visit there.

The clerk explained to me that the Duty Solicitor from EAD, had just called and told that he had to cancel the meeting. The clerk appologised to me that he hadnt called me and told me this. He said this was because the solicitor had just recently called and canceled. Then he told me the phonenumber to the EAD solicitors (0151.708.0606), which I wrote down in my notebook (Encl. new3). The clerk adviced me to call them and ask if they could help me over the phone, since they couldnt make it to the meeting. Then he wanted to give me a leaflet (Encl. new2), but I was already holding one of those in my hand, so I just explained to him that I already had that. The clerk advised me, that if the EAD solicitors couldnt help me when I called them, then I should call the company that was presented in the leaflet (Merseyside Employement Law, Encl. new3). The clerk appologised again that he didnt call me and tell me that the meeting was canceled. I remember I thought that the right thing would have been to set up a new meeting. But since the clerk adviced me to call the EAD, I thought with myself that I did go there for advice/help from them, so I should just follow the advice that the CAB clerk gave me. Since he was working with this, I reckond that he had to know about these things, and that it then would be ok for me to follow his advice. I asked the clerk if he knew the name of the Solicitor, so that I would know who to ask for when I called. The clerk said that he didnt know the name. At one point at near the end of the conversation, the clerk, went and turned on all the lights in the office while we were talking. (I think this maybe could have been while going to get the leaflet in the plastic-display). After the clerk had turned the lights on, and at the end of the conversation between me and the clerk, the woman who works there with the dark hair, I think about 50 years, and who allway help with legal matters, and who calls the Solicitors, and sat up the apointment for this meeting. This woman went into the reception-room at the end of the

conversation. She placed herself in the reception, and was looking at me while I passed the reception on my way out the entrance-door. I noded to her, (and I think I also said hi), but she didnt return my greeting. (or what the word is). She looked right at me when I passed, but she didnt say anything, and I couldnt see that she was doing any work-task in particular in the reception. So I just went out of the building and home to call the solicitorfirm.. When I went out of the building, the guard in the reception in the State Building looked away, faced towards Dale Street (he was looking a bit akward, I think he was red in his face, and I didnt think he looked his normal self), and he eighter didnt return my greeting. (Notes: Encl. new1, new2 and new3.)

EAD: When I got home, I tryed to call EAD several times, but the number wasnt working. (0151.708.0606). I tryed to look in the yellow pages, but I couldnt find the EAD solicitors. So I called back to the CAB to ask them for the right number. A person named Steve answered the phone there. (He sounded like he could have been the person that opened the door for me there when I went there for the meeting). I could hear Steve asking a woman at the CAB about the phonenumber (I guessed that the woman could have been the one with the dark hair that I described earlier). The woman told him the phone-number to Steve, who told to me on the phone. (0151.735.1000). I asked Steve if they knew the name of the Solicitor I was supposed to meet there from EAD earlier at 1.30 that day, and Steve passed the question on to the woman. But they didnt know the name, I was told to ask for the Duty Solicitor.

I called to the EAD at around 2 pm, and got to speak with Stephanie I think it was. I thought it was a bit curious that I couldnt find them in the yellow pages, so I asked them if they were bases in the Liverpool-area since I couldnt find them there. She said that they were based in the Colombus Key area. (Encl. 4). I explained about the canceled meeting at the CAB, and asked to speak with the Duty Solicitor. I was transfered to another woman if I remember right, she asked me what type of case it was, and I think I said employement and crime or organised crime case, and got transfered to a person I thought interduced him self as Ryan, and sounded like a guy in his 20's. I remember thinking that he sounded a bit young to be a lawyer, but I wasnt sure, he must have been quite newly finished with Uni. I reckoned. He asked me for my name, and I spelt it, and I asked him if his name was Ryan, like I thought he had said. And then he said it was Reiner, and spelt the letters in the name. (Encl. 4) He went on to say that his first-name was Michael. I explained why I called, and he apologised that noone from the firm had attended the meeting. I told him it was an employement-case (I remembered the police and Moorecrofts had called it this) and an crime case. (It could be I said organised crime case). He asked when the latest incidents were, I hadnt prepared to talk about this on the phone, I had prepared to get help calculating if I was eligable for legal-aid. I answered 'in November'. (I didnt think about the incidents in December and in the new year, from Arvato and the jobcentre). He started counting how many months ago that was, and apologised about it being to late to deal with this now, since it had been more than 3 months since these incidents happened.

I explained that I had reported this to the police, another Solicitor-firm etc, and said I thought this maybe could cause the 3 month time-limit to be extended. He said a employement-tribunal in very rearly circomstances, could extend the time-limit. I explained that I really had arranged the meeting to get help calculating if I was eligble for legal-aid. He said that these things were connected, that to know if I was eligable he needed to know the details from the case, it wasnt possible to do this over the phone. I said that I had prepared to look at this in the meeting at the CAB that day, and he appologised for noone in their company being able to meet me, but said that they couldnt meet later eighter about this, because they only dealt with employement-cases that were Trade union cases. He explained that legal-aid and the case were connected, so that the company doing the case also had to calculate if you were eligable for legal-aid. I made a point out of that it would probably cost around 140/hour to get help calculating this. He said some companies could help you on a (i cant remeber excactly what he said, but its like they only charge you if you win the case). He gave me the name and number for another company that he said he thought could help me, John Halson, 0151.708.8123 (Encl new4). I said that I think the right thing would have been to have a new meeting at CAB, I think I must have said, and just asked what type of cases he meant by trade union cases. (I didnt automaticly understand this, I think it must have been because of all the calls/meetings, and the language). He explained it, the employee gets help with the case by the Union, who get help by EAD. Afte the call, I decided that I had too think this through before I was taking any more calls. This was the day before Good-Friday, so I decided to think about this over easter. 10/4:

I called the CPS, I had planned to speak with the Solicitor on the meeting at the CAB 5/4 about how I should bring the problem with the liasons with the police up with CPS. But since the Solicitor canceled the meeting, I just searched on the internet and found the CPS website. 11/4: I contacted the Solicitor again. I explained what Reiner at EAD had told me, about the time-limit being passed in this case, since its only 3 months for employement-cases. The Solicitor said that if this also was an harassment-case (which it is), then there was a longer time-limit.

16/4: I had been thinking more about the incidents at the CAB 5/4, which I thought became stranger and stranger the more I thought about it. I didnt understand why a new meeting hadnt been set up. I thought it all was a bit dodgy. I remebered that I hadnt managed to find EAD in the yellow pages, so I thought Id check up on EAD on the internet. I found their homepage: (www.eadsolicitors.co.uk/employement, 16/04/07, 2.24 am). And there it said: 'EAD advices on all aspects of employment law work for trade unions, union members and individual workers'. Im not sure if the Liverpool branch is an exception from this, but anyway I thought the whole set-up with me having to call EAD and not getting a new appointment, is enough to go further with these things. Also the episode with Reiner informing me that the time-limit was only 3 months for my case, since I remember I was a bit uncertain about what type of case I should call it when he asked, since its a quite complicated case, so then I dont think he should give advice. Like, if he cant say if the case is eligable for legal-aid by just speaking with me on the phone, then maybe he shouldnt say what time-limit the case has got from just speaking with me on the phone. Also I think the CAB should have offered to set me up with a new meeting, and not only giving me the phone-number and a leaflet, when the original meeting was canceled.

And he peculiarieties with the light being off, with the phone-number to EAD not being right, with not any of the employees Ive asked on CAB knowing the Solicitors name, with not even the EAD infoming me about who this Solicitor was ++. I think there were so many strange things going on with that meeting, so I decided to go forward with reporting this, and I'll continue that process. 24/04/07: I Called Elly Pool at the Liverpool branch of Morecrofts solicitors, to set up a meeting to discuss how to go forward with the case. We had discussed earlier the possibility of me paying the solicitors bill by a type of 'payment plan', since I couldnt find any legal-aid solution. Elly Pool said that she was going to contact Mr. Millett about this, and that they would contact me back. Later the same day, Samantha from Morecrofts called and said that I could have a meeting with Mr. Millett, but then I would have to pay 250 for the meeting, and she said I couldnt have a 'payment-plan'. Morecrofts were also supposed to call me after I was there on 11/4, but they never did. Samantha said that she had been trying to call me three times since then on my mobile. I asked if she had been calling from the number that is on their letters. She asked why I was asking about so many things. I said that I was only asking about one thing. She then said that she had been calling from the number thats on their letters. (I checked the call-registry on my mobile after the call, but I couldnt see any calls from that number. I also checked on my old mobile, in case I had given them that number, but I couldnt find the calls on that callregistry eighter). She also said that it was not an employement-case, and adviced me to contact the law society, and hear if they could help me. I said that I had thought from the conversations with Elly Pool 11/4 and 24/4, that it would be possible for me to pay for the solicitors-costs on

a type of 'payment-plan', and that I wasnt aware of that I had to pay 250 right away. I said that I needed some time to think about how I would deal with this new situation, and we agreed that I should contact them again within a week. (Notes from this phone-call: Encl. new8).

COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE CAB, DALE ST, LIVERPOOL: 1. I think the CAB should have set up a new meeting between the duty solicitor and myself, when the duty solicitor canceled the scheduled meeting there on 05/04/07. 2. I think they should have informed me about the name of the duty solicitor that canceled the meeting. They didnt do this even if I asked them about this twice. 3. I dont think the CAB should have adivised me to contact the duty solicitors firm EAD on the phone on 5/4, since one needs to go through the documents of the case in detail, to see if one are eligable for legal aid. Which was what the scheduled meeting was supposed to be about. So they shouldnt have adviced me to call them to get help, since one needs to have a proper meeting to sort these problems, like the EAD told me on the phone later on 5/4. (And the EAD also didnt want to set up a meeting). 4. I dont think the CAB, like they for the meeting on 5/4, should set me up for a meeting with a Solicitors firms (EAD), that aren't based in Liverpool. The Solicitor-firms that they set up to do task of Duty Solicitor representaton, should be based in Liverpool, for practical reasons, if someone wants to go to the Solicitors office to speak with someone there etc. 5. I dont think the CAB should have given me the wrong number to the EAD solicitiors firm. The CAB told me first on 5/4 that the phonenumber to the EAD solicitors firm was 0151.708.0606, but this number didnt work. (I tryed to find the right number in the Mersey 2005/06 yellow pages, but the EAD firm wasnt listed there. Then I called back to the CAB and they told me that the number was 0151.735.1000.) 6. I think the CAB should have the lights on in the parts of their offices

where members of the public are recieved, and in their other public areas, during their opening hours. This to insure that contacts between representatives from the CAB and members of the public are kept in an atmosphare that one would expect from a public place. (And not in an atmosphare that one would think belonged more to a privat place/situation.) I think they should have the lights on during the opening hours, and that they should not arrange meetings with members of the public to be held with the lights off. (Like they did when I went there for the Duty Solicitors meeting, and ended up first sitting waiting for several minutes in the dark, and then speaking with the CAB representative for several minutes in the dark, on 5/4). 7. I think that the CAB should have informed before the meeting with the Duty Solicitor from Morecrofts on 27/2, that the Morecrofts Solicitors firm only accepted payment from private founds. And that Morecrofts didn't accept founding founded by the legal aidprogramme, like the Duty Solicitor from Morecrofts, Eleanor Pool, informed me of on 22/3. 8. I think that the CAB should have informed me before the meeting with Duty Solicitor Eleanor Pool from Morecrofts there on 27/2, that the meeting only was scheduled to last for thirty minutes. I wasnt made aware of this, untill Eleanor Pool first informed me of this when the thirty minutes had passed. 9. I think the CAB should have explained to me about the legal aid system, and how it works, before they set me up for the meeting with Duty Solicitor Eleanor Pool from Morecrofts there on 27/2. Especially since this was an employment-case (like I told them that the police had told me to tell them that it was). I also told them that the police had told me that certain wrongdoings were done against me from my old employer. It must have been clear to the CAB that I was unemployed. (On the meeting there I showed them the letter from my employer (encl. 1), and I explained to them that I didnt go back to my employer because I saw the letter as continuing of the harassment, and that I also didnt think that it was safe to go back there due to the reasons explained more about in encl. II and in encl. A). I also must have told them, (this comes natural to discuss after I had explained about the letter from my employer (Encl. 1), and from explaining that I hadnt gone back there due to the reasons that are thorowly explained in Encl. II), that the [formal] reason that I wasnt working in the company any longer, was that my contract had expired. (Encl. VI).

So it must have been clear to them that I because of this (that my contract had expired, and that it was an employement-case) most probably was unemployed. So, I think they should have informed me of the different financing-ways for the case that existed. (Eg. the legal aid programme). (I told them that I needed a solicitor, and that the police had told me that I should go to the CAB and ask to get a solicitor, so that the case could be taken to the Crowns Court.) And I dont think they should have set me up with a solicitor from a firm that only accepts founding from privat founds (and not founding from legal-aid), when one are unemployed, and it must have been clear to them (as this often is a consequense of being unemployed), probably out of founds. 10. I also think that the solicitor I got to speak with on the phone (about when one would need a criminal solicitor), when I was at the CAB on 20/3, should have explained to me what her name was, and which solicitors firm she was calling from. I was put in a room at the CAB, and told to wait untill the solicitor called me. But when I answered, I picked up the phone and said 'yes hello this is Erik Ribsskog speaking', but the solicitor didnt say eighter what her name was or the name of her company was, she just asked what my questions were. Also, when I had finished speaking with the solicitor on the phone, then the CAB advisor had starting speaking with another member of the public there, without informing me that our meeting was finished, and without me being alowed to finish explaining why I had gone there. I had gone there to ask about two things. 1. About when one needs a criminal advisor, and 2. how the legal aid system works. But I only got to tell about the first point, before I was put in the room to wait for the phone from the solicitor. Without me first being informed that my meeting with the CAB advisor had finished. 11. So I think that the CAB advisor should have told me that the meeting there on 20/3 was finished, before ending the meeting. Since this would have given me the chance to explain that there were more things that I wanted to bring up in the meeting. THE COMPLAINT-PROCESS SO FAR: After the meeting with the duty solicitor at the CAB on 5/4 was canceled, I thought about the inicidents that happened that day in the time that followed. The 5/4 was on Thursday before Good Friday, so some days passed which were holidays, and when one couldnt call for advice on how to complain etc.

But the more I thought about the incidents, the stranger I thought they were, so about a week after easter, I started calling different organisations to get advice on how to proceed with the complaints on the institutions that were involved. So I have been in contact with several organisations/institutions about this, by email and on the phone, and this correspondence and the delay with the easter-holiday, has led to it being some weeks having passed since this happened. But I have been in regular contact with the organisations that I have asked for advice, so that this delay is due to it taking some time for me to be aware of who the right organisations and departments are that one should complain to about the three different legal-advisors that were involved. (Which all three should be complained about in a different way due to the different nature of my contact with them etc.) So it took some time for me to get this clear, so I appologise for this taking a bit time. Also, the complaints number 1-6 are about things that are regarding the meeting that was canceled on 5/4. (The incidents that made me decide to send a complaint). The complaints number 7-10 are regarding contact I've been having with the CAB prior to 22/3 (the day that the meeting on 5/4 was set up). But, after the incidents on 5/4 happened, I've also been thinking more about things that happened regarding my contact with the CAB prior to 22/3. I hadnt maybe reflected that much on the incidents prior to 22/3 before 5/4. But I thought that many of the things happening when I was at the CAB on 5/4 was a bit peculiar, so this made me think more about the other meetings I'd been having there. Also, I didnt really know how the system with the legal-aid etc. is supposed to work. So from learing more about this, and also from thinking more about the incidents, I've decided that I'd also include some complaints from before 5/4. And when I focused more about this, I realised that there had been many things going on that I shouldnt have tolerated. But I didnt really know whos responsibility it is to inform about the different things, like the legal aid system etc. But from when I decided to complain about the incidents on 5/4, I thought that I could also include the things from before 5/4, because I wasnt really sure before if was the CAB's responsibilty to inform about how long time the meeting in complaint 8 was supposed to last, or if it was the solicitors. And also I didnt know if it was the CAB or the solicitors responisbility

to inform me that the Morecrofts solicitors firm only accepted founding from private founds. (complaint 7). And I also didnt know if it was the CAB or the Morecrofts solicitors responisibility to inform me about how the legal-aid system works. (complaints 9). Ive thought about complaints number 10 and 11 before, but I didnt think it was something that was worth making a big fuzz about. But the things happening on 5/4 was kind of the last drop, so therefore I chose to include the complaints number 10 and 11 now as well.

Enclosure 1

Enclosure 2
CONTENCE OF E-MAIL SENT TO MANAGING DIRECTOR IAN CARROL, ARVATO SERVICES LIVERPOOL 29/11/06 Advice from police regarding harassment case Hi, I went to the St. Annes police office yesterday, regarding a harassment issue that has been happening at work and after work, involving Chris Baines, team-leader Bon Prix, and me. After I got home, the police called me, and adviced me to contact higher management because of the obvious problems Ive been having with this person. I asked if they meant the Managing Director, and the police-officer said yes. We had two meetings about this case at work yesterday. In one meeting, involving Senior team-leader Aidan Tippins and me, it seems clear to me that Mr Tippins was lying. Mr. Tippins said that we didnt have a team-leader with the name of Chris Baines in the company. I'll send a summary from this meeting ASAP. In the other meeting about this harassment-case, involving Sarah Rushby, Aidan Tippins and Chris Baines, it seemed clear to me that they were trying to help him covering up. It was really three against one. They kept interupting me and bringing things out of context. They showed no interest in helping me, or see the case from my side. They seemed more interested in what Ive told the police. I'll write a summary from this meeting aswell. In another harassment case, which I have contacted core-care about, Mr. Tippins have said that he wants to bypass the sequence of events which my line-manager and I had agreed on. He wanted to have a meeting about this in the near future. My line-manager and me agreed that the sequence of events should be: 1. I contact core-care and get advice on how tho deal with the harassment-case. 2. Line (my line-manager) and I, where to have a meeting deciding how we should deal with this issue further. Mr. Tippins is not paying regards to this agreed schedule, but wants to have the meeting when it suits him.

I'll send a copy of the e-mail regarding this issue. Im going to translate to English a summary from a meeting with my line-manager, where I address several other cases. These issues seems clear to be serious cases of harassment and breach of company-policy. I'll send a copy of the summary ASAP. I think these harassment-cases, lies, covering-up and breaching of agreements, are so serious, that the only responsible thing to do would be to have a meeting about this as soon as possible. It seems clear to me that most of, or all of, these harassment-cases and other cases, are organised. I'll keep being in contact with the police, core-care, and other relevant institutions, to get advice on how to deal with this as professional as possible. So hope to hear from you about this as soon as possible. Thanks in advance and regards, Erik Ribsskog, MSPA.

Enclosure 3
SUMMARY MEETING 28/11/06 Sarah Rushby, HR, Arvato Services. Chris Baines, Team-leader, Bon Prix, Arvato Services. Aidan Tippins, Senior Team-leader, Arvato Services. Erik Ribsskog, Contact Center Representative, MSPA, Arvato Services. When the meeting started, I asked Mr. Tippins if it was me that should lead the meeting since it was me who wanted to have a meeting regarding this. Mr. Tippins said that it wasnt. Then I asked if I could make a presentation, and Mr. Tippins said that this was ok. I started with handing out an agenda for the presentation, and also copies of the summary from my meeting with Line Sletvold on Sunday 26/11/06. I suggested that everybody started with reading the summary from that meeting, because then everybody would have the details fresh in their head. Rushby and Baines read the summary. Tippins said that he had got the summary from before. When they were finished reading, Rushby asked if she could ask a question, and I answered that it was ok. Rushby asked me to confirm that the person who had been harassing me in the episode surrounding the extra headphones, was wearing a white hooded sweater. Rushby and Tippins said that Mr. Baines had told them that he didnt have a sweater like this. Mr. Tippins said that Mr. Baines most often was wearing black t-shirts, Mr. Tippins had himself noticed this, so he didnt think it could have been Mr. Baines. I confirmed that I had seen Mr. Baines sit down by a workstation situated on a row two rows from the workstation I was sitting with. Mr. Tippins said that Mr. Baines was working on the Bon Prix campaign, who were situated furter away from our campaign, by the exit-door, so it couldnt have been Mr. Baines. They said that I must have been mistaken Mr. Baines with another team-leader, a team-leader who was working on a campaign closer to our campaign. I said that I was sorry if I had made a mistake, but that I would still like to use my own judgement regarding this. By that I mean waiting til I had seen what this other

team-leader looked like, before I would decide if I thought I could have made a mistake. [After this first episode, I started noticing Mr. Baines, and recognized him on several occations every week, so I meant that I had been keeping good track of who he was, and before this I hadnt been in any doubt about that it really was him that was involved in this episode. (From Mr. Tippins unsheduled meeting, earlier on the same day as this meeting, I could remember that I got a bit uncertain, but really more confused, because I didnt understand what the purpose of this unsheduled meeting really was.) This other team-leader must have recembeled Mr. Baines very much. I was 100% certain that the person had been wearing a white hooded sweater, with a Nike logo on it, so when they told me that Mr. Baines didnt own a sweater like this, then this made me a bit uncertain, but I still wanted to trust my own judgement, and see with my own eyes how this other team-leader looked, before I said anything more about this]. Mr. Tippins said that he had been showing me the other team-leader earlier this day. I answered yes, but he was standing quite far away and was wearing office-clothes. The persons Mr. Tippins were showing me, one a quite heavily built person, and another much less heavily built, was standing with their backs towards us, and was about 10-12 meters away. I was tired on this meeting, but I could see that they both had short hair, and their body-types/(Norwegian 'holdning') didnt match eighter. I didnt want to acuse the people on this meeting of lying. I thought that the only possibilty that it wasnt Mr. Baines, was if it was a person looking almost excactly like him that was working there. A relative of Mr. Baines or something like that. When Mr. Tippins said that they were thinking of [I asumed] the least heavily built of the persons he had been showing me, then I at once was certain that it couldnt have been this person, but I wouldnt acuse the people on the meeting of lying. So I was feeling a bit uncomfertable, and wanted to speak about something else. But when I understood that it was one of the two persons (and then probably the less heavily built person) that they were thinking about, then I got suspicious that something could be wrong. At once when they said that Mr. Baines didnt own a sweater like that, then I got suspicious. I noticed that Rushby and Tippins was looking "tellingly" at eachother, after they saw that I got uncertain when they told me that Mr. Baines didnt own a white hooded sweater. Like they were having a 'battleplan', and that they now had reached a 'milestone', and that they after this would continue to follow a certain pattern.

From the beginning of the meeting: Rushby: 'You said that he was wearing a white hooded sweater'. Ribsskog: 'Yes'. Tippins: 'Chris says that he has never owned a sweater like that'. 'Have you ever owned a sweater like that Chris?'. Baines: 'No'. Tippins: 'Chris is usually wearing black t-shirts, so it couldnt have been him'. At this point in the meeting, several things hade made me suspicious: - The other three persons seemed like they were co-operating, and like they had planned a strategy on how they were going to go through with the meeting. - Baines almost didnt say anything at all. It seemed clear that he let Tippins and Rushby control the meeting. It was like they were defending him. - They were saying that Mr. Baines didnt have a white hooded sweater. - Mr. Tippins said that Mr. Baines mostly was wearing black t-shirts, so he couldnt have been wearing a white hooded sweater (Mr. Tippins meant that wearing a white hooded sweater wouldnt be Mr. Baines style). But it could have been that Mr. Baines owned a white hooded sweater, but that he only had used it one or two times at work, eg. when Mr. Tippins had been having a rest-day etc. On the meeting earlier this day, the one Mr. Tippins asked for, I was tired. I almost never had any conversations with Mr. Tippins. I had been having 3 or 4 conversations with Mr. Tippins during a years time. 1. When Mr. Tippins complained about me reading the newspaper. 2. When Mr. Tippins asked me if I knew a particular computer-programme, and later on the same day when Mr. Tippins didnt say hi when I walked past him. 3. The meeting when I asked Mr. Tippins about the reasons for why I didnt get to get a job-interview etc. [regarding the team-leader position I applied for]. 4. The episode when I got back from my rest-days, and Mr. Tippins had stolen the place I used to sit at by the campaign-table. He didnt use to say hi when we met [I thought that this could maybe be because of some English tradition, because it was a quite big step in status between our positions in the company]. One day, the day of the second episode, I walked past Mr. Tippins on the sidewalk

outside of the Cunard building. (I was on my way back from my lunch-break). I went passed him on the sidewalk, maybe a meter away, turned my head to say hi, but he only looked away/down. He didnt want to say hi. Recently there had been an episode (episode 4), where Mr. Tippins stole my place by the campaign-table while I had some rest-days, about a week before this meeting [28/11/06]. [When I got back after my rest-days, I sat down at my usual place, and when Mr. Tippins got to work a couple of hours later.] He gave me an ultimatum. He said I had to move within five minutes, or else. (He didnt say what would happen, but I feared that I could get fired, so I thought it best to move to another workstation). And it also was an episode with the newspaper. And also a meeting regarding why I hadnt got any feedback on my application for the team-leader job. I was tired on the unsheduled meeting. But even I was tired, I still was focused and aware, because of the episodes earlier [involving Mr. Tippins,. I wasnt used to speak much with Mr. Tippins, so the fact that Mr. Tippins asked for an unsheduled meeting woke me up]. So I still remember every word from this meeting. When Mr. Tippins said that we didnt have a team-leader with the name of Chris Baines, then I at first thought that he meant that it must have been a typo surrounding a letter in the name, or something like that. That he was picking on a detail. That his name was Christopher, and only was called Chris, or something like that. I didnt ask any questions on this meeting, to make things more clear, because I had things like the problems surrounding episode three and four in the back of my mind. I thought that I had better watch out so that I didnt get even more on bad terms with Mr. Tippins, because I didnt want to loose my job or anything like that. I thought that the reasons for these questions would seem clearer to me after we had been having the sheduled meeting at 11.30. So then, when he in the meeting at 11.30 says that the team-leader in the episode with the extra headphones, was the same guy (I asumed the one that was least heavily built), then I understood that this couldnt be right. I thought back on the uncheduled meeting with Mr. Tippins at around 10 am, and remember what Mr. Tippins had been saying then, that we didnt have a team-leader with the name of Chris Baines. I hadnt taken what he said to be very important earlier, because I reconed that the reason of why he brought up this with the name, was because there was a problem regarding a technicality with the name. And I asumed that the reason for why he

asked me if it was the small guy standing next to the big guy, would be made clear later. Now I suddently understood that this wasnt at all about a technicality with the name. I now understood that Mr. Tippins wanted me to think that there wasnt any teamleader with the name of Chris Baines employed in the company. And when I told Mr. Tippins, that [my team-leader] Line Sletvold had told me that his name was Chris Baines, then Mr. Tippins must have changed strategy, it seemed, and wanted me then to belive that the team-leader was one of the two guys he was showing me. This was how it seemed to me. It was clear to me that something was wrong, but I was still uncertain because of the fact that they were saying that Mr. Baines didnt own a white hooded sweater. So later, when we were discussing the next incident, and they claimed that Mr. Baines behaviour when he didnt say bye, was acceptable and usual, then I accepted the appology from Mr. Baines regarding this, even if I thought that this behaviour wasnt acceptable for a team-leader. Tippins said that in a hectic work environment, it was often that these things happened. (That one ignored people and didnt say hi or bye). I was a bit afraid that I would end up loosing my job the way the meeting was going, so I therefore accepted the appology and we went on. Baines said that he had said bye to me once. I couldnt remeber this at the meeting, [but I later remembered that it must have been probably the Sunday, the first day after the first incident, when I sayd load and clear: 'Bye', and Baines answered: 'See you']. Baines said that he could remeber having said bye to Osman and me. [Baines, by the way, mixed up all the incidents all the time. For instance he mixed up the situation when he didnt say bye to me [when I was alone], with the incident when Osman and I finished work, and went out at the same time. Baines seemed unfocused and disinterested. He let Tippins and Rushby take charge in sorting the situation. Mr. Tippins and me had to all the time help Mr. Baines, and explain which incidents we were discussing. Line Sletvold had told me that Mr. Baines was working at the Bon Prix campaign. I noticed that he was working with the mail-bags on Sunday [26/11]. On Monday [27/11] he had the day off. On Tuesday[28/11], I tryed to notice if he was working, when I passed the Bon Prix campaign area, on the way to the toilet.

And I also tryed to look around and see if I could see him (inbetween the phonecalls), butI didnt see him untill about 5 or 10 minutes before the meeting was starting, when he was standing [together with Tippins I think] not far from our campaign area. (Im writing this because Mr. Tippins was asking me in the unsheduled meeting if I had been seeing Mr. Baines at work that day.)] Then we started talking about the episode surrounding Mr. Baines following me on my way home after work. Baines said that he hadnt seen me turn around, even if I turned around a lot of times, and looked straight at him each time. Mr. Tippins said that Mr. Baines probably was wearing his headphones. How Rushby acted in the meeting: - Was jumping from point to point. - Was talking fast. - Was interupting. - Was having long, fast-speaking summaries, where she mixed together several things (Norwegian word: 'Vas'), to then sneak in a conclusion that was meant to be a conclusion that we both agreed on. It seemed like she wanted to overload my brain with information/unimportant talk. To tire me out, to then sneak in a conclusion, that she meant that we both were agreeing on. Time after time, I had to ask her to let me finish, to not interupt, to talk clearly [so that I could understand what she was saying even if Im Norwegian], and ask her to talk about one subject at a time. She was trying to confuse me, to get me out of track. All the time I had to try to backtrack the discusion, to try to find out what I was really trying to say, since she all the interupted me, and tryed to get me out of track. Rushby didnt take any consideration to the fact that English is only my second language, but was talking fast and tryed to get me out of track. I think it would be difficult for someone to follow her, even if they had been living in England all their life. All the time I had to ask her to let me finish and not interupt me. -

And none of them brought up the point surrounding me been having problems with organised criminals in Oslo and Liverpool. Noone mentioned this. They seemed like they were in balance and acted naturally. Mr. Baines seemed dozy and disinterested. Mr. Tippins seemed to act like usual. And also Rushby seemed to act natural, even if she got tears in her eyes a couple of times, when she didnt sucseed in confusing me/getting me out of track. They said that Mr. Baines hadnt seen me, and was only walking the usual way he used to walk to the bus. I said that I was looking straight at him several times [he looked back at me]. I was turning around so many times that he must have noticed it. I noticed that he wasnt looking straight down, and wasnt looking straight ahead. Mr. Tippins said that Mr. Baines probably was walking in his own world listening to his walkman. [But at the bus-stop, Mr. Baines wasnt wearing any headphones. He didnt need to remove any headphones. He put up a 'stone-face', he was looking unshaven, with long 'fjones'/hair in his face, and looked a bit unrested. He didnt look like he recongnized me at all. But I recongnized him. And when I asked him if it was him that was working at Arvato, then he said yes. I again recognized, like I did when he was passing Leather Lane [the Lane where my flat is], that he was wearing a dark coloured parkas with a many-coloured (Norwegian: 'Spraglete') fur-colar. He was also wearing this jacket to work the day after, on Sunday, when he showed up at work at Arvato a bit before 12 oclock.] Mr. Tippins asked Mr. Baines if he had noticed that it was me [walking in front of him]. Mr. Baines answered that he hadnt noticed me at all. I continued to explain another reason why I found it not likely that Mr. Baines hadnt noticed me, people skills. When I was working as a store manager in Norway, and was closing the store, then I always tryed to remember whom I had said bye to, which way people used to walk home etc.

This to avoid 'embarrasing' situations, like saying bye to the same person twice etc. Because when you are working with people, then you should have a certain amount of social intelligence. [better: one would asume that to have at least a certain amount of people skills/ sosial inteligence would be a prerequisite to get a job as a manager.] [And its clear that Mr. Baines have got social inteligence/people skills. He smiles, has got charm/charisma, it seems to me when his speaking with other people. Its seems to me that other people treats him with respect, that hes seem smart, that hes aware. And it seems like hes got inteligence from how the look in his eyes look. It seems clear to me that he doesnt lack eighter regular or social intelligence, in other words, he would know how to act if he wants to [it isnt like hes challenged when it comes to social or regular inteligence]. When Mr. Baines is ignoring people, and when hes not acting polite, then his doing this on purpose. [he isnt doing this because his challenged when it comes to social intelligence]. So that Mr. Baines shouldnt be aware of the fact that it is me that is walking in front of him on the other side of the street, when he a minute or two earlier have turned off the lights at Arvato. (Been responsible for ending the shift). (To end the shift he needs to know things like that everybody has left the Arvato company area, he probably have to check that everyone has written them self out on the timesheet, and things like managers have to do when they close the Arvato work area.) So at this time, he has got the overview of the company-area, and knows that Osman and me are the last employees to leave the company-area. He refered to Osman in the meeting, so he knew who Osman is, and its no doubt that he also knows who I am. [Since I have been worked there much longer than Osman, and because of the several incidents surrounding him and me earlier, and because he from time to time, like this day, is the shift-leader for our campaign, when our campaign havent got any team-leader working on a particular shift.] So I dont find it probable at all that he doesnt know that its me that is walking in front of him. Its clear to me that he must know that its me that walks a bit infront of him when he walks out of the Cunard builidng. Hes walking on the other side of the street. He sees that it is me that turns around several times. Hes ignoring me as usual. He puts up a stone-face. On purpose he continues to follow me into Dale St, even it must be obvious to him, that I dont like that he is following me.]

The reason that I start to turn around to see if he was walking the same way as me, is that I had the previous incidents with him in the back of my head. [I think he acted so cold in the incident when he didnt say bye, and from the other incident on the same day as he followed me (25/11), when Mr. Baines kept starring at me, without any reason, and for a long time, while I was working on translating to English the summary from the meeting with Line Sletvold 31/10/06 and 11/11/06 on the computer at my workstation by our campaign-table.] Mr. Tippins says that Mr. Baines have appologised for not saying bye, so I didnt have any reason to worry about this incident. I understand that Mr. Tippins wants us to shake hands and square it up. I answer that Mr. Baines had appologized now in the meeting. What Mr. Baines says in the meeting today, didnt have any influence on how threatened I felt by the situation on Saturday, three days earlier. [Mr. Tippins is trying to bring things out of context]. I also explain that even if I personaly acepted Mr. Baines' appology [for not saying bye] in the beginning of the meeting, I [looking at the incident in a stricly professional way] thinks that Mr. Baines behaviour [in this incident] was unaceptable [for a team-leader]. I explained that the manager (who works with people), is the person who is responsible for the communication, who is the professional in this interaction. So for a manager, in this very inpolite way, ignoring an employee, and dont want to say bye, I find unaceptable. Mr. Baines was also my shift-leader on this shift (since our campaign didnt have a team-leader on this shift) [and this makes it even less aceptable]. Noone gives any answer to this. We agree that well find out if its probable that the person Mr. Tippins noded towards [in the unsheduled meeting 28/11/06], could be the team-leader in the first incident. The shift-plans would be studied to find out who was working on this specific day (the day that incident with the extra headphones happened).

Then we were going to have a new meeting. Rushby asked me what I would do regarding this case in the mean-time. I answered that I would continue to seek advice from indipendent organisations/institutions regarding how to deal with this matter. The meeting is over, Im writing down what we were agreeing. The other participants at the meeting is leaving the room while Im writing. Rushby enters the room again for some reason. She walks out after me, I hold the door to be polite. Then we enter the hall in the 2nd floor. I waited to see if she would head for the stairs or the elevator. She head for the stairs, so I chose to take the elevator. Because it became a bit akward when she entered the meeting-room again, and I held open one or two doors for her. So I found it best to take the elevator, since I thought the situation became a bit to social-like, and I thought the situation lacked a bit of the distance you'd expect situations at work to have. I didnt quite understand the reason for why Rushby went back into the meeting-room again. She didnt say anything. She didnt explain the reason. And I couldnt see that she picked up anything, like something she had forgotten, eighter. She also used very long time, and walked very slowly in front of me, before it was possible for me to see if she headed for the stairs or the elevator. So I remember I found the way she behaved a bit peculiar. [thats why I chose to include it in the summary].

Enclosure 4

Enclosure 5
SUMMARY MEETING 29/11/06 Line Sletvold, Team-leader, MSPA, Arvato Services. Sarah Rushby, HR, Arvato Services. Ian Carrel, Managing Director, Arvato Services. Erik Ribsskog, Contact Center Representative, MSPA, Arvato Services.

About four hours before the meeting, I had sent an e-mail to Managing Directot Ian Carrel regarding a serious harassment-incident and other very serious problems that had been going on in the company. I also sent him a copy of the summary from the meeting with Line Sletvold 26/11/06, where I discribed the problems with the harassment-incidents involving Team-leader at the Bon Prix campaign Chris Baines. I also sent a copy of the the summary from the meeting with Senior Team-leader Aidan Tippins from 28/11/06, where Mr. Tippins is clearly lying. I also descibed in the e-mail how Sarah Rushby (HR), Aidan Tippins (STL Arvato), and Chris Baines, clearly co-operated in covering the harassment episodes up in the other meeting regarding this on 28/11/06. These episodes were only the tip of the iceberg, and from all the other things that were going on in the company, it was clear to me, that most or all of these harassment-problems and other problems were organised. After the meetings on 28/11/06, I contacted the police again regarding these problems, and I got telephone-call back later from the police. The police sounded concerned, and because of the nature of the problems Id been having with these persons, the police adviced me to report to higher management about these problems. And because of the seriousity regarding the problems in the company, I found that it was important to act fast regarding this, and I decided I also contact the ownercompany Bertelsmann, and some newspapers etc. I thought that this was the only resposible thing to do. So Mr Carrol said he had got some phone-calls from Bertelsmann head of PR, and a newspaper regarding this.

I insisted that I had only done what I though was the only thing responsible. Sarah Rushby said that she admited to having interupted me a couple of times in the meeting the day before, an apologised for this. I said that I had been thinking more about what happened on the meeting the day before, and said that she was also talking very fast and not taking any concern to me not having English as my first language. She said that she had never heard this being said before [that she talked very fast], and asked me about an example on how they had been taking things out of context, like I had mentioned that they did in the e-mail to Ian Carrol. I explained that I hadnt prepared that much for this meeting, (because the reason I was working that day, was that I was working on writing on the finished version on the summary from the meeting with Line Sletvold 30/10/06 and 11/11/06). But I remembered an example of this in my head: Mr. Baines appoligesed in the meeting 28/11/06 about him not saying bye in an earlier incident. Mr. Tippins said (in the second meeting 28/11/06), that I shouldnt have needed to be concerned about this (Mr. Baines acting impolite/ignoring me in that earlier incident). Mr Tippins said that I shouldnt have needed to be concerned about this (have this in the back on my head) on 25/11/06, since Mr. Baines had appologised about this earlier in the meeting on 28/11/06. Rushby said that I hadnt given Mr. Tippins any chance to explain [about the lyingepisode in the first meeting 28/11/06]. I said that I normally would have done this, but that this situation was so serious, that the only thing responisble would be to act fast. Rushby said that the acusaitons [in the e-mail to Ian Carrol] didnt have any substance. I said that I could document most of what I had been saying in the e-mail and more. I continued to read from the e-mail, where I explained why I had acted like I did: 'The harassment cases, the lies, the covering up and breaching of agreements, are so serious, that the only thing responsible, would be to have a meeting about this as soon as possible.' Mr. Carrol said that I should have waited for his reply before I contacted the newspaper.

I said that it would have been irresponsible. It was clear to me that it was important to act as fart as possible in this matter. Mr. Carrol said that contacting the newspaper was breach of company policy. I said that in any other case, I would never have done it like this, but that this situation was so serious, that it would have been irresponsible not to do it. I explained that I had contacted him about this, before I contacted anyone else about this. [Even if this was only a technicalty]. It seemed clear to me that this was organised. Mr. Carrol wondered what I wanted from the investigation. I explained that i wasnt an expert on this, an that the way I normally would have tried to deal with problems that I didnt have any competence in myself, would be to contact people that have competence in dealing with these kinds of problems. Mr. Carrol said that I should have escalated this earlier. I said that in the meeting with Line Sletvold 26/11/06, I said that we had to inform the people responsible for security and operations in the company about the situation. I was offered a meeting with the two Senior team-leaders for the two campaigns involved, the team-leader involved, my line-manager and myself. I agreed to this, because I thought it was important that we came to an agreement about how we should deal with the problems. I thought it was important to get my line-managers support in this. And I thought that I could escalate it later, if I didnt think the problems were taken seriously enough. [This was before I found out about my Senior team-leader lying, and the cover-up and the lyes in the scheduled meeting 28/11/06]. [Line sent me an e-mail, it must have been on 27/11/06, where she asked me if it was ok that also HR participated on the meeting 28/11/06. (For some reason the Senior team-leader for the Bon Prix-campaign, wasnt going to participate in the meeting, and neighter would my line-manager.

She said, when I talked to her about this, I think on the same day, that she had a rest-day on 28/11/06, and wouldnt participate because of this. I thought she looked afraid when we spoke about this, so I didnt insist that she should participate on the meeting.) In my answer on her e-mail, I wrote that it was ok that HR participated on the meeting. I also reminded her about what I had said in the meeting with her on 26/11/06, that I thought that this was so serious, that I thought that it was important that also the people responsible for security and operations in the company was informed.] I continued to ask if there was a department responsible for securtiy in the company, and Mr. Carrol said that there wasnt. I asked if Bertelsmann in Germany had got a department like this. Mr. Carrol said that they had an anti-fraud department there. I explained that when I worked in one of Norways biggest companies, a grocerystore chain called Ica-gruppen (former Hakon-gruppen/Rimi). Ica-gruppen (Rimi) had their own security-department [who worked with clearing up cases with robberies, dishonest employees etc. etc]. They were a kind of Rimi-police, you could call them. So I wondered if Bertelsmann could have a similar department like this, and if then I thought they should be informed. Because then I thought they would be able to give advice in how to deal with the situation. Eg. advice on how to conduct the investigation etc. I wanted to make sure that Mr. Carrol understood how important I thougt it was that this was dealt with as professional as possible, so I went on with explaining something from the sheduled meeting 28/11/06. I told him that in the beginning of the meeting on 28/11/06, I had handed out a summary from the meeting with Line Sletvold on 26/11/06, where I explained about the harassment-incidents.

I told everyone on the sheduled meeting 28/11/06 (Rushby, Tippins, Baines), that if everyone could read through the summary, then everyone would have the details from the incidents fresh in their head. And I said that I though everyone on that meeting had also been sent the summary from the meeting 26/11/06, well in front of the meeting on 28/11/06. Line confirmed that Rushby and Tippins had been sent an email with the summary from the meeting between Line and me on 26/11/06 (where I explaied about the harassment-incidents), but Baines hadnt. I continued to say that Baines at least read it at the beginning of the meeting 28/11/06. My point was, that what was said in that summary, and would have made me myself very much raise my eyebrows if it was me who read the summary under similar circomstances was this: On page 6 in the summary (from the meeting between Line Sletvold and myself on Sunday 26/11/06), that was handed out on the meeting on 28/11/06, it says: 'And because I found this behaviour very uncomfortalbe, and because Ive earlier had problems with organised criminals in Oslo and Liverpool (problems which I have reported to the police in Norway and England), I decided to take a taxi to the police-station to report this.' Neighter my senior team-leader Aidan Tippins (who said he didnt need to read this document at the meeting, since he had recieved it on email and read it before), or Sarah Rushby, from HR (who recieved the document on email, and also read it at meeting), reacted in any way to this information. None of them mentioned this at all. How could this be? I would have found information like this very unusual, yet no-one asked about this or seemed scared [or concerned], about this. They seemed to be comfortable and relaxed. I explained this to Ian Carrol. Sarah Rushby didnt comment on this. I continued to say to Ian Carrol, that since hed asked what I wanted that should be done regarding this. I continued to explain that I hadnt done anything wrong, and that I had reported

about these problems to the police in Norway and England. But that I hadnt managed to get any help, or even advice, from the police about regarding how to deal with this. So when you (Ian Carrol) ask what I want the company to do about this, then I wonder if it maybe is possible to get help, with advice on how to deal with this. Mr. Carrol said that the company could only help with advice on how to deal with organised crime, if it was within the company. If its external, it should be covered by the police. Erik accepted this, and continued to say that he think that it is important that these problems should be dealt with, and not hidden under the carpet. Mr. Carrol said that I wouldnt find anything hidden at Arvato, here everything is open. Erik started to read again from the e-mail sent to Mr. Carrol earlier that day: 'It seems clear to me that most of, or all of, there harassment-cases and other cases, are organised.' Ian Carrol: 'If its organised crime within the company, then you should email me me about it.' Erik: 'I thought that was what I did this morning.' Mr. Carrol doesnt answer. Erik (reads from the email again): 'It seems clear to me that most of, or all of, there harassment-cases and other cases, are organised.' Erik: 'And its not organised by Arvato.' Sarah Rushby: 'I think what Erik is trying to say is that this is organised crime, that we all are criminals.' Erik continues to say to Ian Carrol: 'I think its important that everyone act responisble about this, and that expertise outside of the organisation should be contacted about this.' Erik: 'The police, you should contact St. Annes police-station about this.' Mr. Carrol: 'Have you got a log-number.'

Erik: 'Yes.' Mr. Carrol: 'Could you email me the log-number.' Erik: 'Yes, of course.' Sarah Rushby: 'Erik, here is a copy of the companys harassment-policy copied from the employee-handbook.' [I had read the harassment-policy earlier, and had also got the employee-manual at home, but I didnt want to be inpolite.] Erik: 'Ok, thank you very much.' Erik (to Mr. Carrol): 'Have you got a piece of paper?' Mr. Carrol: 'Yes'. Erik: 'I think I have the log-number here somewhere.' (I had the log-number written on a note in my wallet, I write the log-nr on the piece of paper, and gives it to Mr. Carrol.) (Meeting ended).

OTHER THINGS THAT WAS SAID IN THE MEETING #1 It was agreed that Erik should stay home, and write on writing summaries etc. while the investigation continued. Erik hadnt got to write all the summaries from the meetings, since there had been many meetings the last days and weeks, and would have liked it, if he could go to work and write the summaries at work, without being interupted by the phones. Mr. Carrol said that because it was an harassment-case ('given the aligations' + 'duty of care', was the words he used that i wrote down on the meeting). Given this, Mr. Carrol said that he couldnt allow me to go to work during the investigation.

#2 Rusby said: at the meeting [sheduled meeting 28/11/06], we agreed that the way we would go forward with this, was that we would find out some information, and then

have a later meeting about this. Yet you went to the police [after the sheduled meeting 28/11/06]. She wondered why. Erik said that he started to think about the things that had happend on the meetings on Tuesday 28/11/06, and the more I thought about it, it got clear to me that something was seriously wrong. [the lies and the covering up etc.] So I thought the only thing responsible would be to contact the police. At the [sheduled] meeting 28/11/06, we were discussing how we were going to pursue the case further. I said that I would continue to seek advice from indipendent institutions/organisations, to make sure that I dealt with the situation as responsible as possible. I reminded Rushby that the police is an indipendent organisation, and that they can be trusted. And that it therefore is ok to contact the police in situations like these. [It looked like Mr. Carrol agreed with this.] It was clear to me that this was the only responsible thing to do. And then later, the police called (in the middle of the night), and seemed concerned. They said that the problems Id been having with these persons should be taken seriously. They seemed concerned, and continued to say that I should contact higher management about the problems id been having with these persons.

#3 (REGARDING WHEN WE WOULD HAVE THE MEETING AFTER THE INVESTIGATION) Line: Erik has got his holidays coming up in not long. Mr. Carrol: Ok, then he would try to have the investigation ready before my holiday started. I said it was no need to hurry for my sake. I thought it was more important that one used the necessarty time to make sure that the investigation was contucted in an apropriate manner. I wouldnt mind using of my holidays, and instead get a lue-day etc.

I though that the most important thing was that the investigation was done properly. Mr. Carrol wondered if I was staying home during my holidays. I asked Line what 'sannsynligvis' was in English again. Most likely, Line said.

#4 (HOW I TRY TO EXPLAIN TO MR. CARROL HOW I THOUGHT THE PROBLEM SHOULD BE DEALT WITH) It should be put light on this problem. It should not be put under the carpet. If it isnt dealt with, then the problem could grow bigger and bigger, until it gets to big to be [easily] dealt with. Thats why it is important to deal with problems like this as efficently, professional and responsible as possible.

#5 WHO WOULD LEAD THE INVESTIGATION In the beginning of the meeting Mr. Carrel also said that Sarah Rushby, HR, would be leading the investigation.

Enclosure 6
SUMMARY UNSHEDULED MEETING 28/11/06 Aidan Tippins, Senior Team-leader, Arvato Services. Erik Ribsskog, Contact Center Representative, MSPA, Arvato Services.

A couple of hours before the main meeting at 11.30, Mr. Tippins asked me to log 'meeting' and follow him. I did so, and Mr. Tippins asked: Aidan: 'We are having a meeting today regarding some complaints you have against a team-leader, right?' Erik: 'Yes.' Adian: 'Whats the name of this team-leader?' Erik: 'Chris Baines.' Aidain: 'Are you sure?' Erik: 'Yes.' Aidan: 'But we havent got a team-leader with the name of Chris Baines.' Erik: 'Thats what Line [my line-manager] told me.' Aidan: 'Line told you his name was Chris Baines?' Erik: 'Yes.' Aidan: 'Have you seen this team-leader here today?' Erik: 'No.' Then Mr. Tippins pointed at a person and asked if this was Mr. Baines. I wasnt, so I said no. (End of meeting.)

Enclosure 7
SUMMARY MEETING 31/10/06 AND 11/11/06 Line Sletvold, Team Leader MSPA, Arvato Services. Erik Ribsskog, Contact Center Representative MSPA, Arvato Services.

31/10/06:

ASDP MEETING On the ASDP (Arvato Services Development Program) - meeting we had 06/10/06, we were discussing my scores on the different ASDP categories. I got the best score on most of them, but on one of them I got a lower score than the best score, because as you said, I was sometimes a bit stressed while taking the Danish calls. I startet explaining that I could have been a bit stressed during the last months at work, and that there were many different reasons for this. And that these reasons should be seen as a whole to get the right picture of the whole situation. Its probably not enough to only look at one of the reasons to explain this. To explain this, one really had to explain all of the reasons that were contributing to this, because it was a combination of reasons that caused this, and one really have to tell all of them to make it possible to explain the whole picture.

QUALITY BRIEF In June the agents on the campaign recieved an email/quality brief saying that if we didnt ask the customers for the product-key and/or we didnt ask the probing-questions when a customer called to active, then we could face being subject to a development action plan, which could result in disiplinary action (ie. getting fired), being taken against us.

BUZZ-MEETING Then, I think it must have been, on 14/06/06, we had a buzz-meeting with Ian.

There he said that we had recently recieved an email/quality brief where it said that we could face disiplinary action/getting fired. But, he said, we shouldnt worry about this at all. What was said in the email/quality brief wasnt something we needed to think about at all. But why then was the quality brief issued if what it said wasnt relevant at all? And the buzz-meeting was about call-time, why did he bring up the issue of the warnings in the quality-brief? Later in the meeting we got told that our campaign was the MSPA call-center equivalent of Manchester City when it comes to call-time (we were at the bottom). This problem had to be sorted, the call-time had to go down. He only wanted to hear solutions and no problems regarding how to solve this. People having problems with doing this his way should instead find something else to do than staying on the campaign. The meeting ended with us getting told to find our own solutions, and ask eachother for advice on how to get our call-time down. Line: This is how Ian is on all the campaigns he is working on. When you know him then you know that this is just the way he is. Erik: But he was a new team-leader on the campaign, we didnt know him. Of course we took what he said seriously.

AFTER THE BUZZ-MEETING So after the buzz-meeting, I changed the script to a way which I thought would get the calltime down. And started taking calls after this new script. (This work is a bit tireing, because when you are used with taking calls in a certain way for almost a year, then it gets a bit exchausting when you start changing this). After having taken calls after the new script for about three or four hours, Vivian starts saying that we now are to start using a brand new script, newly developed by the team-leaders. So then I have to start taking calls in a new way once again, only three or four hours after I changed the script the first time. I remember thinking that if the script had been presented on the buzz-meeting a few hours earlier, then the situation would have been much less exhausting/caotic, because then we would only have to change the script once.

Line: I hadnt got anything to do with the meeting, so cant say why the new script wasnt presented on the meeting.

WRAP-UP Then one or two days later, when Im still quite stressed after the buzz-meeting and working with the new scripts, then suddently Vivian starts to complain about that Im on wrap-up to long time between the calls. So when my focus is on the new script (and reducing the call-time), then I start getting complaints about breaking the new wrap-up rules (which says that the wrap-up time that earlier could be up to 30 seconds, now only could be up to 5 seconds.) I was not aware of this new rule. And cannot remember the rule being presented in any way before I started getting complaints that I was breaking this rule. And this was before we had been used to the new script. And the new wrap-up rule was not presented on the buzz-meeting one or two days earlier, and neighter did one wait eighter, untill the campaign had been used to the new script, to present the new rule. The new rule was presented suddently, in the form of a complaint (of breaking the new rule), inbetween the calls, while I was focusing on reducing the call-time and on learning the new script. I remember that the way the new wrap-up rule was presenteted added quite a lot of stress to the already stressed situation I was in at the moment, due to the new scripts and the focus on the call-time. Line: The campaign had a meeting about wrap-up. Maybe it was on one of your rest-days? Erik: I remember the campaign having an ASDP-meeting about wrap-up beeing included in the ASDP-scores, but this meeting was at a time about a couple of months later than this time. I cant remember beeing presented with the new wrap-up rule at all before this happened.

WRAP-UP MEETING After Vivian told me about the new wrap-up rule, Vivian and I had a meeting, where I explained

that I was used with it being a 30 second wrap-up limit, and that I would focus on that the limit had been reduced, and work on gradually reducing my avarage wrap-up time in the forthcomming days. We agreed that this was an ok aproach on how to sort this problem. But the day after, it was like this meeting had never happened. It was the same complaint: 'Youre on wrap-up', being shouted at you if you had been on wrap-up more than 5 seconds.

OTHER STRESSING FACTORS Vivian continued to give orders to me while I was on the phone speaking with customers. This happened on several occations. She gave orders in an agressive, impatient and, I thought, impolite manner, that I remember I found stressing. An example: In the moment a call was finished, Vivian asks me a question in an agressive/threatening tone that made it clear that see wanted an answer straight away. So when the conversation with her was finished, then she looks on the display on my phone, and sees that the phone is in wrap-up mode. Then she says: 'Im warning you about being on wrap-up', in a very agressive/threatening way. But the reason that I was on wrap-up, is that she interupted me in the same moment as the phone-call ended, so that I didnt have any chance of getting time to log the call and put the phone back in available mode.

ASKING FOR THE PRODUCT-KEY TAKING DANISH CALLS Then some days later, Vivian overheard me taking a Danish call. She hears that Im not taking the product-key when Im taking this call. [Danish is a tricky language for Norwegians to speak. Danes have problem understanding Norwegian. And its quite exhausting for Norwegians to try to speak Danish. This is mostly because of the way the Danes speak the sounds in their language. The sounds in Danish are spoken very different from how the sounds in Norwegians are spoken. Its not comparable to Norwegian and Swedish. Swedish is spoken in a quite similar way to Norwegian. Swedes and Norwegians understand eachother quite easily. Not so with Danes and Norwegians or Danes and Swedes.]

When Vivian hears that Im not taking the product-key, then she rushes to where I sit, and says 'Arent you taking the Danish product-keys?' I answer that Im not used to having to take the product-key on the Danish calls (because of the language-problem). She says: 'You have to start taking the product-key on the Danish calls as well'.

NOT USUAL FOR NORWEGIANS TO TAKE THE PRODUCT-KEY ON THE DANISH CALLS Ive been working on the campaign for more than a year now, full-time. And during this time, Ive been working a lot of overtime, and I havent been sick a single day. And have only had a few days vacation when moving to a new appartment in July. And because of the high turnover on the campaign etc., I think Im probably the person who is most aware of the things that have happened on the campaign during the last year. As far as I know, it has not been usual to take the product-key in general, and certainly not usual for Norwegians taking the Danish calls to do this. As far as I know, Norwegians taking only, or mostly Danish calls, have been looked at as an 'emergency'-situation. I remember once when two of the former team-leaders asked me if I could be 'the Dane' that Day. (Because there werent any Danes working that day, because of sicknes etc.) They explained that they knew that it was difficult for a Norwegian to be on the Danish line, but they asked me in a polite way if I could do this anyhow. And then, a bit later, when I asked one of the Danes for the product-key (while the teamleaders were listening), I could see on the way they reacted that it was defenetly not usual for Norwegians to do this. Especially one of them, the one who had been working as a team-leader the longest, looked very surprised by hearing a Norwegian taking the product-key on a Danish call. So it seemed clear to me that this was something that was not usual to do, due to the generally aknowledged language-problems. Line: When I started here, I was told we had to ask for the product-key. Erik: When I started here, I wasnt aware of the fact that we were supposed to ask for the product-key untill a couple of months had past, and I was having my first call-acreditation. I was then especially reminded by the team-leader, that I had to remember to ask for the product-key. It seemed clear to me that the team-leader knew that I didnt use to ask for

the product-key, but that since this was a call-acreditation call, I was supposed to ask for the product-key this time).

CUSTOMERS NOT USED WITH HAVING TO READ THE PRODUCT-KEY There have also been a lot of customers calling to activate, that has been very surprised by the fact that they have to read the product-key to get to activate windows. For instance, I remember a Swedish lady working in a computer-lab in southern Sweden, being very surprised by having to read the product-key to activate. She said that she had previously been calling about 20 or 30 times to activate, as a part of her job. And she had never been asked to read the product-key before. Another situation I remember, was when a Danish customer was speaking with Muhammed, and Muhammed had to get me and take over the call. This was because the Dane had called to activate more than 20 times, and had never been asked to read the product-key before. The Dane thought that Mohammed was trying to trick the customer to tell him the productkey (to use it illegaly or something like that). So the customer had to be calmed down. Line: It could be that these customers has been speaking with the Scandinavian PA department in Germany, and that this is the reason why they havent been asked for the product-key. Erik: Well I find this very unlikely. The Scandinavian PA department in Germany have only been operating since November/December last year, and Vivian have told me that our PA department is the main Scandinavian PA department. I therefore find it very unlikely that customers have been calling 20-30 times and only been speaking with the department in Germany. Line: There has been much sloppines involved regarding asking for the product-key. I remember it being usual only to ask for the product-key when the team-leaders where within hearing distance.

SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR BEING STRESSED - First it was the quality brief with threats of disiplinary action being taken (eg. being fired), if the agents didnt ask for the product-key (which wasnt usual).

- Then the buzz-meeting with the threats of having to quit the job if not doing the job excactly like the managers wanted regarding call-time. - Then the new script presented in the buzz-meeting. - Then another script presented a few hours after the buzz-meeting. - Then the new wrap-up rule which said that the maximum aloved wrap-up time was being reduced from 30 secongs to 5 seconds. And this rule was, as far as I know, put into to function without the campaign being informed. - Then the new product-key situation, with Norwegian agents having to ask for the product-key while taking the Danish calls. (This, as far as I know, almost never happend earlier. Firstly it wasnt usual in general for agents to ask for the product-key. Secondly, the added languageproblems surrounding Danish calls being taken by Norwegians, led to that the product-key being never, or almost never, asked for in these calls). - And because of the cover-situation on the Scandinavian PA in Germany, there was in the relevant months much more Danish calls than other calls. (Id say maybe 50-90 percent of the calls where in Danish, varying a bit from day to day, depending on the cover-situation in Germany). [Further explenation: And because there were eighter only none or one Dane working at the campaign in these months, and because Norwegians, in general, where the only non-Danish speakers having to take Danish calls. In general people from the different countries had to take calls in the following nordic languages: Norwegians: Norwegian, Swedish and Danish. Swedes: Swedish and Norwegian. Danes: Danish. Finns: Finish. So when up to 90 percent of the calls were in Danish, and the only Dane was very often not working the same shift. And I was the only Norweigan working full-time taking calls. This resulted

in the workload on me being often much heavier than on the others. Because I got most calls, since my login was taking three languages, and because I had to take most of these calls in Danish. (This issue was also brought up with on an Employee Forum Meeting with the Managing Director. But nothing was done about it. The problem only got worse, since the only other Norwegian speaker working full-time taking calls left a few weeks after this meeting. (See enclosed summary from the Employee Forum Meeting, 23/05/06)). Danish is spoken very different than Norwegian. Resulting in misunderstandings etc. Many Danes dont understand Norwegian at all. When you speak to them in Norwegian they often say that they dont understand Swedish. And its almost imposible for Norwegians to speak Danish, because it is spoken in a way that you have to live in Denmark for many years to learn. Wikipedia says this about this subject: "Generally, speakers of the three Scandinavian languages (Danish, Norwegian and Swedish) can read each other's languages without great difficulty. This holds especially true of Danish and Norwegian. The primary obstacles to mutual comprehension are differences in pronunciation. Danish speakers generally do not understand Norwegian as well as the extremely similar written norms would lead one to expect. Some Norwegians also have problems understanding Danish, but according to a recent scientific investigation Norwegians are better at understanding both Danish and Swedish than the Danes and Swedes are at understanding Norwegian.[1] Nonetheless, Danish is widely reported to be the most incomprehensible language of the three. In general, Danes and Norwegians will fluently understand the other language with only a little training." Further from the same link: "The difference in pronunciation between Norwegian and Danish is much more striking than the difference between Norwegian and Swedish. Although written Norwegian is very similar to Danish, spoken Norwegian more closely resembles Swedish.

The Danish pronunciation is typically described as 'softer', which in this case refers mostly to the frequent approximants corresponding to Norwegian and historical plosives in some positions in the word (especially the pronunciation of the letters d and g), as well as the realisation of r as a uvular or even pharyngeal approximant in Danish as opposed to the Norwegian alveolar trills or uvular trills/fricatives." (Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differences_between_Norwegian_Bokm %C3%A5l_and_ Standard_Danish, 10/01/07, 19:04.) Even so, it was expected of me that I should take these Danish calls, now also asking for and reading back the product-key, in the same time as eg. Finns used taking Finish calls, Danes used taking Danish calls, and Swedes used taking mostly Swedish calls. Each persons average call-time was each day ranked and put on a big board, and also emailed to the campaign. And I had in the back of my mind that if the call-time wasnt reduced to the time-limit mentioned in the buzz-meeting, then management would probably think that I wasnt working on the task of trying to solve the problem with the call-time the way they wanted. (with the threats that were given regarding this). Also, since I have studied computers, and have built some computers myself and having general computer-knowledge, and in adition also have worked with customer-support and being used with the importance of giving proper customer-support. I often got transfered difficult calls that the other agents didnt know how to solve. Since I had been working on the campaign longer than most of the other agents, and was used to use 'active listening', to find out if there were some breaching of Microsoft activation rules regarding this activation. And since I was used to working with customer-support from my earlier jobs, I maybe used longer time than average on finding information helping the customer etc., this lead to the calls taking longer time.

And also using 'active listening' like we had been thought earlier, and also helping the customer finding information, explaining rules in detail, and getting the difficult calls transfered from other agents, led to me having to ask more questions in these calls than more regular calls. So you could say that trying to do the job properly often resultet in the calls taking longer time, and then you got a lower rank. And also being Norwegian, having to take calls in three languages, with the other agents having only to take calls in one or two nordic languages., led to you getting a heavier workload. This heavier workload (especially the Danish calls), could lead to you getting more tired than an agent taking fewer calls, and I remember that getting tired could lead to you not managing to take the calls as fast as when you were rested. Especially since the time we got to log the calls (and make ourselves ready for the next call), was reduced from thirty to five seconds. When I moved to a new apartment in July, I had before I did this spoken informaly with Line and Vivian about me aplying for the vacant team-leader position, because I needed to earn more money to pay for the higher rent for the new flat. I have worked ten years as a manager earlier, and is one of the persons that has worked the longest on the campaign, and knows the campaign best, so I didnt think it would be a problem to start working as a team-leader (or at least get to work enough overtime to pay for the higher rent). And in my informal conversation with Line and Vivian about this, in May it must have been, it seemed to me by their answers that this wouldnt be a problem at all. But since I had aplied for the team-leader position, I didnt really want to give a bad impression to the managers, and me getting a low rank on the call-time board, I didnt think came to my advantage when it came to my possibilities of getting the team-leader job. And when the aplication-process for the team-leader job draged on for about three months, without me or the campaign getting any feedback, this also added to the stress.

And because of me not getting the team-leader job, I had to work overtime to cover the rent, and this also led to me getting more tired (because the workload in the job became more and more heavy), and when I had to work overtime, the workload became even heavier. Also I have to admit that it wasnt often I heard the other agents asking for the product-key, even after the new quality brief. Firstly I was almost always on the phone taking calls, so it wasnt often I could hear the other agents, how they took the calls. But when I sometimes did hear them, I cant honestly say that I often heard them asking for or reading back the product-key. So it could be that noone, or almost noone, actually did this, except for me, but I didnt have access to listening to the recordings of the other agents' calls, so its difficult for me to say excactly how usual this was. I was applying for team-leader so I didnt want to give a bad impression. Ive also been used to having some pride in doing my job properly, and I also think that the way the jobdescription says you should do the job, shouldnt vary from the way you are expected by the managers to do you job. This should be clear. It shouldnt be in a way that it says in the quality brief etc. that you are to ask for the product-key, when this really isnt expected by the managers. Because then this could be used as a way of getting contol of the campaign etc. Like eg. if everyone knows that its very tireing to ask for the product-key in each call, and imposible to reach the calltime target if you do it. And it anyway says in the quality brief etc. that if you dont ask for the product-key, then you could face diciplinary action (eg. getting fired). This is my impression of how the situation was on the campaign. That the general expectations to how an agent was supposed to do ones job, wasnt the same as what the formal job-instruction/quality brief said regarding this. It seems to me that the managers used this method/hidden agenda, to take control of the campaign, firering who they want, or at least puting fear of getting fired into the employees, giving them bad concience about this etc. I dont know excactly who made it to be this way, or why, but this is how it seems to me that the situation was, and it certainly added to the stress. Another thing that comes to mind is that I didnt know what our main goal with the job was. I remember working in a grocery-store in Oslo some years ago, and there on an employeemeeting we were told that the stores main goal, which everyone should work to acheive,

was to get more, and more satisfied customers. On MSPA I thought it was hard figuring out what was the most important part of the job. Was it that the customers should be conent like in the grocery-store? Was the most important thing to stop as many illigal activations as possible? Was it to have the lowest call-time? If it had been clear what Arvato and/or Microsoft meant was the most important aspect of the job, then it would be easier for the agents/me to know which part of the job I should put most empesis on. I understand that all the things I mentioned are important, but it doesnt make any sense to say that all are equally important. It should be clear that this part of the job is the most important. If not, then you could get complaints for not putting enough effort into one part of the job, and then you couldnt say its because you thought something else was more important. Because then you would get the answer that this part is very important. So when the managers says that all parts of the job are very important, then it makes the job more stressful, and Id say impossible to do a god job. Its much easier if the organisation has got a clear goal that everyone agrees on is the most important to work against. Because then if you got complaints you could answer that you could explain that since this part of the job is especially important, you chose to put more priority on this part in the particular phone-call. On the campaign it seemed like everything was very important. Customers were very important, call-time was very important, wrap-up was very important, stoping the illigal activations was very important, logging was very important, break-times were very important, and much more. It seemed like every little detail was very important. I understand that many of these things really are very important, but it really doesnt make any sence not to have a clear main-goal. Im not sure if we didnt have a clear main-goal because of the manager not thinking about this, or if it could also be that the managers liked to have it this way so that they could complain all the time about small details etc. Because everytime you did a small detail wrong, then you got complaints. It could be that they wanted it to be a bit caotic like this, so it would be easy to find errors employees made, and then they could eg. fire who they wanted, or make a person they didnt want to work there so stressed that they had to find a new job. I thought about brining this issue with the missing main-goal up with the team-leaders, but there was so many other things going on, and from the team-leaders on the campaign it was so much harassment (sexual and no-sexual), lying, threats, missing imformation (like when team-leader Ian Wormwald quit the campaign, he worked a bit on our campaign and a bit on the other campaigns at the end. But when he quit, our campaign wasnt informed,so I kept sending the emails with the Service-Level competition results to him. And then two or three weeks later, we got an e-mail complaining that we shouldnt send emails to Ian Wormwald, because he had quit the campgain.)

This happened again and againg. No imformation about things like this whatsoever. And when rules were changed, the campaign very often didnt get any information about the new rule, until you suddently starting getting complaints about breaking a new rule you hadnt been informed of. Also the team-leaders didnt cooperate properly at all. When rules were changed etc, the team-leaders hadnt first agreed on how to interperate the rules, but they interperatied the rules differently (eg. the new break-rules etc.). They kept blaming eachother, and didnt seem to have any understanding of that they were supposed to be co-worked, and agree on how to interperate rules etc, before they actually interduced them. So the situation on the campaign was so chaotic, and there were always so much going on, like problems with getting the right overtime-pay, holidays, interflex, shift-plan, problem with unclear activation-rules, new rules like new break-rules, the harassment and threats etc. So I never actually got so far as to bring up the question about the main goal. And if I did Im afraid I would just have got told a lye, or being harassed, or just getting a reply that meant your job would become even more stressful, like when I had to start asking for and reading back the Danish product-keys etc. And I have documentation that shows that all of these things (many occurances of sexual and no-sexual harassment, lies and threats from team-leaders and senior team-leaders, and also some from other employees) The campaign didnt use to be this bad, the situation started to be worse around June/July, and then gradually became worse and worse. I was a bit slow starting to addresing all of these issues (I adressed some, but I had just recently been transfered to an Arvato contract, instead of an Randstad contract in the end of June, and I wasnt used to how problems like these were usually dealt with in England, so I needed some time to learn what the things in the employee-handbook meant etc. And the situation at work created so much stress, so it wasnt easy finding the extra energy to learn and deal with this. I also had aplied for team-leader, and I didnt want the process of dealing with these problems become mixed-up with or interfere with the team-leader appliction, because I really needed to get a higher salary. Because I really had to move to a safer place than the one I first had lived in, because Ive been having problems with org. criminals. Problems which were non of my foult, and which I have reported to the police. But the new apartment was much more expensive, so I needed to get a higher salary. I didnt think the team-leader application process would go on for almost three months. And I also decided when the situation on the campaign got worse, and the team-leader issue didnt get solved, that I had to start adressing more of the problems on the campaign, so I started having meetings with the team-leaders adressing the problems. I wasnt really sure how to deal with the more serious problems, like the sexual and nonsexual harassment, lies and threats from the managers, because I thought much of this was very sensitive, and if I adressed some of these things in a wrong way, I was

afraid I could loose my job. (And I was only on a renewable three-month contract anyway, so it seemed a bit risky complaining to much. I needed a new contract when I applied for the flat, thats why I switched from Randstad to Arvato, because the estate agency wouldnt accept the Randstad-contract, since it was only a temperarely contract. But the campaign got informed around May/June that we could switch to Arvatocontracts. I was under the impression from speaking with team-leaders etc. that the Arvato-contracts were permanent contracts, like the estate agency wanted. But when we got the new contract, it was only a three month contract. I complained to my line-manager, and she said it was like this for all, and that the next contract would be a permanent one (after the first three months). When the next contract came, it was still a three month one, and when I complained again I was told by my line-manager that we were only going to get contracts like this. It was around the time I switched from Randstad to Arvato (19/06/06), that I suddently started noticing more and more being porly treated by the managers. Im not sure if these could be connected, but it certainly could fit in with the other things that happened. The problems with the quality brief, threats on the buzz-meating, focus on the call-time etc., started right after four of the team-leaders and key-employees on the campaign switched from Randstad/Gap to Arvato. After the switch to Arvato, there also started to be much more problems when it came to things that had to to with other departments etc. Problems with not being paid overtime, problems with shift-plans not having the right amount of rest-days, problems with the start and end-time on some of the shifts on the shift-plan suddently becoming more and more peculiar, and more. Regarding the team-leader application-process, it seemed to me a bit unprofessional for a big company like Arvato to let the process drag out for about three months, without the campaign getting any feedback. To me it seems a bit peculiar that such a big organisation should deal with this situation in such an unprofessional manner. Its described more about what happened regarding this under the section called 'Teamleader application'.]

- And Vivians aggressive and impatient/impolite behaviour at the time, also added to the stress. The way she interupted the phone-calls with the customers, and the way she complained in a threatening manner. It seems to me that this type of behaviour was more directed at me than towards the other agents, but I also remember her behaving like this towards other agents. For instance I

remember when one agent went from her chair towards the short-call tracking forms (close to where Vivian sat), to pick up a new form. And the reaction from Vivian was to say in an agressive way: 'What are you doing?'. The agent didnt answer anything, she just went back to her chair, as far as I remember, without picking up any form.

MEETINGS WITH VIVIAN AND LINE I thought with myself that I had to get in a dialog with the team-leaders (especially Vivian, which I found it stressing co-working with), in an effort to try to sort some of these problems. Since the problems just got worse and worse, and didnt think it was possible for me to manage to continue in the job if something wasnt done regarding sorting these problems. I wasnt sure about how to deal with the problems like the ones mentioned on the campaign, but I thought that if I knew that we agreed on some basic rules as to how people should co-work on the campaign, then it would be easier for me to do a better and more constructive job on the campaign, and also easier for me to try to find a solution for the problems, like the ones that very making me (very) stressed. I remember from working as a store-manager in Norway, that we from our training learned that every person working in an organisation were important, and had the right to be treated in a respectful, polite, decent and (preferably) nice way. I read a bit about the Arvato policy and the Bertesmann essentials about this, and I found them to be in line with what we learned about this in the organisation I worked with for many years in Norway. (Rimi/Hakon-gruppen now Ica-gruppen). So on the date 12/09/06, Vivian and I had a meeting regarding this. (Line and I had a similar meeting 28/09/06, where we two also found that we both agreed on the fact that these principles were an important part of the platform on which we could base the way we cooperated on the campaign). Vivian agreed with me that all people in an organisation had the right to be treated in a respectful, polite and decent manner. I also explained that I found it stressing when she interupted me while I was speaking with the customers or logging the calls. She understood this, and promised to wait till the conversation with the customer was finished before starting to talk or give orders. I also brought up the situation with the wrap-up meeting we had some weeks earlier, where

we agreed on that I would work on gradually bettering the wrap-up time, but that she then forgot this agreement, and the next day acted like this meeting hadnt been taking place at all, and continued to shout 'You're on wrap-up' if the wrap-up time exceeded 5 seconds. Vivian explained that this was call reinforcement, and that the team-leaders were trained to use reinforcement as a way of solving problems, like the problem with agents being to long time on wrap-up between the calls. So she wouldnt stop doing this, because she had been trained to do her job this way.

NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT I hadnt heard about reinforcement on the management/organisation modules I had studied on upper secondary and university-level, and neighter had I heard about it on the managementcourses I had participated on while I was working as a manager in Norway. So when I got home on the day we had the meeting, I searched for 'reinforcement' on the internet. I found from how Vivian described it in the meeting, that this way of sorting problems was called 'negative reinforcement'. I couldnt find very much on how this was being used in management, but from what I found it seemed like it was more used as a way of training dogs, and that it was known to make the dogs nervous. Line says that they were told to do it this way, because if they did it this way, then the agents would do the job the way the team-leaders wanted.

THINGS NOT IN LINE WITH ARVATO POLICY/BERTELSMANN ESSENTIALS? After reading about negative reinforcement on the internet, I was wondering if this could be in line with Arvato Policy and Bertelsmann Essentials. There were also other things I was wondering if were in line with these, eg. the threats on the buzz-meeting, the interuptions by team-leaders while agents were on the phone speaking with customers, and agressive/threatening behavior in general by team-leaders. I was also wondering if these things were in line with what we agreed on the meetings 12/09/06 and 29/09/06 that all people in the organisation had the right to be treated in a repectful, polite and decent manner.

BERTELSMANN ESSENTIALS When I was looking for information regarding how the system with the new ASDP(Arvato Services Development Program) program was working, I read in a summary from an Employee Forum meeting in May where some of the employees had asked the Managing Director how it could be that the Bertelsmann Essentials didnt seem to be in any way related to us in Liverpool. Im not sure if I understood this right, but the Managing Director replied that the Bertelsmann Essentials are new, and that HR and the Ops. (meaning team-leaders/Senior teamleaders?), would implement the Bertelsmann Essentials in the company and relating them to us. Line says that she havent heard anything about this. Well, my meaning, is that if you take a task seriously, then, when you get a new important task/project that is going to be implementet in the organisation, then you should take responsibility yourself for getting the system up and running. And you should make sure that the system is up and running satisfactory, then you can delegate the responsibility for the task. At least this is how we used to do it when I was working with management in Norway. So I dont know if this could be a sign of the Bertelsmann Essentials not being taken seriously enough? (That we havent heard anything about them, and that the responsiblily for the Bertelsmann Essentials have been delegated before the Essentials have been implemented). And also the posters with the Essentials on them, why are the posters hanging on the wall if the Essentials arent implemented? Are the posters hanging there just to impress visiting clients, so that they will be asured that these things are being taken seriously? Is it right for the posters with the Essentials on them to be hanging on the wall, when the Essentials arent implemented yet? Its possible that Ive misunderstood, so I take a precausion in case I might have misunderstood something surounding this.

HARASSMENT? This is a quite recent example that happened after the ASDP-meeting [06/10/06]. Most of the things Ive been mentioning so far, is a more thorow explanation of the things that I started explaining about on the ASDP-meeting. I hadnt prepared to explain about these things on the ASDP-meeting, and we didnt get

finished (because of time-problems), so when this episode happened on 26/10, I deceded to prepare more thorowly this time, and try to explain better this time. [Because when you asked why I was stressed while taking the Danish calls, I mentioned a lot of the same things that Im mentioning on this meeting. But on the ASDPmeeting [since I hadnt prepared to explain about these things], I forgot to mention for instance about the buzz-meeting etc. So in the ASDP-meeting, I didnt manage to make it clear why I was being stressed about the call-time. But after remembering what was said in the buzz-meeting, it seemed clearer to me why I was so focused about reducing the call-time. So this is the reason on why I thought it was best to explain it all from the beginning in this meeting]. What happened on the 26/10 was firstly this: Im sitting transfering a call to Vivian Morris. Vivian S. shouts from the other end of the campaign-table, 'Why are you transfering the call'. Then she explains there is a new rule now: Agents should no longer transfer calls to other agents. Agents should transfer calls to the team-leader, and then the team-leader should transfer the call to the other agent. This rule was new to me. And the way this new rule was presented, (By interuption, and by screaming across the table), I dont think is in line what we agreed on, on the meeting 13/9, where we agreed on employees having the right to be treated polite, respectfully and decent etc. Line says that this rule is also new to her. Later, on the same day: In the same moment as Ive ended a call, Vivian starts talking to me. I nods my head (towards the computer) and mumbles someting, trying to explain, by this, something like 'One moment please, Ill just log the call, because then I wont forget to log, and I also wont forget which call-type the call should be logged like'. She dont wait, she just continues: 'Why dont you log the call while youre talking with the customer on the phone?' (She asks this while Im still loging.) And I explain, although Im a bit dizzy by being talk to while trying not to forget how to log the

call correctly, that the reason why Im not loging the call while Im still talking with the customer, is that I focus on ending the call in an apropriate manner. I think its important how you end the call, so I try to concentrate on this. [I think that if I should log the call while Im ending the call, then I would be distracted, because you have to find the right gruop to log the call as etc, and then you have to consentrate on this, and then the conversation with the customer could suffer because of this, leading to the customer getting a less good impression on the level of customer-support the customer is recieving]. Then she says: 'During the last days, your logging percentage has fallen', in a tone demaning an explanation. Im still quite dizzy because of the logging and the sprining conversation at the same time, so I cant think of something else to say but: 'Maybe its because Ive been a bit tired the last days'. Then she says: 'Its important that a person does his job', and finishes the conversation. She says this in a tone I find threatening. Its like shes saying that Im not doing my job, and that this is unaceptable, and the threatening way she says it, and then just leaves, makes me think that she maybe wants to report me for not doing my job or something like that, because she sounds angry and threatening when she says it. Because Ive been working with grocery-store work, office-work, driver-work etc., since I was 18. So thats 18 years. So I know that a person should to his job. So when shes saying an obvious thing like that, in a tone like that, I take it as a threat. Its like shes saying: 'This we cant accept, weve got to do something about this'. [Or, we cant have people working here whos not doing their job]. This is how I interpret what she says, and the way shes saying it. So after this episode, I decided that I would try to explain the reason for why Im being stressed more thorowly, because this would also give me a chance to bring up different things that

have happened on the campaign during the last months. Since Im feeling threatened, and I think that bringing up these things, could help show that I really have had reasons for being stressed, and also could help sheed light on other things that have been going on. This could also help me avoid a future situation, where Im for instance being accused of this or that, or being reported, eg. by a team-leader (like I fear could happen, because Ive been feeling threatened by Vivian). Then I could end up in a position where I start explaining that this has happend and If i at that point start explaining about this happened then and is connected to something else that happened at another time, then I could be met with the answer: 'Why havent you brought this up earlier?'. [Many of these things Ive brought up before in other meetings etc. And other of these things have come to mind while I have been preparing for this meeting. And I consider myself to be hard-working and professional. I havent been absent one single day since I started here. And I dont think it would be fair to me, if I should loose my job because of a situation like this. And to thorowly explain the situation about why Im being stressed, also raises the opertunity to sheed light on other things that has been going on on the campaign. But even so, all the things that Im describing here are in some degree participating factors as to why I was being stressed while I was taking the Danish calls, so I think its justifiable to include all of these things, since they are all part of the bigger picture.] It says in the employee manual that its harassment if a person with power is acting threatening. And I think this is right. A manager has a special responsibility to not act threatening/agressive. Because if a manager acts this way towards you, then its being percieved as worse than if an agents acts this way towards you, because the manager is in a position in which he/she has got power over you. (The manager has got influence in diciplinary cases. He/she has got influence in situations that could end up with you getting fired etc.) Line agrees on this, that a teamleader has got more responsibility not to act threatening. Erik says that sometimes it seems like shes after me for some reason, like the way she complains about me, the she brings up many things very fast, one subject after the other, with it being difficult to follow the flow of different subject. And also that she often brings up things inbetween calls, when Im being focused on other things, and also when shes acting threatening and agressive.

It seems like shes sometimes doing these things to punish me for other things, maybe something that Ive said that she didnt like, or something I did that she didnt like. I cant garantee that it is like this, but this is the way it seems to me. Erik says that he is not used with the expression harassment, and dont know exacltly what it covers, so he'll try to contact core care, to see if they can help with this problem. Line says that Erik could talk with HR or Senior team-leader about this. Erik says that he wants to speak with core care regarding this issue and also regarding other harassment issues on the campaign. Some of these issues are quite sensible, and Im not sure on how to present them, so I would like to get some advice on this, before I bring them up with Line and/or HR, Senior team-leader. Line says that shes going to try to learn more about harassment herselves. Erik is going to contact core care, and try to set up a meeting with them. After the meeting with core care, Line and Erik will have a new meeting about these issues. (One hour has passed, so even if there are more things on the agenda, the meeting will have to be finished on a later date.)

11/11/06:

EPISODE 05/11/06 On 05/11 there was a new episode with Vivian. What happened was first was an arugement where Vivian complained that I wasnt wearing the headphones while I was on the phone. The reason I wasnt wearing them was that the headphone-pads were lying in the my folders with papers regarding work etc. And these had been moved to a new place, and Vivian said shed get them while I was logging on the computer and the phone. My point was that I always wear the headphones while on work, and this was just an exception while I was waiting a few seconds for the folders.

Line says that in situations like this, its important that the team-leader give the agent feedback about the breach of company-rules. It doesnt matter if its an exception and if it only is for a few seconds. My other point was that it seemed like she was complaining about this, and also asked about other things, at the same time that I was logging on the computer and the phone, and trying to do this in time before the shift starts at 12.00, to make me stressed or get out of balance. [Because there had been so much problems on the campaign the last months, Ive started a daily routine which is that I every day when the shift starts, bring three short-call tracking forms with me to my workstation. The first one I use to log the short- (and lately also the long-) calls, the second I use to scrible different information the customer tells me during the call, eg. what producer it was that produced the different computers if the customer has windows on more than one computer, to keep track of them, so that its easier to explain the activation-rules to the customer. The third form/sheet of paper, I use to write down the different problems/harrasment/etc, that happens on the campaign that day.] I still have the 'problem'-sheet for that day (05/11), and it says: - 11.59: Vivian is asking 'Who won the Service-level competiton this week?' - I said: 'Have you sent me an email with the service-level result yet?'. - Vivian says: 'But the service-level result is to be found in "something" (didnt hear excactly what she said) - report'. [This report was a new report, that she had sent for the first time eighter earlier that day, or the day before (which was my rest-day), yet she mentioned this report like something I should be aware of, even if my shift hadnt really started this day, and we had never been sent this report before.] - I must have answered that I have to look at the service-level competiton-form which is in my folder, which I couldnt find because someone had moved them. - Then Vivian must have said that the folders had been moved to a place in the window on the other side of the campaign-table, and that she would fetch them. - I continued to log on the phone and computer, but didnt put on the headphones, because it was quiet, and the 'pads' for the headphones were in the folders which Vivian had already gone to fetch (because she also usually move very quick), and then put the 'pads' on the headphone, and then wear the headphones.

