letter to paul reynolds

This blog has been in play for some months to gain the full story go to left hand side blog archive go to bottom post and read upwards






the reply in part came from paul reynolds via Jan O'neil via a lacky in the HR dept
I am unable to copy and paste,due to formatting issues but here is my response.

IT REPEATS SOME OF MY ISSUES


Thank you for your letter of 04dec 09

With respect I find your letter patronizing and evasive with a tone of subtle bullying

You do Paul Reynolds, his position ,and the company a disservice by its dismissive reply



out of fairness to Paul Reynolds only because I perceive that the dismissive reply was not his intent I am asking just answer the questions

is it too much to ask to be treated with honesty integrity and transparency

I am disappointed to note the failure to address any of the legal questions I have raised why are they being ignored none of us is above the law

Yes you are completely correct

“almost all the matters I raised in my email have been discussed at the mediation of 17th august 2009”

However the important ones where not

Having sort advice as to the legality of telecoms actions I’m not concerned with claiming against the company or re litigating I am raising the issue about the legality/illegality of actions by some of the participants with in the process. and the possible failure of the company to hold them accountable under law


I did NOT agree to accepting illegal acts against me

I seek clarity as to why I’m held accountable for my misdemeanors yet others within the company are not held accountable for theirs, even when some appear to have the appearance of them failing to follow procedures and possibly the law

the questions that the company has failed to answer are these

“With a sensible manner I informed them that some of the issues they were penalizing me , none of the site of approximately 180 people were doing correctly, that Terry Wilson another site manager had monitored the entire site and nobody was performing their duties to the same exacting standards I was being held accountable to ( how fair is that) “

can the company explain why was I was the only person held to these exacting standards that lost his job why aren’t others who failed in the same manner (approx 180 of them) weren’t penalized

Can the company also explain why shouldn’t I construe the actions against me as victimization or discrimination as to my age and the age of my contract on the part of Bridgette Dalzell and the three others involved in the process following her direction

“I was aware that management was reading my personal emails from work to my friends and family. How did I become aware , one of my friends was perceived to be my lawyer .

“Bridgette Dalzell had the unmitigated gall and audacity to email him directly requiring him to confirm his position as my lawyer I have the email “

She doesn’t have this right, it is a breach of the privacy act she certainly doesn’t have the right to email my “lawyer” directly that’s is definitely illegal why hasn’t she been held accountable

“I left that meeting, more than a little annoyed, micromanaging is work place bullying, work place bullying is a stressor, stress in the workplace is a hazard under the 2002 health and safety amendment act it is supposed to be addressed migrated and or reduced NOT USED TO TORTURE A WORKER “

“To confirm my thoughts I expressed them to Bryan Abraham Telecoms national manager health and safety he replied in the affirmative I was completely right in my thinking “

“advised Iain I has emailed him a copy of the e-mail from Bryan Abraham.” Can Iain explain his actions as to why even with a document from another within your own department why the process wasn’t stopped and apology made and why even when I offered them a easy out they continued to breach the act by immediately issuing a final written warning

“I hadn’t even had the courtesy of a second written warning” explain why procedure wasn’t followed

“Telecom had the cheek to imply to the Department of Labor that they had taken” all practicable steps” a DOL requirement to alleviate the problems yet when faced with two doctors letters stating the stress of micromanaging was badly effecting my health and marriage they didn’t take the practicable step of stopping it and they continued to table their actions in their minutes.”

Why didn’t they just stop it .can someone please answer that why isn’t stopping the micromanaging considered a practicable step? why is it excluded from being a practicable step if it is a practicable step why wasn’t it applied again its illegal it’s a failure under the act why haven’t all the participants been held accountable

From: Jan ONeill [mailto:Jan.ONeill@telecom.co.nz]
Sent: Friday, 11 December 2009 3:03 p.m.
To: 'Paul Mcleod'
Subject: RE: reply to letter 04 dec09

Dear Paul

Thank you for your email. As stated in my previous letter Telecom believes it dealt with you in good faith throughout the mediation process and in signing the settlement agreement both parties agreed to settle all matters between them. The payment made to you by us under the settlement agreement was in full and final settlement of all current or future claims you may have against the Company and it is simply not open to you to re-open claims, re-litigate them or raise new claims. Accordingly we believe this matter is at an end and neither myself or other Telecom executives or managers will be responding to any further correspondence from you.

I wish you all the best.

Kind regards
Jan
not a bad piss off letter is it bascially she is saying fuck off and dont bother telecom or me again pretty bad really for 39 plus years service

how do you think the general public would feel when all this comes to thier attention

heartless bartards


HOW DOES SHE KNOW A PAYMENT WAS MADE I THOUGHT THE MEDIATION WAS CONFIDENTIAL TO ALL PARTIES SHE WASNT THERE DONT THEY FOLLOW THE RULES

SHE IS CORRECT BUT WE ARE AWARE THAT AGREEMENT WAS MADE UNDER DURESS

From: Paul Mcleod [mailto:paul.evans-mcleod@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Sunday, 13 December 2009 9:10 a.m.
To: 'Jan ONeill'
Subject: RE: reply to letter 04 dec09

Dear Jan

I can only reiterate that I do not wish to re-open claims or to re-litigate or to raise new claims I only seek clarity around
“the legality/illegality of actions by some of the participants with in the process. and the possible failure of the company to hold them accountable under law”


The companies refusal to respond to further correspondence disappoints so the only recourse left open to me is to express my concerns to the board and the minister
I again note your best wishes and wish you all the best for Christmas New Year and the future

warm regards
Paul
17 Minnie Place
Pukete
Te Rapa
Hamilton
New Zealand

Phone 0064 7 8494584
Mobile 0272423017
Paul.evans-mcleod@xtra.co.nz

So I rest today my concerns as you would have picked up are now with the minister

I am shortly to send a email to Ruth Nelson, head of complaince for telecom seeking further explanations.



Current telecom participants
Bridgette Dalzell current head of outsourced customer care at telecom New Zealand whom is Michelle Young's direct report at time of incident
Michelle Young call center manager Hamilton call center, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents

Shaun Hoult team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton

Iain Galloway HR representative spends a lot of time in Hamilton