Wednesday, April 28, 2010

determination of the employment realtions authority

To all
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

my comments or explantions are in bold red





Attached is a copy of the determination issued by the Employment Relations Authority.

Section 179 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 states that if a party is not happy with the determination it can be challenged in the Employment Court. You can challenge parts of the determination or the whole determination.

You must apply to the Employment Court within 28 days of the date of the determination. To do this you need a special form; you will need to contact your nearest Employment Court for assistance on how to do this.

Their contact details are:

Auckland Employment Court
Level 11
280 Centre
280 Queen Street
Auckland 1010
Tel: 09 9166359
Website: http://www.justice.govt~fl/~

ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE ORDER
PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE
CONTENTS OF THE TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
REFERRED TO IN THIS DETERMINATION


IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY AUCKLAND
AA 187/10
5294885
BETWEEN PAUL EVANS-MCLEOD
Applicant
AND TELECOM NEW ZEALAND
LIMITED
First Respondent
AND BRIDGETTE DALZELL
Second Respondent
AND MICHELLE YOUNG
Third Respondent
AND SHAUN HOULT
Fourth Respondent

Member of Authority: Vicki Campbell

Representatives: Applicant in Person thats me i represented myself why because Telecom use thier deep pockets to quell legal action

John Rooney for Respondents
Investigation Meeting: 1 April 2010 at Hamilton

Determination: 26 April 2010


DETERMINATION OF THE AUTHORITY ON PRELIMINARY MATTERS


[1] By consent of the parties it was agreed that the Authority would investigate and determine two preliminary matters in the first instance. The two issues before the Authority are:


• The correct identity of the employer; and


• Whether the Authority has jurisdiction to investigate Mr. Evans-McLeod’s personal grievances
[2] This determination deals with those two preliminary matters only and does not make any determinations on the substantive issues. For the purposes of preserving the confidentiality of the Record of Settlement between Mr. Evans-McLeod and Telecom New Zealand Limited (Telecom), I order, pursuant to clause 10 of the Second Schedule of the Employment Relations Act (“the Act”), that except as may be necessary for the determination of this matter, publication of the contents of the Record of Settlement is prohibited.


The correct identity of Mr. Evans-McLeod’s employer


[3] Mr. Evans-McLeod has named, in addition to Telecom, a number of individuals as respondents -to-this matter. It -was Mr. Evans-McLeod’s submission that Ms Dalzell, Ms Young and Mr. Hoult were, along with Telecom, his employers.


[4] The Act defines employment relationships as one between an employer and an employee employed by the employer. Section 5 of the Act defines employer as being a person employing any employee.


[5] Section 103 of the Act (“The Act”) defines a personal grievance as being:


.any grievance that an employee may have against the employee’s employer or former employer. [my emphasis]

[6] Mr. Evans-McLeod has lodged a statement of problem which identifies a number of claims, all of which are claims of personal grievance.


[7] I am satisfied that Ms Dalzell, Ms Young and Mr. Hoult, while being senior managers within Telecom, were not Mr. Evans-McLeod’s employers. All the documentation produced to the Authority including the letter of offer when Mr. Evans- McLeod was promoted in - 1994 together with the I993 Collective Employment -Contract which was applicable to Mr. Evans’ McLeod’s employment all identify Telecom as being Mr. Evans-McLeod’s employer.


[8] Finally, the second preliminary matter relates to a signed Record of Settlement entered into by Mr. Evans-McLeod. The Record of Settlement identifies the Respondent as being Telecom and no other persons are cited.


[9] I am satisfied Mr. Evans-McLeod’s employer was the first respondent only and not the second, third or fourth respondents.

all of the above means my employer is the corporation Telecom not the idividuals named which means if i persued it anymore i,m up against Telecom who win these sorts of battles by just throwing money at them the buggers


10] On 21 August 2009 Mr. Evans-McLeod attended mediation with Telecom. At the mediation meeting, Mr. Evans-McLeod was represented by Mr. Peter Cooper-Davies, a union organiser employed by the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union (“EPMU”). The mediation meeting resulted in a Record of Settlement being signed by both parties. The agreement states that the settlement is

In full and final settlement of all matters between the applicant and respondent arising out of their employment relationship and its termination.



[11] As part of the agreed settlement of Mr. Evans-McLeod’s employment relationship problems, he agreed to resign from his position with Telecom with immediate effect and was paid a sum of money by way of compensation.