- 12.00. Vivian: 'Its important that one wears ones headphones'. I started explaining that the 'pads' for the headphones were in the folder she was fetching, but still insisted that I should wear the headphones without the 'pads' untill she got me the folders, and then I should take the headphones off, and put on the 'pads'. So since she was ordering me to do this, I did this. But my point was that all this was going on while I was logging on to the computer and phone, I was trying to get this done before 12.00, or else I could be reported if I didnt get logged on in time. And Vivian must have been aware of the fact that I was focused on login on, yet she had to ask me about the service-level competition, try to ridicule me since I didnt know that she had started to send a new report with the service-level in it. (a report that I only can remember that she sent this week, I dont think before, and I dont think later). And then start to complain about that I wasnt wearing the headphones, although it was only for a few seconds while she was fetching the folders. [So she must have understood that she acting like this, while I was hurrying to log on in time, would make me more stressed. I cant understand it differently than that she was trying to make me stressed/getting me out of balance on purpose. Later it could seem like it was almost planned. It was on a Sunday, so it wasnt many other managers there. And I had been putting the headphone-pads in the folder for quite some time then, so its quite possible that she knew I kept them in the folder, and that she knew that it was the pads I was waiting for, but said it to stress me/getting me out of balance.]

LATER THE SAME DAY Then, later the same day, I got a peculiar phone-call from a customer that had been living in Finland, spoke English, had later moved to Norway. The customer spoke English, but it wasnt his first-language. His English wasnt that good, and he didnt speak Norwegian. I used to write the notes about the problems that day on the back-side of the short-call tracking-form, and then log the short calls and long calls on a seperate short-call tracking-form. But this day Id become so stressed by the way Vivian acted at the start of the shift, that

I had started logging the short/long calls on the same sheet of paper that I used to write about the problems. After I had written down the problems around the start of the shift, I must have turned the sheet of paper (so that Vivian wouldnt see what Ive written), and then Id started to log the short and long calls on the same sheet of paper. So Ive still got the log-info I wrote from this peculiar call, it was: Language: English [but he called from Norway, and at about 1.20 pm] Minutes: 19.00 Reason for long call: Lang.prob. + prob. with finding out if the license was ok with eula + customer wouldnt end call.

So this call took 19.00 minutes [an average call is supposed to take 3.00 mins], I remember the customers English was not very good, so it was difficult to comunicate. And it was very difficult to find out if the activation was ok or not. Since the call went on for as long as 19 minutes, it was difficult at the end of the call, to remeber excactly what the customer had been saying at the beginning of the call. But as far as I remember, at the end of the call, the customer was saying that he had the program on two computers, but the other computer he didnt use, he had left it in Finland, where he had lived earlier. I remember thinking that this call was a bit peculiar, because by his voice and the way he spoke English, he sounded like he was from Africa I remember thinking, and he didnt speak any Finish or Norwegian. And I dont think I remember so much about people from other countries moving from Finland to Norway, the usual I think would be from Finland to Sweden, or Sweden to Norway maybe. I dont there are very many foreign people in Finland at all actually, if Ive read correctly in the newspaper, the Finns have very strict rules for imigration. But anyway, the customer wouldnt end the call, and the call was a tirering one, because of the langauge-problems, the customer wouldnt end the call, but came up with more and more things. He had said that windows were on two computers, and thats why I wouldnt let him activate. But then he said at the end of the call, that the other computer was in Finland, when I said that he had to remove it from the other computer.

I thought it would be a bit inpolite to ask the customer to go to Finland to remove windows from the computer, and then call back to activate on this computer. (like we usually tell customers in these cases). And the customer, i think, said it was a retail-version of windows, and these are aloved to be transfered to a new computer. So I thought that I should give the customer the benefit of the doubt, because of the language problems, and of course I couldnt sit there argue with him all day, because he wouldnt end the call. And I had been under the impression, that in cases of doubt or in extra-ordinary cases, we were aloved to use our own judgement, and maybe make exceptions, if the rules in one particular case seemed unreasionable. I thought it would seem unreasonable to ask the customer to go back to Finland to remove windows from the other computer which he said he didnt use there. (From what he said I understood he had it stored there or something, but didnt use it). And also there were other customers calling to activate, and the customer wouldnt hang up, so I thought it would be ok to activate, if the customer agreed to remove it from the other computer later, so that I could go on with the other calls, and since it was a case would it would seem unreasonable to ask the customer to go to another country to remove windows, and also because of the languageproblems. But then Vivian started interfering, she had been listening to the call, and started to talk loud to me while I was speaking with the customer. I hadnt asked Vivian for advice with this call, because of the episode that happened on the 26/10 (explained earlier), and the other episodes, I tryed to work as indipendant as possible, because I wanted the situation to calm down, so I didnt want to do anything that could give her an excuse to start to act threatening etc. But she had been listening, so she interupted the call, said ordered me not to activate the call, and she wouldnt speak with the customer when I asked if she could talk with the customer herself to get the whole picture. I thought it was a bit strange that she had been listening to the whole call for 19 minutes, but I just went on to take the other calls, but I wanted to bring up these things, because in the first episode it seemed like she wanted to make me stressed, and the last episode was in breach of what was agreed in the meeting between Vivian and me on 12/09, where Vivian agreed that she wouldnt interupt me when I was speaking in the phone, but would wait till the call was finished. So I was wondering if these things could be a provocation etc. into trying to

react in a way that could get me in problems, or that she might report them etc, because to me it seemed (from the episode 26/10 etc.) that she was after me, threatening me, trying to get me fired etc. Line says that if the agent says something thats wrong, then the team-leader has to tell the agent at once. If the agent activates a product that he shouldnt have activated then its gross misconduct, and the agent wouldnt want to get fired, so thats why the team-leaders should interupt the calls. If the team-leader hears something that sounds like its not like it should be, then they have to interupt the call. Erik says that we had agreed that the team-leader shouldnt interupt the calls, like when I was working in the food-store, then we didnt interupt the chasiers while they were serving the customers. Line says that if an agent activates a program when its clear that he shouldnt, then its gross misconduct, and the agents would rather get interupted than loose their job, so she thinks its ok to interupt. Erik wonders how the routine is supposed to be for team-leaders interupting the calls. Line says she would have taped the agent on the shoulder, and asked the agent to ask the customer to wait, and then explained to the agent what to say etc. Erik says he has to think more about this. [Line normally dont speak about things like gross misconduct etc. (because an expression like gross misconduct isnt often in an English-speaking Norwegians vocabulary). But she used the term like she knew exactly what it meant. Yet on the meeting 31/10, she didnt know what other terms like harassment meant, so I recon that shes probably been speaking with the other managers about this episode and about gross misconduct.]

SUMMARY OF PROBLEMS WITH VIVIAN Erik says that in the light of the latest episodes involving problems with Vivian, hed tried to write a list with the problems and with some more examples. Line says that it takes much time to go through the same things again. Erik says that when they are summarised up then it makes it easier to get it clear why he finds the way she behaves threatening. Erik goes quickly through the lists:

PROBLEMS WITH VIVIAN: - Interupting while Im on the phone. - Interupting while Im logging calls. - Brings up many subjects very fast [often when youre occupied doing other work-tasks]. - Presents changes/new rules suddently, inbetween calls. - Wants to teach me how to do my job all the time. [Even if Ive worked there longer] - Dont pay any attention to agreements, like what we agreed in the meeting 12/9, that team-leaders and agents should treat their colleages with respect and in a decent and polite manner. - Is picking, complaining, 'naging'. In Norwegian I think I would have called it 'mobbing' = bullying. [And shes doing it all the time.] - And Ive tryed to bring up most of these problems earlier, but it hasnt helped. - Im trying to focus on my work, but is all the time being interupted by her wanting to controle everything in detail. - Shes acting agressive, impatient, [and threatening].

EXAMPLES: - In the moment a phone-call ends, she asks about something in an agressive tone, then 'Im warning you about being on wrap-up'. Line says she thinks Vivian should have said 'Can you log meeting?' first. - I says, 'One moment I'll just log this', and then she: 'Why dont you log during the calls?' Me: 'Im concentrating about ending the call.' She: 'Your loggin havent been good the last days'. Me: 'Ive been tired lately.' She: 'Its important to do ones job'. - Shes sitting on the chair next to me, and then shes asking about help with maths (excel). Shes listening to the calls, and starts 'naging' about the script ++. inbetween the calls, I have move to another place [to get some peace].

- Im talking with Judith transfering a call, when she interupts, wants to know whats happening. When Ive transfered the call, she says: 'You can go on available, you'. [Like we always do after transfering a call], in an impolite way. - Meeting about wrap-up that Vivian and me had right after the new scripts and wrap-up rule was interduced: We agreed in the meeting that I should keep in the back of my head that I should work on gradually inproving the wrap-up time. I explained that I not used with this being an issue at all, and that I was used with taking the calls etc. in rutinely way, so I would need some time to adapt to the new changes. [Especially since we recently had also got the changes with the new scripts, and the focus on the call-time etc, and I hadnt got used to this yet]. Yet, on the next day (and after), she continues to complain about the same thing, just like the meeting the day before had never taken place. - 'You have to ask for product-keys on the Danish calls'. I didnt know that this was usual at all. Was she doing it to punish me or something? - Rules are changing all the time. First we were to transfer calls ourself to technical support. Then we were to transfer the calls to the TL, which would transfer them to tech.support. Then we were to try to transfer them for 2 minutes to tech.support and then transfer them to the team-leader. And then we were also, according to Vivian 26/10, meant to transfer calls to other agents instead to the TL, so that the TL could transfer to the other agent. Line says that I didnt have to transfer this last type of calls to the TL but could transfer these calls directly to the agent. [There are also more examples. Eg. on 27/7, Vivian and I were having a conversation, were I told her about the new pay-slip, and that I hadnt got paid for all the overtime I had been working in my holiday. Vivian said that I should send an email to HR regarding this, since she herself was busy writing a report. Later in the conversation I asked her something, and then instead of answering, she started complaining about me having an empty carrier-bag behind the computer, this being a health and safety issue, and breach of company-rules. So then at the end of the shift, when the other people at the campaign had left, I said to her that I tought that team-leaders should be able to have a conversation in a proper manner. She agreed to have this in mind. I wrote a note about this meeting in my organizer-book, and also other notes on a sheet of paper when I got home, so thats why I still know the date. (Althoug the meeting didnt help much, her behaviour just got worse, even if we also had a

meeting about this, and also about general behavior at work on 13/9). Notes from 11/9: Talking to me while being on the phone. Asks if its a terminal-server call in the midle of the call. It becomes stressing with interuptions and comanding. Shes talking very fast. Shes talking more quiet with Maiken, and doesnt interupt her on the phone. Notes from 12/9: Talks to me while Im on the phone. Asks if its a change product-key call. Notes from 20/10: Talks to me while Im on the phone. Regarding a transfer to tech. support.]

CONTINUING FROM MEETING 31/10/06 [The first things I went throug on this meeting, about the episode 5/11, and the summary of the problems Ive been having with Vivian, werent in the original notes I had for this meeting, that I brought to the meeting 31/10. But because of the incidents 5/11, I thought the situation had become worse in the mean-time, and I knew that we were going to have this meeting quite soon after 5/11, so I choose to also bring these things up on this meeting, because I thought these things were further examples of bullying/harassment/provocations, and should be seen in connection with the other incidents. The next issues in the meeting are from the notes I brought to the meeting on 31/10:]

SOME DAYS BEFORE THE HARASSMENT INCIDENT ON 26/10 Inbetween the calls, Vivian says: 'There is a change in the script now. You cant say "Welcome to Microsoft" any longer, youve got to say "Thanks for calling Microsoft"'. This was only a few days after we had got the new script. [Were it said that we now only has got to ask for the product-key in the calls in which the customer says that its the first time he activates the program]. Why werent the new rules for the opening of the calls presented at the same time as the other changes in rules were presented. [Instead of presenting the change inbetween the calls]. Eighter this, or wait untill we had got used with the new script, and then present this later, so that there isnt to much changes in a short periode of time? Line says that we havent got to say 'Thanks for calling Microsoft'. As long as we remember to be polite, include the word Microsoft and say your name, then its not

importent exactly how the welcome-greeting is worded. Erik wonders if these things [about if you are following the script or not] arent supposed to be brought up on ASDP-meetings (like the one we had on 06/10)? Line says that agents could updated on these things inbetween ASDP meetings, but she things updates should be done on meetings and not inbetween calls. And then a bit later: Vivian writes on a sheet of paper that is laying beside me [Ive been writing down quite a few of the things that have been going on, and kept the notes of different things. Much because Id long before this thought that it seemed like there could be more problems ahead, and Ive learned in previous jobs that its important to be able to document if there are problems etc. I went through the notes, and I found the sheet of paper that she had written on.], in English, "System update Say it nex 2 calls.". She writes this while Im on my last call before lunch, so since its my last call before lunch, I dont nod to her to conferm this, because if i should start to explain that Im on my lunch-break anyway [which she could have know by looking on the form], then it would be to complicated to explain without interupting the call and talking. Then I go to lunch, I remember Vivian was sitting in a meeting with Aidan. I try to explain to her that Im on my lunch-break, and that this is the reason that I didnt nod to her to confirm her written message. I think i say 'Vivian' or something to get her attention, but she doesnt respond. I dont want to be impolite and speak to loud and interupt while they are having the meeting, so I just go and take my lunch-break. Erik wonders how the agents are supposed to answer these written messages while they are on the phone. Line says that I was ok to go to lunch. Line will write Vivian an email, were shell write that she thinks its better to talk with the agents than write a message, because then its easier not to misunderstand.

SIMILAR EPISODE Erik says that something similar happened earlier as well. This was also the last conversation before the lunch-break. Vivian writes 'Can you go on the finish line', and a log-in I think, while Im on the phone. Then she disapears on a lunch-break, without checking the form, then she would have seen that I was on a lunch-break.

[When she got back, and sat down, I logged off, and went over to speak with her, then she said in an unpolite way: 'what do you want'. She almost said it in a way that reminds a bit of the sound cats make when they want to warn/scare you, I dont remember the English word. I explained that I was meant to be having my lunch-break 40 minutes earlier. But that because of that we were understaffed after 4pm (I remember I was the only agent working the late-shift that day, many agents quit earlier in the automn, so we quite often were understaffed around that time), Id try to only have a 20-30 minute break (this must have been around 3.45 pm, I always write myself up on a 3 pm break if noone else have written themselves on that time). Vivian said that I shouldnt worry about it. I was back about 4.10 or 4.15 I think, and then Vivian had got Nina to work overtime until I arrived, if I remember right. Nina didnt say anything, she just went home.] Line says that I should have just gone on the lunch-break. Erik says that if I had done that, then there wouldnt have been any agents taking the finish calls. Line says that this isnt the agents responsibility, so they shouldnt think about that. Erik says that of course, when you have worked a place quite long, then you try to act responsible, and if you think the campaign is going to get lots of complaints etc, then of course you try to avoid this. You wouldnt want the whole campaign to be moved to another place, and then everybody would loose their job.

EPISODE WITH THE BREAK-FORM One of the reasons I thought it was strange that Vivian didnt look at the break-form, was that I remembered a situation from when we were sitting at the 4th floor [I think it was probably in July or August.] Then, when my shift started, there wasnt any break-form ready. I think I worked the early shift, and that Vivian was late. [So then later, when it was my usual break-time, I explained to Vivian that I hadnt written on the break-form, since it wasnt there at the beginning of the day, and asked if it was ok that I went on my break. (This was probably at 12.00, since thats when I always used to take my lunch-break when I worked the early shift, since the late-shift starts at 12.00.) Vivian said that this was ok. I also asked if it was ok that I didnt write on the break-form, because I was on my way out, and Id already told her that I was going for a break, so I guessed that there wasnt much point in writing myself on the list. (On the other hand, I thought that Vivian was a bit picking on agents sometimes, so I thought It would be best to ask, so that she didnt complain later).

But I asked in a nice way, so I thought shed just be nice back and say that it was ok that I didnt write myself on the list.] Vivan said that I should go and write my name on the list, because then they got the overview. [I didnt really think that me writing my name on the list would add much to her overview, since she already knew that I was going for a break. (And if the agents writing themselves on the list was so important, then why wasnt the list there at the beginning of the shift). I remember I felt a bit embaresed and stupid, having to walk the extra way to the breakform, past all the people, just to sign on the form,.when it already was agreed that I was having my break then. So I thought she was just saying it to, I dont know, show that she was the one in charge, or embares me or something like that. But the room was full of people, who I think had heard the conversation, Vivian was always sitting next to Judith, and in the corner, so it was difficult to speak with her without people hearing. And once I asked Judith if Vivian was there or not (on the place next to her), and then Judith got a bit insulted it seemed to me, and after this sometimes was just looking at me without saying anything. So I didnt like to go close to where she sat to often, before I was certain that she didnt bear a grudge towards me. But with the room full of people, I didnt want to argue with the team-leader, so I signed the form and went for my lunch-break.] So I didnt get this episode, that she points out that the break-form helps her get the overview, to go with the later two episodes where she didnt have the overview, even if she could just have had a look on the break-form.

