04 May 2008

Slater and Gordon supports IBM GSA fraud

IBM GSA is a joint venture between IBM, Telstra and Lend Lease. IBM GSA as a general rule, contracts its workers through its Tier Level 1 suppliers. Some Recruitment agencies that specialise in IT Recruitment are Candle ICT, Ambit and Paxus.

It was noticed, that a portion of monies was unaccounted for. This equated to a figure of 6.66%. This person then queried their manager. The manager was quite aware of this procedure, and proceeded to explain in confidence that this figure was evenly divided between IBMGSA and the agency, when the figure (the worker’s salary) should be retained by the worker. The manager then proceeded to explain that if this was to be made public, the worker’s employment would then be terminated, and they would never again have employment.

This procedure was documented, and presented to Slater and Gordon. Slater and Gordon then replied, that it is a matter the their department would look into as it falls into the category of Corporate Fraud. The individual then suggested that a Class Action Law Suite be initiated against IBM GSA and the relevant Recruitment Agencies.

The response Slater and Gordon gave was that :

  • it was too busy to pursue the matter,
  • it does not have the resources, and it would be too costly for them, therefore
  • the individual, under their own finances would have to pursue the matter.

If it’s too costly for a large law firm, how costly is it to an individual?

Since it has been established that the fraudulent amount is 6.66% of a contractors salary, then if we assume (for easy accounting) an average salary of $100,000 p.a. an approximate 2,500 workers, then $16,500,000.00 per annum are being fraudulently obtained by IBM GSA and their agencies at the expense of the worker. Over a 10 year period the figure is

165 Million Dollars.

A case that Slater and Gordon did not want to handle.

If an individual defrauded 1/100th of the above mentioned amount, then they would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Since when does a legal firm say "NO" to litigation ($$$,$$$,$$$)???

Privilege means Private Law, determined by ones wallet, not by justice.

No comments: