Accounts received
First-hand employee testimony is recorded with contributor choices and context.
Research phase · Current and former employees invited to contributeVolunteer collaborators wanted
Independent workplace accountability campaign and documentary investigation
Behind the counter.
Beyond the brand.
Inside MECCA is collecting first-hand accounts from current and former MECCA employees across Australia and New Zealand. The project is examining whether workplace experiences that appear isolated reveal broader patterns across stores, roles, regions and employment periods.
Your experience matters, even when it was never formally documented.
You control what you share, whether you identify yourself and whether you may be contacted.
Current status
Testimony is being collected and assessed.
The project is receiving first-hand accounts, conducting confidential interviews, organising supporting material and identifying recurring workplace themes.
01
Receiving accounts
02
Conducting interviews
03
Reviewing supporting material
04
Comparing independent experiences
05
Developing campaign priorities
06
Preparing documentary research
Research timeline
Evidence review is part of the process.
Evidence review
Documents, dates and recurring themes are assessed.
Comparison and response
Independent accounts, contradictions and relevant responses are considered.
01 · Why testimony matters
Not every workplace experience leaves a paper trail.
Many workplace experiences occur through conversations, meetings, management decisions, team dynamics and informal practices. The absence of a document does not mean an experience did not occur. Inside MECCA records first-hand testimony carefully and examines whether themes recur across locations, roles and periods.
One account describes an experience. Multiple independent accounts may reveal a pattern.Learn how evidence is assessed
02 · Evidence framework
Evidence exists in different forms.
First-hand testimony
An account from a person describing something they directly experienced or personally witnessed.
Contemporary records
Emails, messages, diary notes, calendar entries, rosters or other records created close to the event.
Supporting documents
Policies, performance records, employment communications or other material relevant to part of an account.
Independent corroboration
A separate account from another person that supports a relevant part of the experience.
Public information
Company statements, careers messaging, legal records, public interviews and reputable reporting.
Company response
Clarification, denial, context or supporting information provided by MECCA or another relevant party.
No single category is automatically conclusive. Findings are based on the quality, consistency, independence and relevance of the available evidence.
03 · Pattern analysis
Stories become more informative when they overlap.
A single account may describe an important experience without proving the same issue exists across the organisation.
01
Account
A contributor describes something they directly experienced.
02
Theme
The account is coded according to the workplace issue it raises.
03
Comparison
Similar accounts are compared across locations, roles and time periods.
04
Corroboration
Supporting records, witnesses or independent accounts are considered.
05
Pattern
A recurring issue may be identified where sufficient independent information converges.
06
Finding
A public finding is made only when the available evidence supports a responsible conclusion.
Frequency alone does not prove a claim. Context, consistency, independence, supporting material and conflicting evidence must also be considered.
Important context
This is not a representative employee survey.
Contributors choose whether to participate. Their experiences may not represent all current or former MECCA employees. The project will distinguish what contributors reported, what was corroborated, what remains disputed and what the evidence does not allow us to determine.
04 · From experience to change
Three connected purposes.
What happened?
Collect accounts, examine material and assess recurring patterns.
ExploreWhat needs to change?
Develop evidence-led reform priorities around voice, accountability and safety.
ExploreHow can people participate?
Enable contributors, researchers, filmmakers, advocates and supporters to participate responsibly.
Explore05 · Areas of inquiry
What the project is examining
These categories guide the research. Their inclusion does not represent a finding against any person or organisation.
Career progression
Promotion pathways, access to opportunities, development planning and perceived favouritism.
Performance and feedback
Formal reviews, informal feedback, coaching, expectations and disciplinary processes.
Leadership and management
Communication, accountability, management conduct and local decision-making.
Bullying and interpersonal conduct
Experiences of exclusion, intimidation, hostility, humiliation or inappropriate workplace behaviour.
Casual employment
Rostering, job security, communication, termination practices and access to development.
Reporting concerns
Complaint channels, escalation processes, responses to concerns and confidence in speaking up.
Psychological safety
Fear of retaliation, workplace stress, employee wellbeing and management responses.
Organisational culture
Team dynamics, values, workplace expectations and differences between locations.
Diversity and inclusion
Accommodation, representation, inclusion, discrimination concerns and organisational commitments.
Training and education
Role preparation, product education, professional development and access to learning.
Organisational change
Restructures, redundancies, role changes and communication during periods of change.
Customer behaviour and employee safety
Workplace responses to harassment, abuse or unsafe customer interactions.
About the project
Who established Inside MECCA?
The project was established by a former MECCA employee who worked within the business for more than a decade before leaving in 2025.
The project lead is remaining publicly anonymous during the research and production stage for privacy and safety reasons.
Accountability is provided through published methodology, evidence standards, correction processes, contributor protections, funding disclosures and right-of-reply procedures.
06 · Change agenda
Evidence should lead to action.
Where recurring concerns are supported by sufficient evidence, the campaign will advocate for practical reforms that strengthen employee voice, accountability and workplace safety.
These areas represent potential reform priorities. Final recommendations will be shaped by the evidence collected.
View the change agenda07 · Join the movement
Change requires more than one voice.
Share your experience
Contribute a first-hand workplace account.
Learn moreProvide supporting information
Review guidance before submitting material.
Learn moreJoin the project
Volunteer in research, production, legal research, editing, design or contributor support.
Learn moreShare responsibly
Help others find the project without identifying contributors or publishing unverified allegations.
Learn moreFollow updates
Track major project, research and campaign developments.
Learn moreFAQ
Questions, answered carefully.
Does my story matter if I have no documents?
Yes. First-hand testimony is an important form of evidence. Supporting records may strengthen an account, but many workplace experiences are never formally documented.
Will my story be treated as proven?
No. It will be treated as a first-hand account and assessed according to its detail, direct knowledge, consistency, corroboration and available evidence.
What if I cannot remember exact dates?
Approximate dates and surrounding events may still be useful. Do not guess. Clearly state when you are uncertain.
Can several similar stories establish a pattern?
Similar independent accounts may support a pattern finding. Frequency alone is not enough. Context and evidence quality also matter.
Can the investigation guarantee change?
No. The project can document experiences, publish findings, build public pressure and advocate for reform, but it cannot guarantee an organisation’s response.
Source safety
Pause before you send.
Use a personal device, email address and network. Ordinary email may reveal identifying information and documents may contain hidden metadata. Share only material you are legally entitled to possess. Contact the project before sending highly sensitive material. No system can guarantee absolute anonymity.
Contact
Your experience may be part of a wider pattern.
You do not need a complete file of documents to make contact. Start with what you personally experienced, what you directly witnessed and what you are comfortable sharing.
Privacy: provide only what is necessary. Submission does not grant publication permission and does not guarantee inclusion.