TEAM-LEADER APPLICATION Because I hadnt recieved any answer to my team-leader application from 30/06/06, I tryed to get a meeting with [Senior team-leader] Aidan, about what had been going on with the application-process. On this meeting [06/10/06], I asked Aidan questions about why I hadnt got any answer on the application, about why they hadnt written in the anoncement that it wasnt certain that they actualy would employ someone.

About why neighter the campaign or the applicants had been given any feedback/update/ information about the application-process at all. Like no confirmation on that the application was recieved, no answer to the application, no explenation to the campaign or the applicants about why noone had been employeed in the position. [During the application-process, which lastet from 30/06/06 untill September or October, no information/update/feedback at all was given to the campaign or the applicants about what was going on regarding the recruitment-process. I had to ask my line-manager all the time to get to know what was going on, and everytime I got a different answer, like 'Aidan is on holiday', 'They havent been given the applications from HR yet' (and this was something like two months after the last application-date!), 'Its because there have been fewer calls than expected, they have to see how the amount of calls will develop', etc. I knew that the amount of calls would be higher again in September, because the summerholiday was finished etc, but when still nothing happened, I asked if I could speak with the STL about this.] Aidans answer was that these were good points [things like giving the applicants information, and an answer to the application. To inform and keep the campaign updated, and to write it in the anoncement if it isnt certain that they actually will employ someone], and he said they would remember to do this next time. At first I thought that this was ok, I wasnt used to speaking with the STL, and thought that maybe Id gone a bit far asking for a meeting about this. [I wasnt sure about how things like these were normally done in England, and didnt want to act out of line.] But then I started to think more about it, and then I thought about it this way: Like, Arvato is a big company, with many hundred employees, right? So, they must have hired people very many times before, right? So they shouldnt really need me to tell them how to do this. They really should know how to go through an application-process in a proper manner from all the times theyve hired people before. [Only the Liverpool department of Arvato alone must have hired people more than a thousand times (since there are many hundred employees, and also high turnover, and often shifting campaigns), so recruiting people is something they really should know how to do from before.] So I thought more about this, and thought that maybe it was possible to find something regarding this in the Employee Handbook.

In the Employee Handbook, it says that Arvato has got its own policy for recruiting employees [Employee Handbook, Section 3.1.2, Recruitment Policy], and that its possible to contact HR and get a copy of this policy [Employee Handbook, Section 3.1.2: '.... Copies of the Recruitment Procedure are available from the Human Resourses Department and should be adhered to on all occasions.']. Erik: Since I dont think that the application-process has been conducted in a proper manner, and since Im not sure that the process has been conducted in line with Arvato policy, Id like to contact HR and ask to get a copy of the recruitment policy, and see what it says. Line says that then I should email eighter Sarah Rushby or Claire Singleton at HR. Erik: Have HR got their old office back, the one they had before the fire? Line explains where HR are now.

SIGN IN FORM On the ASDP-meeting 06/10/06, among other things we also were talking about the rules regarding what happened if an employee was one or two minuttes late. I remember from working as a store-manager in Norway, that there it wasnt aloved for the managers to change what the employees wrote on the sign-in form. And because it isnt aloved in Norway, Im not sure if its ok in England for the company to deduct 15 minutes of the employees salary if the employee is one minute late. Erik: I thougth Id just add this also in this meeting, since Id decided to bring up all the things that had been going on in this meeting. This isnt a big problem to me, but maybe it should be checked up to see if this is in line with regulations etc. Line says that this is company policy.

BREAKS Regarding the situation with the breaks [That it isnt aloved for an employee to take more than 40 minutes lunch-break. Because the employee have got 60 minutes break-time on an ordinary shift. And since I moved to my new appartment, I had problems with the new, higher rent, so I used to eat at home in the lunch-

break, because this was much less expensive. So, regularly since July, and also earlier when I had to do earends in the lunch-break, I used to take maybe 50 or 60 minute breaks in the lunch-break. And I almost never used to have ten minutes breaks, because I dont smoke, and I didnt have any useful things to do in the ten minute breaks. Id usually eighter had a 30-60 minutes lunch-break, and then work 8-8.5 hours. The way I did with the lunch-breaks, was that if I was working the early-shift, then I waited till the late-shit had started at 12.00, before I went on a lunch-break. And if i worked the late-shift, then I took my lunch-break at 3 pm, so that I would have finished my break before 4. pm, when the early-shift went home. From working as a store-manager in Norway, I knew the importance of fitting the lunchbreaks in with the times that other employees were at work. And if you did it this way, then youd allways have cover by the people working the other shift during the breaks. In the beginning I used to ask the team-leaders if it was ok if I had a 50 or 60 minutes lunchbreak instead of 40 minutes, as long as my daily break-time wasnt longer than 60 minutes, and as long as I had the break on a time that it was cover on the campaign. And I was always told was ok, and I got the impression that it wasnt even necessary to ask about this, because it seemed to be usual for other employees also to do this, and it seemed to me that they knew that I always made sure to take my breaks at a time when it was enough cover on the campaign, so it seemed to me that the team-leaders thought that this was an ok way to have the breaks. And it was also good for the daily running of the campaign in the sence that I didnt have the 10 minute breaks, and then this should add at least a bit to the campaign running smother. But then suddently in September or October, when I had been having an about 50 minute lunch-break, the team-leaders startet to complain about this, and say that I could get diciplinary action taken against me if I did this. Since I used to go home in the lunch break, and it took about ten minutes to walk home, then it could be a bit stressing to to the lunch break in 40 minutes. Because it also took some time to make the food, so then I would maybe only be left with

10 minutes to eat the food, so then it wouldnt be any time to relax and calm down in the lunch-break, or if it was something else I had to do on the break it would be stressful. And since we got more and more rules at work, then the work got more and more stressful, and if the lunch-break also was going to be stressful, then really the whole shift was one long periode filled with stress, without any time for calming down. And the fact that the team-leaders hadnt sayd anything about me having lunch-breaks in the way I explained regularly for 2 or 3 months after I moved house, and that I also had been used to have lunch-breaks like these often earlier, without ever getting any negative feedback, I took as it was ok to have lunch-breaks like these. I also used to write on the lunch-break-form that I had lunch break from eg. 12.00-13.00. On the form it said 12-12.40, but I changed it so it said 12.00-13.00. And the first times I had breaks like these, I always asked the team-leaders, and later I was sure that this was ok, so I only wrote it on the form so that everyone would know this and get the overwiev. But suddently this wasnt ok anymore, I wanted to continue having lunch-breaks like I hade used to, so that I could maybe get to take important phone-calls in the break if I had to, and also get a couple of minutes to calm down, so that I didnt have to stress in the lunch-break every day to make it back in 40 minutes. And I also remembered that this arrangement seemed to be ok with (at least the old) team-leaders, so I meant to remember that this was more or less an agreement that I could have breaks like these. So I explained this, that by having more or less an agreement on this, and by writing on the form every day, and by having had breaks like these regularly since I moved. I meant that it exsisted a kind of agreement that I could have breaks like this, at least when I had the breaks at a time when the other shift were still present at the campaign, so that it wouldnt be any problems with covering the lines But the team-leaders said that this wasnt ok, and they contacted STL Aidan, who said that even if I had an agreement that this was ok before, then it wasnt ok any longer]. Regarding this, I think it sounds a bit strange that the new team-leaders/Arvato doesnt have to pay regard to agreements/arangements that has been agreed/arranged with the team-leaders that used to work on the campaign earlier. Because I remember from working as a store-manager in Norway, and there it was clear that you had to keep in mind, and pay regards to agreements that had been made by the the earlier managers, because they had made these agreements on behalf of the company, and then its like an agreement between the company and the employeers, and then I dont think its right for new team-leaders not to pay any respect to this. Line: I though we had already discussed this matter, if we never get finished discussing a matter, then it will just be more and more things to discuss, and well never get to

and end of it. Ive said before that STL has said that agreements like these are to a teamleaders discretion, and new team-leaders doesnt have to pay attention to what the old team-leader have said. Erik: Yeah, but I dont think that sounds right. For instance in Norway we have an expression, sedvane, that means that if one have done one thing for a certain amount of time, and noone has complained about this, then after a while it is to late to complain about this, and then it should be ok to do this. We have to take into acount principles like that. Line: Well Ive also studied law in Norway, and these principles dont aply until it has been many years, so its the principle that these decitions are to a team-leaders discretion that aplies, agreements with old team-leaders dont aply. Erik: Does this also aply to written agreements, becausenon-written agreements should be just as binding as written agreements. Line: Its also Arvato policy to have 40 minutes lunch-breaks and 2x10 minutes shortbreaks. Erik: But dont you think, that even if its Arvato policy, that if its an agreement that says that we can arrange the breaks differently, then this agreement maybe should be paid regards to even if it isnt Arvato policy? Line: I Dont think so, its whats Arvato policy that counts, and also this is to a team-leaders discretion. Erik: Well, Id like to try to find out more about how this is. How should we do in the meantime, I mean, because of the problems with it taking time to get through and from work, then I sometimes am a bit late back from the break. I remember one time I was three minutes late, and then you said it didnt matter, how many minutes can one be late back before it matters? Line: I think your acting responsible about this, when you start discussing about minutes and continue to bring up the same discusions again and again. Erik: Ive been trying to sort the matter with the breaks responsible the whole time I have been working here. I always wait till the late shift arrives when Im working early before I have the break, and I always make sure to finish the breake before the early shift leaves when Im working late. And it hasnt been any problems with this way of arranging the breaks at all. And now I also have to take into consideration that I have a team-leader that seems to be on my back, and acting threatening, and seems to want to get rid of me, so I wouldnt want to give anyone any excuses to report me etc. if I get one or two minutes late back from lunch because of this. [Because I was reported a couple of times in May/June when there was problems with the bus and I was 2 minutes late one day, and then 4 minutes late another day. And even if Id then worked there for almost a year, and never

been late, sick or absent a single time before, this with me being 2 and 4 minutes late was also reported to Randstad, who I was employed by then, and who brought this up in a meeting, saying that they didnt expect this from me. So because of this, I was concerned that it could also be reported if I was a couple of minutes late back from lunch, and that this could maybe be used against me in other ciromstances, and therefore I thought it would be better to get this clear, considering the situation with all the strange things that were going on on the campaign, the harrasment-situations, threats, etc, I didnt want to give anyone something that could be used against me if I could avoid it.] I remember you said that it was ok when I had a 43 minutes lunch-break, does this mean that its also ok eg. to have a 45 minutes lunch-break, or what with a 50 minute lunchbreak if I havnt had the first ten minute break? Line: Well if were going to have it that way then we say that 40 minutes is the limit. Erik: Im not discussing this to be difficult, with the situation on the campgain with the problems with the team-leader etc, I think that it isnt impossible that this could be an issue, and then Id think it would be better to have it clear on how the rules are to be interperated now, so that this isnt going to be a problem later. Line: Ok, well say that a couple of minutes is ok then. Up to 42 minutes break is ok, but not any longer.

ASDP MEETING 06/10/06 On the ASDP meeting we had 06/10/06, then you said that there are two things in this job that the agents do not have to think about/care about at all. This was the light [on the phone, its eighter green, orange or red, depending on how many customers that are waiting in the queue. What she meant was that one should go through with the calls equally thorogh when there are 20 customers in the queue as if there are no customers in the queue. The agents shouldnt think about the problems with the customers having to wait in the queue at all.] And the agents should neighter care about/think about the call time. When I said that one of the reasons that I had been stressed the following months, was that I tryed to get the call-time down, then you said that agents shouldnt care about the problem with getting the call-time down at all. I didnt know what to say at the meeting then, because I hadnt prepared to talk about this, like I have now. So on the meeting then, it ended up with giving the impression that I had been stressed

because of working on the problem of reducing the call time, when there really wasnt any need for me to be stressed by this. But, when I before this meeting went more thorowly through what had been going on on the campaign in the last months, and how this could have to contributed to me being stressed, then I thought about for instance these things: The buzz-meeting about the call-time, where it was threatened with the new Quality Brief, that could led to one getting fired, and the threats about us having to do the job the way the managers wanted (eg. reducing the call-time), if we wanted to continue working on the campaign. And also, the focus on the call-time, with it being written on the board every day, ranked by who has got the lowest call-time. And also, we get emails everyday, with feedback on our stats from the day before, and these stats are always ranked by call-time, even if other stats should really be considered more important. Eg. wrap-up time is included in the ASDP-program, and has got its own ASDP-score, yet the reports are still ranked by the agents call-time which arent in the ASDP-program [and which Line said on the meeting 06/10/06 that the agents shouldnt think about/worry about]. Line: Well, now since the new script [were the agents havent got to ask about the product-key for all the calls any longer], call-time is also going to be included in the ASDP-program, so now this isnt going to be problem any longer, after the new script. [I didnt go any further on this point, the point really being that she said on the ASDP-meeting on 06/10/06, that thinking about the call-time wasnt a reason for being stressed, because the call-time was something the agents didnt have to think about/worry about at all. While other team-leaders on the buzz-meeting in June, threatened us with that we could get fired if we didnt solve the problem with the call-time the way the managers wanted. And the fact that it was a very big fucus on the call-time. All the time we got emails about it. It was written ranked by average call-time on a big board, with names, average call-time and different colours by if you had managed to achive the call-time goal or not. And also we every day got an email with info of our stats from the day before, and these were ranked by, and largly focused on the call-time. So I didnt get this to go with what she was saying on the meeing 06/10/06, that the agents shouldnt worry about/be stressed about the call-time. But we had almost argued on the point before, about the lunch-breaks, and I was a bit tired this day from working much overtime etc, and I really thought

that my point about why I really brought this up would be quite clear, to get an explanation about how she could say one thing in the ASDP-meeting, when its quite clear with all the focus on the call-time and the threats in the buzz-meeting etc. that this is not how this issue is being looked at in the campaign in general. From what weve been presented we really should put effort towards and care about reducing the call-time. And the she said it in the ASDP-meeting, that there were two things the agents shouldnt worry about in the job, the light and the call-time. She smiled in an almost patronising way, in a way indivating that it should be obvious to everyone that these were things that the agents didnt need to worry/care about. So I thought that she should have understood that this was my point, and that it was strange if she didnt understand my point. And if she did understand my point, and still didnt coment on this point, then this was a bit strange as well. So this confused me a bit, so I wasnt sure on how to continue with this issue, so I decided to just continue with the next point.]

ASDP SCORES On the meeting 06/10/06, we went through all the ASDP-scores, and I got 4/4 on all of them except one I got 3/4 on, and another one I got 2/4 on. The one I got 2/4 on again, was that to do with how you try to act responsible/try to lead the other co-workers on the campaign? Because if it was, then I think it must be a misunderstanding, because when Im working on the campaign, I dont like to tell people all the time what to do, like some other agents they all the time tell the other agents, now you should do this, and now you can do that. But even if I dont act like that all the time, it doesnt mean that I dont act responsible and care about the campaign running well. Like if there arent any team-leaders on the campaign, then I always try to make sure that eg. there is cover on all the lines, and if I work early, then before I go home I always make sure that all the lines are covered by the people working the late shift. (eg. I tell Osman or Eown to go on a TL-login if there isnt cover on the Finish lines). And around Christmas last year, when the team-leaders where home on holiday, and the temperarly English team-leader had quit Arvato before new year, and Judith got sick and had to go to hospital, and all the other agents were eighter being on holiday for christmas or new year, then I worked the shifts that noone else were working because of sicknes etc, and worked extra on the other shifts that were very understaffed, and made sure that the campaign still were running even if all the team-leaders were absent for different reasons. So even if I dont tell people what to do all the time, it doesnt mean that I dont act

responsible, and I look after the campaign when there arent any team-leaders present, even if I dont tell people what to do all the time. Just to make sure that there arent any misunderstandings regarding this, and that a misunderstanding like this could be the reason to why I havent been made team-leader etc. [since I thought there had had to be something going on, since I thought the way the team-leader recutation-process hadnt been conducted seemed a bit strange, so I was trying to find out if there could eg. have been a misunderstanding surrounding this that could have been causing me not getting the job.] Line sayd that the ASDP-score hadnt got to do with this. It was an ASDP-score that wasnt relevant for the campaign, so she used to give all the agents 2/4 on it. She said that she had the impression that I acted responsible and did my job well, and she had also got positive feedback regarding me from the other agents [I also asked her on the ASDP-meeting 06/10/06 if it was anything surrounding the ASDP-scores or how I did my job in general that she could see point at as a reason of why I didnt get the team-leader job. And she said that she couldnt see any reason for this. That ASDP-meeting was on the same day, a few hours earlier, as the meeting with STL Aidan about the problems surrounding the team-leader recruitment-process, and I thought the process had been a bit strange. (With the campaign not being given any feedback at all, with applicants not getting any answer on the applications, and the process draging on for months without anything happening, and with me being given different answers all the time when I asked the team-leaders why nothing was happening. I knew that my application was strong, since I had been working in management for ten years in Norway, and because I had been working with customer-support, knew the campaign well, know the Scandinavian languages, had studied computers, had been having modules in management and organisation on universty-level, had been having many management courses etc. from when I was working as a manager in one of Norways bigest companies (Ica-gruppen formerly hakon-gruppen). So when nothing happened with the recruitment-process, and no feedback at all was given, I thought this was a bit peculiar, and I wondered what the reasons for this could be, and if this could be that they for some reason didnt want to hire me in this posistion, and I therefore tried a bit to find out what the reasons for that could be. And the ASPD scores were good. I think they were 3.9/4 and 3.6/4 or something like that. And those scores covered most parts on how I did my job, so it didnt seem like it was the way I did the job that was the reason that I didnt get promoted.] She said that the team-leaders hadnt got anything to do with the team-leader recruitment at all, but that it was the STL and other people in the organisation that had to do with this.