[12] Mr. Evans-McLeod has lodged a statement of problem claiming he was unjustifiably (constructively) dismissed, that he was discriminated against in that he was not offered the same terms of employment, conditions of work and was made to resign, in circumstances where other employees with the same or similar qualifications were not required to.

i am saying here that i was micro-managed out and micro-managing was not apllied to everybody esle so i was treated differently and to a different standard then all the other staff, if you refer to an earlier blog you will find what exactly constructively dismissed means this will go a long way to answering any doubts you may have about my departure

[13] Mr. Evans-McLeod claims he was micro-managed out of his position and that the micro-management was akin to workplace bullying. Finally, Mr. Evans-McLeod claims Telecom is in breach of the Health and Safety in Employment Act in that it failed to control the hazard of stress in the workplace.

the threshold for stress in the workplace as required in a legal sense is set very very very high, telecom obviously knew this so where quite happy to micro-manage me to the piont of collapse knowing full well that any legal attempt to challenge them would fail the pricks


[14] For its part, Telecom denies the allegations made by Mr. Evans-McLeod and says that he is prohibited from taking his claims any further as he is subject to the signed Record of Settlement agreement.


[15] The starting point for resolving this issue is section 149 of the Act which provides that where a problem is resolved by use of mediation services or otherwise, a mediator may, at the request of the parties to the problem sign the agreed terms of settlement. The terms become final and binding on, and enforceable by the parties, once a Mediator has explained to them that the terms are final and binding on, and enforceable by the parties and the parties affirm their request and the mediator signs the Record of Settlement.
4

[16] Section 149(3) prohibits the parties from seeking to bring the terms of settlement before the Authority or Court, except for enforcement purposes. This section is founded on clear policy to give greater certainty of outcomes in mediated settlements.’


[17] I am satisfied the Record of Settlement complies with the requirements of section 149 in that the Record of Settlement was signed by a mediator and endorsed to the effect that the mediator had explained to the parties that the settlement was final, binding and enforceable. Mr. Evans-McLeod along with Telecom also signed the Record of Settlement.


[18] Section 149(3) is uncompromising not only so as to discourage an aggrieved party for seeking perceived better resolution on enforcement but also because the prospect of cancellation would render such settlements largely redundant.2


[19] Mr. Evans-McLeod seeks to have the Record of Settlement set aside on the basis that he disputes the legality of the actions which preceded and led him to being forced to mediation and forced to resign under duress.


[20] As settlement agreements will generally be interpreted as limited to claims that both parties were aware of at the time the agreement was entered into3 the Authority investigated the issues which were known to the parties at the time they attended mediation on 18 August 2009.


[21] Mr. Cooper-Davies told the Authority that prior to mediation he discussed with Mr. Evans-McLeod issues relating to bullying, not being offered the same terms of employment or conditions of work, and concerns that Telecom was acting illegally by acting outside the Employment Relations Act and the Health and Safety in Employment Act.


[22] Mr. Evans-McLeod confirmed that these issues together with concerns relating to the allegations of being micro-managed were raised before the parties attended mediation. Further, Mr. Evans-McLeod confirmed that he raised the issues relating to

but the point to note here is Telecom failed to address them just continued down a path to the exit door as i indicated earlier you dont get justice in these things you get the law Telecom thus manipulated the whole event to achieve the desired result




‘McRae v The $2 Shop Limited, unreported, Employment Relations Authority, Member Robinson, 2
July 2007, AA 132A107.
2C/ark v Sal s Trading Company Ltd, unreported, Employment Relations Authority, Member, Member
Campbell, 3 December 2007, AA 378/07.
Mar/ow v Yorkshire NZ Ltd [2000] 1 ERNZ 206.
stress at a meeting with Telecom on 27 July 2007 and that he advised those at the meeting that he was suffering from stress.


[23] It is clear from the evidence that all the claims in Mr. Evans-McLeod’s statement of problem were in contemplation of the parties prior to and during mediation. There is no evidence Mr. Evans-McLeod did not freely enter into the Record of Settlement dated 21 August.

because the record of settlement is confidential even to the authority of course there is no evidence of anything well played Telecom tricky aye think the godfather films and getting an offer you cant refuse

[24] I find both parties freely entered into the final and binding Record of Settlement in which they agreed, among other things, that Mr. Evans-McLeod would resign and Telecom would pay him a sum of money.

what esle could she do vicky can only act on the evidence that is presented to her
the only place i can present evidence to the contary is the employment courts which as discussed is a very expensive option which i simply cannot afford


[25] Further there is no evidence that Mr. Evans-McLeod’s resignation resulted from any inappropriate or unlawful action on Telecom’s part or by anybody else. Mr. Evans-McLeod was represented by an experienced officer of the EPMU and entered into the Record of Settlement after mediation and subsequent negotiation with the ongoing assistance of the mediator.

I was hoping for a ruling on weather micro-managing is stress in the workplace under the 2002 health and safety amendment act but that is a big can of worms noboby wants to open
I recieved very little real help from most of the agenices concerned around this issue like department of labour etc it is a very touchy issues no one is prepared to go there with any vigour


[26] I find Mr. Evans-McLeod is statute barred by section 149(3) of the Act from pursuing a personal grievance.


Costs


[27] Costs are reserved. In the event that costs are sought, the parties are encouraged to resolve that question between them. If the parties fail to reach agreement on the matter of costs, Telecom may file and serve a memorandum as to costs within 28 days of the date of this determination with any submissions in reply being lodged within 14 days of receipt. I will not consider any application outside that timeframe.

will let you know if they want to stick the knife in any further based on current happenings it wouldnt suprise me this is what you get for 39 years 3 months loyal service great reward aye

so there you have it



Vicki Campbell
Member of Employment Relations


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



Monday, April 26, 2010

acknowledgement of complaint from the privacy commissioner's office

The privacy commissioner has acknowledged receipt of my correspondence and given me a reference number:
it is now being reviewed
;and a reply will be sent out within the next four weeks

What happens now:
first the complaint is assessed to see whether a full investigation is necessary,
if an investigation is needed; the complaint is assigned an investigation officer.

I believe I have already been assigned one, so all is good

The investigation is done via letter or telephone; in some cases they may meet directly with the parties, whom are required to provide the office with all relevant documents and information

Seen that I’m complaining, that they basically have been ignoring me for six months, in regard to this issue, it will be interesting as to what comes up from thier end

When the investigation is finished, they will form an opinion on how the law applies to the complaint ,if the parties cannot settle, then the matter goes to the human rights review tribunal at that point the tribunal makes a legal decision on the application of the act to the compliant .
This is what needs to happen for the protection of all of us

It can also make various types of orders,
including payment of compensation .
the tribunal hears the complaint afresh .
it is not bound by the privacy commissioners complaint out come

So there ARE two things to consider here:

These may have major ramifications for telecom and the public

1 Telecom cannot just ignore issues around the privacy laws and the breeches of the privacy act

2 Although they may have the right to access my emails; do they have the right to access my personal ones, or only those that are work related.
Most importantly do they have the right to access those between myself and my “lawyer”.

Surely not.

Telecom will not be at all happy as this will stir up a lot of legal stuff but they expected me to know all the rules and regulations when they micro-managed me out,
so it’s only fair that they should be held accountable as well. Ironic don't you think?

Someone has to have the courage to stop thier bullying tactics, I guess its me.







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

Friday, April 16, 2010

email sent to managemnt team

to
brigette dalzell trish kieth hannah sullivan michelle young shaun hoult tnaya bowers

Paul,

When you make an access request the agency receiving the request is required to address and respond to your request within 20 working days. In your case you have had the initial response so the Privacy Act would now require the information to be provided to you or not provided with a lawful explanation for withholding the information, and this should not take an unreasonable amount of time.

Unreasonable time is not defined in the Privacy act .

So if you believe they have had a reasonable amount of time and you are not satisfied with any response received you may make a formal written complaint to the Privacy Commissioner.

I trust this and the attachment information is useful.

Regards
Fred Henderson
Senior Enquiries Officer
Office of the Privacy Commissioner



Hello all

Over all this time I have repeatly asked, to be treated with honesty ,intrigrity and transparency . or even the simple coutesy of a reply to my emails
You all have just chosen to ignore me

Also you have all told me I must be aware of all of telecoms policies procedures etc , which follows on that you, yourselfs, must be all aware of the acts such as the privacy act and all its remaifications simply put it is the law .you have to obey it ,in failing to respond to me you all might find youreslf in breech of the same law maybe .maybe not If so you have brought telecom into disrepute by your inactions

I have followed the advise given and sent a very full and formal written complaint to the privacy commsioner and advised them to contact Paul Reynolds as none of you senior management team seem to have a full and comlete grasp of the requirements of the act

What have I asked of the commissioner,

Two things, a full and public apology and if the law has been broken by anyone they are held accountable


i highlighted that it concerns me greatly that if management at your level can have such a cavalier disregard for the act .that the public must/should be very concerned about the security of the information held in our files about them

The concerns raised are now between the Privacy Commisioner and Paul reynolds I have stepped aside

Its no fun being micro-managed and having your failings highlighted to all those above, is it, but Michelle and co where good teachers





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

reply from the privacy commissioner.s office

thought that you might be interested in this page from this Privacy commissioner website.
The complaints process
http://www.privacy.org.nz/the-complaints-process/

Paul,

When you make an access request the agency receiving the request is required to address and respond to your request within 20 working days. In your case you have had the initial response so the Privacy Act would now require the information to be provided to you or not provided with a lawful explanation for withholding the information, and this should not take an unreasonable amount of time.

Unreasonable time is not defined in the Privacy act .

So if you believe they have had a reasonable amount of time and you are not satisfied with any response received you may make a formal written complaint to the Privacy Commissioner.

I trust this and the attachment information is useful.

Regards
Fred Henderson
Senior Enquiries Officer
Office of the Privacy Commissioner

the formal complaint is in the post as we speak will publish on blog next week



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

Thursday, April 15, 2010

email sent to privacy commisioner

Dear sir/madam


I have recently requested from Telecoms Privacy Officer, an explanation as to why one of telecoms seniors managers failed to comply with all most all of the principles outlined in the Privacy Act when accessing emails between myself and my “lawyer”

After sufficient time had passed and I had not received any information ,I re-contacted her by phone, her response was the HR had stepped in to the concern and it would be dealt with by them

After waiting for 7 days I have not had a reply or even an acknowledgement of receipt of email which is leading me to believe that they are just going to ignore my request

What are my options from here to ensure they comply with my request




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

bullying in the work place

these are comments taken from the reponses to an articule in the herald 150409 entitled

Employment
Is bullying a problem at your workplace?

In New Zealand there is a culture to bully the older, more mature, loyal worker is an accepted practice. New Zealand management appears to encourage this through their business subculture."

The whole approach appears to be wear the older people out both physically and mentally, with that comes all the stress related health issues and at that point the person leaves. Finding a new work position at that point is mission impossible. Age discrimation in employment is rife even though there are meant to be laws which are in theory there to stop this.

technical bill

It's so difficult and stressful to do anything about, it's usually better to just try and find a new job before you're a complete wreck Wahine Toa

Workplace bullies drain the working-spirit out of many employees; usually, the problem comes from mid-level managers and supervisors. More often than not, it's used as a means of demonstrating "effective leadership" to the next tier up.

But, everyone has different degrees of sensibilities and sensitivities, when it comes to a reprimand from a supervisor etc. There can be a fine line between a considered "reprimand" and a put-down "rebuke".

Bullying does undermine productivity and workplace harmony; it's corrosive and debilitating, creating the 'Mondayitis Fear and Dread'. It's up to senior managers to identify the culprits, and remove them from their positions.
Mark S



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

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

i talked my head off

If you have an issue with the conduct or actions of your employer, it is important to draw that issue to your employer's attention.

If the employer fails to do so, this may give rise to a claim for constructive dismissal.

Awareness of the issues and the opportunity to rectify is very important.

a reminder of the importance of the need to simply "talk" about issues within the workplace, before things get out of hand.

i talked my head off but they simply werent interested in any thing i had to say
they just concentrated on geting me out the door

in doing so they made heaps illegal moves silly silly people cant wait to see them in court

as to why i resigned read my earlier blogs and re-ask your self this question

why would i resign in the middle of a recession

and when i was on a very very very old contract that had a marvelous redundancy clause in it why would leave after completely 39 years 3 months

doesn,t make sense does it






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

Friday, April 9, 2010

email to hr

Hannah

Within the last month I made a complaint via the customer complaint service regarding issues I required to be addressed pertaining to Bridgette Dalzell accessing my work emails but failing to adhere to the required principles of the Privacy Act

Conversations with Tanya Bowers Privacy Manager for Telecom, indicate that HR stepped in indicating they would address my concerns, as of today’s date I have received no further communications regarding this matter .This is extremely disappointing given that my request was to have addressed by April 1 for a meeting with the Employment Relations Authority,

I acknowledge that telecom has the right to view emails as expressed in its own “email guidelines’ but again Bridgette failed to comply with Telecoms own guidelines, one of which is a requirement by EDS administration staff to will notify me ,the employee, when it occurred and who it was authorised by

Can I please have an update regarding progress in these matters including now a explanation for the added no compliance referred to in the above paragraph



Thanking you for your time

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

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

reply to email from customer complaint division

Dear Paul

Please find below the email guidelines discussed.

Also as advised the on-line complaints form on the Telecom website is not the correct format for an HR related issue and as such I have closed the complaint.

Regards Tanya

Received a prompt reply from the customer complaint division, a nice lady named Tanya gave me a call followed up by an email ,they continue to provide good service something that HR, lacks they seem to ignore it or have their own set of rules if the don’t feel like answering then they just don’t .unfortunately is a trait followed by a lot in senior management so much for all the lectures and admonishments we always got about honesty sincerity responsibilities etc

The email previously sent off regarding a check of circumstances visa vie their code of ethics supported by the board has received no reply as yet but they are busy people

I’m off to buy some shares in telecom so i qualify to attend the next agm lucky they not worth much aye



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

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

back on the magic roundabout

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 of January with same title as this Blog and read upwards








letter to the telecom complaint service 060410





attn tanya bowers

Tanya on march 5 2010, I lodged a complaint with your department, with regard to privacy issues centered around National Secounded Mangaer Bridgette Dalzell accessing my emails between myself and my "lawyer ' I was assigned a reference number TC00028291.

After some discussion,I was advised that these issues where to be dealt with via Telecoms HR department and you had forwarded these on, to a Hannah Sullivan I believe

I advised you that I reguired them for a meeting with the Employments Relations Authority on April 1 2010

I was surpremely disappionted that I have heard nothing and recieved nothing since my last contact with yourself

Today is 06 april , a good month since my concerns where raised I feel that Telecom HR not commited to compling with the customer complaints scheme

So I would now like you to re-open the complaint reference tc00028291 as your own company has broken its commitment to you and your department and refer the original complaint to the Telecommunication Dispute Resolution (TDR) service.

Please add an additional complaint requiring an explanation of why HR is so tardy in thier reponse both to myself and your department

thank you

Paul Evans-Mcleod


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

Friday, April 2, 2010

email sent off

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 of January with same title as this Blog and read upwards





email sent to
'paul.reynolds@telecom.co.nz'ruth.nelson@telecom.co.nz'; 'Jan ONeill'
'trish.keith@telecom.co.nz'; 'debbie.herlihy@telecom.co.nz'; 'Bridgette Dalzell'wayne.peat@telecom.co.nz

I have found the clue in the court documents as to who and what started all this

As stated previously I had a heart attack and came back to work feeling a little aggrieved wasn’t doing my job .got my arse booted by Shaun which was fair enough . no problems with that sorted myself out, Shaun Hoult agreed and acknowledged I had improved etc thought that was the end of that. wrong

Next was a meeting with Michelle Young when she approached the same subject I thought quite rightfully I should not be penalised for the same misdemeanour twice and politely expressed my point of view

Apparently Michelle didn’t like this and escalated it to the national manager Bridgette Dalzell who invited me to a meeting because she “just wanted to meet me” so she was lying first lie there was a hidden agenda to the meeting

So we had the meeting than, at the end of it my misdemeanours came up all over again, again I politely expressed the view for the third time said it was dealt with an I shouldn’t be admonished for the same thing a third time

Two weeks later I was being micromanaged so apparently Bridgette and Michelle didn’t like being “ challenged “ because that’s all I did

I emailed Bridgette and expressed that I was being ambushed her reply “it was all in my head “ second lie I have the email

So I was micro managed out after 39 years, had my health, life and marriage ruined all because two women, one without any integrity ( keeps lying ) didn’t like me politely saying I didn’t feel that it fair to admonish me more than once for my admitted to and addressed misdemeanours

Power doesn’t develop character it displays it

Let’s see if anyone in telecom has any character shall we it would be nice one of you rechecked your own code of ethics approved and fully backed by the board or are they just empty words. What would the board say???? we shall find out in due course

Your all heads of your departments. you should find this behaviour abhorrent within your corporate culture

is it worthwhile noting that not one single person had the courtesy to acknowledge or even reply to this email





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

Phone 0064 7 8494584
Mobile 0272423017
Paul.evans-mcleod@xtra.co.nz
New Zealand Referral agent for salehoo.com
http://salehoo.com?aff=silverfoxa
www.melaleuca.com (Worth viewing)
change the way you shop save $$$$



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

what now

THIS IS A COPY OF AN EMAIL HN123 AND OTHERS



These are my submissions made to the employment relations authority, along, with supporting documents they are now out in the open and I m putting them in front of you in the continuing effort to clear my name as many of you have expressed concern and interest and up until this point I have been unable to say anything

.The whole point of my blog and my decision to pursue it via the authority was over my time with telecom I had built a reputation for being a trustworthy honest person who had high standards of honesty and integrity.

However my leaving caught a lot by surprise and as I was bound by the confidentiality surrounded the mediation I was unable to “clear” my name so to speak

Unfortunately there have been a lot “discussion” on the social media sites that “I left under a cloud” I can fully comprehend why that would be, as most that are forced to leave immediately usually have been caught with their hands in the till and deserve to be dismissed abruptly. however this was most certainly not the reason in my case .someone decided I was to go and that was the end of it. The net effect was my name was impugned or tarnished as a result of their actions .my personal code of ethics will not allow that to persist

. It wrecked my health .completely stuffed my marriage and my house is the hands of brother . you will see that I suffer from a depressive illness and with my life completely crashing around me some were concerned as to what I may do to myself THANKS TELECOM from the family

Some may question my loyalty in doing this but I had it in spades until telecoms actions showed me in no uncertain terms it had no value what so ever

.so there you have it .not bitter really ,angry yes, saddened definitely, disappointed yes most certainly many many failed to meet the standard they expected of their subordinates

so what happens for here

Well the employment relations authority heard both mine and Telecom submissions, yesterday they asked a lot of questions to clarify the issues and a ruling will come out in the next six to eight weeks I represented myself Telecom where represented by Michelle Young and a lawyer who is a partner in the Simpson Grierson

When it does that may or may not be the end of it depending obviously on the outcome, if it goes further the court is open to the public and media so I might sell tickets to cover my costs ha ha


You need to have an understanding of the way things work in a legal sense you don’t get “justice” in the court system you get the law
so if you are looking to the courts to settle a grievance it is the wrong place to be .the law is very precise and at times can come down to the precise reading of the word of law literally to the placing of an apostrophe or full stop can make the whole difference in winning and losing a case

so read the documents and make up your own mind I’m not here to convince you one way or the other you are all adults with some modicum of intelligence otherwise you would be in the job you are

I am however heartened by the positive comments that come to my attention “you have a lot if backing and support Paul. Hoping the little fella kicks some big corporate arse !!

yes it is a bit of a David and Goliath struggle but it’s also one that has to be fought if this can happen to a loyal long standing employee of 39 years than I afraid for you younger ones

if this upsets you or concerns you join the union I would have been lost without them

so do what you like with it delete IT read it forward it a least NOW you have heard my side of the story

to the many of you that have offered concern and support thank you

cheers Paul

to telecom management if this email upsets you tough “ if your actions are honourable they will stand the glare of public attention”

I helped a lot of people over my years in your employ many many many of them where badly upset with the aspects of my leaving and told me so

so next time you are in front us worker bees at the bottom urging us forward with words like honour spirited grounded courageous etc
remind yourselves that it’s our expectation that your actions will /should follow your words . many may believe you have been found wanting

so if you hear a wee snigger from the back of your audience its someone subconsciously saying YEAH RIGHT try not to let it break the rhythm of your presentation




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

Thursday, April 1, 2010

my submissions to the employment realtions authority

Submissions File number 5294885

Who is/ are the respondent s
I. Paul Evans-McLeod was employed by Telecom – the first respondents - under a contract document called the “expired collective”, second respondent is Bridgette Dalzell, third respondent is Michelle Young and fourth respondent is Shaun Hoult who were my direct reports and act for the first respondent as supported by paragraphs 4 (a) (b) (c) in the statement of reply supplied by their counsel John Rooney acting on their behalf




Why the mediated settlement should be set aside:
I am disputing the possible legality/illegality of the actions that preceded and lead to me being forced to the mediation and being forced to resign under duress (constructive dismissal).
I am asking the employment relations authority for a ruling on these actions.
However If this ruling is returned in my favor then it is my contention that the effect of this would negate the effects of the mediated settlement and paragraphs (e and f) of the statement of reply as it was achieved by illegal means.
This would eliminate the requirement for including the” 90 day issue” required for meeting Friday 28 May.
2. I therefore refute their claim paragraph 4 (d) of their statement of reply
‘’ that the second third and fourth respondents were, at all times, acting in the proper
performance of their duties with the first respondent


3. It is my contention that the respondents were “not acting in the proper performance of their duties” in that they failed to offer me, as required under the Employment Relations Act, “the same terms of employment and conditions of work as other employees with the same or similar qualifications, experience or skills working in the same or similar circumstances “
4. Furthermore I suffered dismissal, discrimination, humiliation and detriment by the employer and their representatives (the respondents) in circumstances in which other employees doing the same kind of work are, where or would be treated in the same way. As required under the Employment Relations Act
5. It is also my contention with reference to paragraph 4 (d) that with the realization that the second respondent Brigitte Dalzell was reading emails between myself and my “lawyer” in that she failed to offer me the required information under the provisions and principals of the Privacy Act 1993 and that this failure of process was to my detriment .

6. I have requested via their counsel John Rooney, a full account from the respondent of her actions, dates, and times of access. Justification for each instances and all other relevant information relating to the access such as meeting notes conversation notes ,emails dairy notes correspondence to from related parties including human resources legal opinions and others
7. Furthermore whenever I enquired of the third and forth respondents, namely Michelle Young and Shaun Hoult during various meetings, as the legalities of micro-managing (openly admitted by same on various occasions) at meetings held 230609 140709) especially when compared and highlighted against the requirements of the Health and Safety Amendment Act 2002 as they would seem to contradict each other so I seek a ruling on:
(a) Which has precedence - micro managing or the Health and Safety Amendment Act 2002?
(b) Is the act of micro-managing illegal under the Health and Safety Amendment Act 2002
?
They failed to provide any answer at all, in fact their response was a declaration that a “Final Written Warning” would be issued, which had the required effect of forcing me to the mediation - so again they failed in the proper performance of their duties. I therefore also seek a ruling as to the legality of this practice, policy and process which put me at severe disadvantage and under extreme stress.
8. I also contend that they failed in their duties by neglecting to take “all practicable” steps as required by law (The Health and Safety in Employment Act)section 2 A by ceasing the micro-managing in spite of them having received two medical letters from my Doctor indicating that the micro-managing was detrimental to my health and should be held accountable for these inactions.
All practicable steps is a key concept in the act .the act places the a duty on employers and people in control of work places to take all reasonably practicable steps in circumstances the know or ought reasonably you only have to know about to ensure their own safety and that of others

A step is practicable if it is possible or capable of being done. 'Reasonably ‘means that you don't have to do everything humanly possible; you only have to do what a reasonable and prudent person would do in the same situation you have to take into account various factors which may or may not take into account
They failed to have regard
The nature and severity of the harm that may be suffered if the result is not achieved: and

The current state of knowledge about the likelihood that harm of that nature and severity will be suffered if the result is not achieved: and;

The current state of knowledge about harm of that nature: and

4 the current state of knowledge about the means available to achieve the result and about the likely efficacy of each of those means