We agreed that I should contact core-care about the harassment-cases etc., and then later, wed have a new meeting surrounding how these issues should be dealt with further. We finished the meeting and went back to the campaign.

Enclosure 8

Enclosure 9

Enclosure 10

Enclosure 11

Enclosure 12

Enclosure 13

Enclosure 14

Enclosure A
PROBLEMS DETAILED: 1. Problem with company being infiltrated/taken over by a criminal organisation. 2. Harassment Chris Baines. 4 episodes. Encl. 4. 3. Lying by Senior teamleader Aidan Tippins. Encl. 6 4. Covering up by Rushby and Tippins. Encl. 3 5. Harassment by Vivian Stensland: - Wrap up, dont care about what was agreed in meetings. Hl: Wrap up meeting, Encl. 7. - giving orders while on phone. Hl: Other stressing factors. - product-key danish calls. - not having main goal. customers important. - 26/10. Hl: harassment? x2. - 05/11 x2. - Summary of problems with Vivian. - 20/10. - A few days before 26/10. Hl. similar episode. - Hl. episode with break-form. - Encl. 10, 11, 12, 13. 6. Harassment by Michael O. - Encl. 14 (+ episode the day before). - Note from 26/10. - Note from 29/10. - Note from 6/11.

(+ new notes). 7. Problem with telling Ian Carrel in email + in meeting about Rushby being involved in the covering up of harassment by Baines. And Carrel then still let Rushby be in charge of the investigation. (Encl. 1 + letter allowance). 8. Problem with me telling the man. director that the company is infiltrated by a crim. org., and the case is still treated unprofessional (get short time to prepare for meeting etc) Harassment from the company. (Encl. 1). 9. Problem with threats on buzz-meeting (Encl. 7). 10. Being asked to take the Danish calls in the same time as tanking Norwegian calls, and having to ask for the product key on the Danish calls. and that nothing was done about the disparity in calls, even if this had been adressed in the employee forum meeting 23/5/06. (Encl. 17). 11. Contract not being permanent. Although line-manager said that it would be. I explained situation with apartment etc. Then I got the answer that it was only for the first three months, and then it would be permanent. Then three months passed, and still only got three month contract. 12. Problems with the shift-plans: - not getting RD the first month. - getting the RDs late one month when I needed to work extra to pay rent. - Strange shifts (9-17) ++. 13. Problems with team-leaders being trained to use negative reinforcement to lead the campaign. (Harassment). 14. Problem with having to take almost only Danish calls. This being very tireing. Much to heavy workload. This didnt change even after it was adressed in the Employee forum meeting. (See point. 10) 15. Problem with the wrap up time being reduced from 30 to 5 seconds. Not enough time to calm down and log calls between the calls. 16. Problem with poster quoting the Bertelsmann Essentials being on the walls, but the Essentials not being implemented in the organisation. 17. Problem with not getting feedback on team-leader application. 18. Problem with the rules changing about the breaks, with Senior teamleader claiming

that old agreements/usual arangements dont apply. Its up to each teamleader. 19. Problem with managers changing times put on the sign in form by employees. 20. Problem with line-manager lying (notes). 21. Problems with the managers saying the employees having to reduce the call-time managements way, or having to quit/getting fired. And line-manager saying in ASDP meeting (in a patronizing way) that there are two things one shouldnt care about in this job call time and how many calls there are waiting. 22. Episode with polo/snickers. And episode with Snickers/toothbrush. Notes 12/7/06 + 16/7/06. Sermony. Vivian talked very load. Whole campaign heard. 23. Problem with Aidan stealing my sear.

Enclosure B1

Enclosure B2

Enclosure C

Enclosure D

Enclosure E

Enclosure F

Enclosure G
PROCESS ON GETTING CONTROL OF EMPLOYEES At the end of November 2006, two new Norwegian employees started at the campaign. Helene and Jrn. They started asking the other employees questions.

26/11/06: Jrns first day Jrn started asking me questions like: - Are you going home for christmas. - Are you from the town Larvik? - Where in the Lpool do you live?

And the other new employee Helene always wanted to sit next to me, even if there where a lot of free seats which werent next to anyone else.

25/11/06: Helene asking Line questions I overheard the new employee Helene asking Line questions like these: - What were you studying. - Where were you studying. - Whos your boyfriend. - Where in England did you study. - ++ I interupted her with a joke asking if she had also studied journalism since she was so good at asking questions.

It wasnt like she was participating in a conversation, it was like she was having a fast interview.

After Id interupted Helene with the journalist-joke, Helene asked Line if she could have a 'banana-break', and went to the break-room. When she came back some minutes later, she kept pushing a weekly magazine/ fashion magazine towards my work-space.

Their first days On Jrns first day (a Sunday 26/11/06), he wanted to go outside to have his break to buy some food even if it was a Sunday and he was new in town. Helene asked if it was aloved to call from the break-room on her first day.

Process: 27/11/06: Jrn asks Line if we can sit where we want, and sits all day beside Eown who starts later, I overhear Jrn asking Eown questions like: - Where do you live. - Who do you live with. - What this person worked with/was doing. - ++ Eown likes the attention from Jrn (its easy to notice), and answers all the questions.

The day after Eown is very nervous, and he starts asking me a lot of silly questions all the time. Like flirting, saying lot of silly things all the time. Like a child almost. This was very strange, because happened about one or two weeks before this: There werent any teamleaders working, so before I went home at 4. pm, I made sure that the Finish line was covered.

So I asked Eown if he could cover the Finish line. He said that Osman should do it, but Osman had break for about 15 mins more, so I asked him if he could cover the line at least until Osman returned. Some days before this Eown had been sitting on the other side of the table trying to look me in the eyes. I didnt like this, and I didnt want him to misunderstand why I talked with him about the cover on the Finish line, so when I asked him if he could cover the line, I asked him in a quite tough way, so that he shouldnt misunderstand. I think he became a bit afraid of me since I had asked him this in a though way, so the next days when I got at work at 12. pm, Eown said he was sick, and went home. He wrote on the time-sheet 'tummy again :('. He had understood that I wasnt gay at all and that he had made a mistake trying to look in my eyes from the other side of the table while I was speaking in the phone. After this episode happened, I didnt speak with him at all, there wasnt any reason. So that he suddently should start flirting and saying silly things all day, and being very nervous. Sitting on my chair making it warm while I was on the meeting with Rushby, Baines, Tippins (Encl. 3). seems very peculiar. So it seems clear to me that this behavior was in some way conected with the questioning from Jrn about where he lived, who he lived with, and what his partner was doing etc. And that he from one day to the next had become under control by the criminal orgaisation that had taken over/infiltrated the company.

Enclosure I

Enclosure II
WHY THE COMPANY (ARVATO) CANT BE TRUSTED (PROBLEMS WITH ORGANISED CRIMINALS/MOB IN THE COMPANY) 1: WARNING IN E-MAIL: In an e-mail sent to Managing Director Ian Carrel, 29/11/06 [Encl. 2], I told him that: 'In the other meeting about this harassment-case, involving Sarah Rushby, Aidan Tippins and Chris Baines, it seemed clear to me that they were trying to help him [Baines] covering up. It was really three against one. They kept interupting me and bringing things out of context. They showed no interest in helping me, or see the case from my side. They seemed more interested in what Ive told the police.' (A copy of this e-mail was also forwarded to Bertelsmann, Arvato-Germany and some newspapers etc.). Yet, on the meeting regarding the contence of the same e-mail [Encl. 3], Mr. Carrel tells us that he has put Sarah Rushby in charge of the investigation of the harassment and the other problems mentioned in the e-mail [Encl. 2].

2. WARNINGS IN THE MEETING 29/11/06: In the meeting 29/11/06 [Encl. 5], I made it clear for Mr. Carrel that: - It was organised criminals/mob in the company. - That I adviced that it should be arranged an indipendent, competent and professional investigation, from outside of the organisation, to look into this. - That on the meeting regarding the harassment-incidents involving Chris Baines, 28/11/06 [Encl. 3], I had made sure that everybody participating on the meeting (Rushby, Baines and Tippins), before the meeting started had read the summary from the meeting with my line-manager Line Sletvold [26/11/06], where the harassment incidents were described. In that summary I had written this: '[..] and because Ive earlier had problems with organised criminals in Oslo and Liverpool (problems which I have reported to the police in Norway and England) [..]' Yet neighter my Senior Team-leader Aidan Tippins or Sarah Rushby from HR,

(or Baines), reacted on this. Neighter of them commented anything about this eighter on the meeting or later. I made this clear for Mr. Carrel on the meeting 29/11/06 [Encl. 5] on which Sarah Rushby participated. Sarah Rushby didnt comment anything on the meeting 29/11 when I mentioned this. - On the meeting, I also had to remind Sarah Rushby that the police was an indipendent organisation, and that they could be trusted [Encl. 5]. Yet, the letter dated 13/12/06 [Encl. 1], regarding 'investigations into the issues that you brought to our attention.', was from Sarah Rushby, inviting me to a grievance meeting.

3: UNPROFESSIONALISM SURROUNDING LETTER DATED 13/12/06: The letter I recieved from Sarah Rushby on 13/12/06 [Encl. 1], regarding 'investigations into the issues that you brought to our attention.', was so unprofessional that it almost by itself make it clear that the company cant be trusted: - The letter was not sent by Royal Mail: The letter was not sent by Royal Mail, but delivered by someone at the door to the building in which my flat is. Even if Rushby, who must have got someone to deliver the letter, participated on the harassment-meeting 28/11/06 [Encl. 3], where the main harassment-incident I complained about [Encl. 4], was that Mr. Baines followed me after work to the street I live in. And where I made it clear that I didnt like people from work following me to my address. Yet Rushby got someone to deliver the letter to my address instead of sending it by mail. - The letter was delivered to late: The letter was delivered between the time I got back from shopping grocceries at 3-4 pm., and the time I went to the gym at around 7 pm. If I hadnt gone to the gym that night, I probably wouldnt have seen the letter before I checked the mail (from Royal Mail), the day after at around 12 am.1 pm. (on 14/12/06). And the meeting was at 10 am. on this day (14/12/06)! And in the letter it also said: 'If you wish, you may be accompanied to the

meeting by [..] a trade union representative'. It would have been impossible for me to contact a union representative, update the union representative, and then get the union representative to meet at the meeting on 10 am. 14/12/06, when the letter was delivered in a was that would have made it usual for me to get it at around 12 am. 14/12/06. This letter was simply so unprofessional that it could only be three explenations: 1. It was meant as a joke. 2. It was meant as harassment. 3. The person sending it must have been extremly incompetent and mindless. So eighter the company jokes about a very important case, or the company harass employees officially, or the Managing Director sets an extremly incompetent person to lead the investigation surrounding a very important case. If the Managing Director sets an extremly incompetent person to lead such an important investigation (that it was mob in the company ++), then it must mean that he is extreamly incompetent/unprofessional/irresponsible himself. Any which of the three reasons for the unprofessionaleties surrounding the letter (that it was a joke, meant as harassment or that the managing director is extreamly incompetent/unprofessional/irresponsible, means that the company cant be trusted.

4: HIGH LEVEL OF INCOMPETENCE IN THE ORGANISATION During the first ten months I was working in the organisation, my focus was on some other important issues that preocupied me, and my focus wasnt so much on the company inveronment as it normally would have been under other ciromstances. But, from june 2006, when I moved to a new address, and needed to work more because of the higher rent, I decided to apply for the vacant team-leader position. I told the campaign team-leaders about this, and I started to prepare by trying to learn more about the organisation. I had noted quite high degrees of incompetence from the campaign team-leaders earlier, when it comes to management, but I thought it was just a problem with these persons.

From working more than ten years as a manager in one of Norways biggest companies (Hakon/Ica-gruppen) [Encl. 8], and from courses in management, economy etc. while working as a store manager. And also from modulies in management, organisation, marketing and economics at university-level [as also described in Encl. 9]. From this, and from when I started learning about how the Arvato organisation was built up, and from the meetings surrounding the harrasment and other serious things that were going on in the company [Encl 1-7]. And from some of the sexual harrasment in e-mails I recieved etc. [Encl. 10-14]. And from reading the summaries from the Employee Forum Meetings that I found on the company intranet [Encl. 15-19]. And from the peculiar shift-plans [Encl. 20-25] made by the CCP-team. There must be something like one hundred examples of issues that are handled as unprofessional and with a similar degree of incompetence as the letter mentioned in example 3, in the company documents Ive got. The longer Ive worked there, the more obvious it became to me that this low level of incompetence not only applied to team-leaders in the operations-division, but also to senior team-leaders, higher management, HR, CCP-team, trainingteam, IT etc. In other words on all levels and in all deparments in the organisation. This became more and more clear to me with the meetings I had in the last four weeks in the company, and with the work I did preparing for the meetings. In the Employee Forum Meeting 23/05/06 [Encl. 18], Managing Director Ian Carrel answer this on a question on if it was possible to get trade union representation within the Liverpool office. The answer: 'IC explained that this is not group company policy and in a high value business environment the need for unionisation would be negligible.' The thruth is that the business environment and professionalism at Arvato Liverpool is lower than at an average clearence-store, and that the people in control of the company arent regular business-people at all, but a gang of crooks and imposters (organised criminals/mob). And this is supposed to be Arvato Services UK, a company with hundreds of employees. A company that has customers like

Microsoft, E-bay, 3, orange, miele, etc. And also is a company that is part of the large multi-national company Bertelsmann in Germany, with ten-thousands of employees, and among other divisions also has got a big record-company division with artists like P. Diddy etc.

5; SCANDINAVIANS UNDER MAFIA CONTROL AND ALSO THE LAST TWO DAYS I WAS WORKING THERE, IT BECAME MORE AND MORE CLEAR TO ME THAT PEOPLE WORKING IN THE COMPANY (SCANDINAVIANS ON THE SCANDINAVIAN MICROSOFT PRODUCT ACTIVATION CAMPAIGN), ARE UNDER COMPLETE CONTROLE OF THE CRIMINALS, AND HAVE TO DO WHAT THE MAFIA SAYS. I EVEN SAW BY MYSELF HOW ONE OF THE EMPLOYEES FROM ONE DAY TO THE NEXT WAS FIRST BEING QUESTIONED A LOT OF QUESTIONS BY ONE OF THE 'ROBOTS' UNDER MAFIA CONTROL. LIKE WHERE THE PERSON LIVED, AND WHO THE PERSON LIVED WITH ETC. THE VERY NEXT DAY THE SAME PERSON ACTED LIKE THE PERSON HIMSELF WAS A 'ROBOT' UNDER MAFIA CONTROL. THIS HAPPENED ON THE LAST DAYS I WORKED THERE, AND IVE GOT DOCUMENTATION THAT CAN HELP PROVE THIS. ITS AN ENOURMOUS SCANDAL THAT THIS IS ALOVED TO GO ON. IVE TRYED TO TELL THE POLICE, BERTELSMANN, NEWSPAPERS ETC., BUT NOTHING HAS HAPPENED, AS FAR AS I KNOW.

Enclosure III

Enclosure IV

Enclosure V

Enclosure VI (The first page)

Enclosure VII

Enclosure VIII

Explanation about Encl. IX and more.

20/04/07: It seems like I've managed to skip an enclosure when I indexed the files. I think I managed to mix up Enclosure IX and XI while I was working late one night. And I was in a hurry, and tired when I scanned some of the Enclosures A-G, so Im afraid that I managed to scan some of them upside down. I thought at the time that it didnt matter, since Id just print them out anyway, and then this wouldnt have mattered. But I see now that I should have used a bit more time sorting this, sorry about that. Also, regarding the Enclosement with the name 'new7', these are the notes I wrote supporting the Enclosements II and G. Just thought Id try to explain about those files. Regards, Erik Ribsskog

Enclosure X

Enclosure XI

Enclosure XII

Enclosure new1

Enclosure new2

Enclosure new3

Enclosure new4

Enclosure new5

Enclosure new6

Enclosure new7

Enclosure new8

Afterword
There are also a lot of unindexed files, which helps document this employment-case. And these files I thought I'd try to get published, in a second book, about this employment-case, later this summer. Liverpool, 22nd June 2012 Erik Ribsskog