Micro-managing, coupled with their subsequent refusal to engage in meaningful dialogue, and failure to address both my and my Doctor’s concerns, was effectively designed to control, alienate and disrespect me, formed a stress induced disempowerment triangle which impacted on all measurements despite the best efforts from my self to achieve the requirements - their actions caused their beliefs to become self fulfilling. As they knew it would
9. Why was removing the micro-managing not considered a practicable step as they are also required to under the Human Rights Act? To
. “Take into account life circumstances which may impact on work performance.”
The respondents were fully aware that I am a diagnosed manic-depressive having suffered three successive nervous-breakdowns over the course of my life and received approximately 18 doses of electro convulsive therapy (ECT) and that I was on medication for same and had recently suffered a heart attack. These issues were discussed at the initial meeting when I was advised to seek counseling via the Employee Assistance Program which I availed myself of and attended numerous times as the stress over came me .
On the advice of my support person, I also provided them with a list of the life circumstances which I had/was dealing with in my personal life at that time which were numerous
Beyond receipt of the above they persisted to hold meeting after meeting, creating and causing more distress which was also obviously observed by the respondents, as on occasions they advised me to take the rest of the day off, however they made a conscious decision to continue the micro managing process.
In fact after one particular meeting I suffered severe chest pain as I made my way to the car which required a visit to the Doctor, an ECG, an hour on oxygen and two days rest. Subsequent to that meeting I was issued with a Final Written Warning.
I put it to the authority that the respondents were fully aware of the distress that their actions were causing and deliberately exacerbated same to their advantage completely contrary to my rights under law. This was done in various ways including
Corporate bullying this is where the employer abuses employees with impunity knowing that the law is weak and jobs are scarce. Dismissing anyone who looks like having a stress breakdown as it’s cheaper to pay the costs of unfair dismissal at Employment Relations Authority than risk facing a personal injury claim for stress breakdown
They where fully aware as I had filed the required documents refer:
“Notification of circumstances of Incident/Injury - Accident or Serious Harm” form section 10 - Mental Stress” filed with the Department of Labor and Telecoms on site safety officer Sandra Cleaver 300509-140709
Also
“Investigation form to be used to investigate work related accidents .injuries incidents –including near miss incidents filed with the Department of Labor and Telecoms on site safety officer Sandra Cleaver 300509-140709

Also
“‘Injury coversheet that must be copied to the health and safety office injury report and investigation form “referred to above file with the Department of Labor and Telecoms on site safety officer Sandra Cleaver 300509-140709

Also “‘Hazard, Risk, or potential hazard identification and control management form”’ filed with the Department of Labor and Telecoms on site safety officer Sandra Cleaver 300509-140709
Where the employer deems any employee suffering from stress as weak and inadequate whilst aggressively ignoring and denying the cause of stress (bad management and bullying)

Regulation bullying this is where management forces their target to comply with rules, regulations, procedures or laws regardless of their appropriateness, applicability or necessity. Regardless of the fact that the same level of compliance is not required by other employees
Legal bullying –this is the bringing of a vexatious legal action to control and punish a person - is one of the nastiest forms of bullying. Hence my forced appearance at mediation and my constructive dismissal after 39 years 3 months of loyal service with hardly a blemish on my record

10. Constructive analysis of all meeting notes, once received, would show a blatant disregard to addressing any of the issues raised by myself and my support person, indicating a premeditated process was in place to achieve their own predetermined out come - the mediation - which was signed under duress as I was placed in an untenable position by the offers presented due to the financial stresses and requirements of my life out side work.
11. This, in my opinion, gives credence to my contention that this was predetermined for a constructive dismissal , as their action or inactions show that my ousting was premeditated workplace bullying by micro-management (by their own admission) disguised as performance management.
“If an employer puts pressure (directly or indirectly) on an employee to resign, or makes the situation at work intolerable for the employee, it may be a forced resignation or "constructive dismissal". A constructive dismissal may be where, for example, one or more of the following occurs:
• the employer has followed a course of conduct deliberately aimed at coercing the employee to resign
the employee is told to choose between resigning or being dismissed
• There has been a breach of duty by the employer (i.e. a breach of the agreement or of fair and reasonable treatment) such that the employee feels he or she cannot remain in the job.
12. Their prolonged and aggressive actions lead to the ultimate destination of mediation, hence dismissal, gained by my resignation signed under duress, could also give credence to a failure to treat me, the employee, in good faith under the Employment Relations Act 2000 4 1 (a) (b) (I)(ii).
“Under the Employment Relations Act 2000 the parties to an employment relationship are required to act in good faith. This means that the parties must not mislead each other, either directly or indirectly. Good faith means more than mutual trust; it requires active, constructive engagement.”
The engagement I suffered I feel was destructive in many respects.
As the company is required to:
“Ensure that employees whose work performance is poor are counseled and given a chance to respond and improve” this forms part of the Human Rights Act
As micro-managing is a well known form of workplace bullying I seek an explanation as to how it can be construed a chance to respond and improve especially when they blatantly disregarded any thing I had say and where dismissive of my efforts to improve and constantly reiterated the impossible target they had set me
13.While I was not party to the discussions, the fact that investigations by the Department of Labour represented by Dr David Prestage could not find anything untoward , this despite the fact the that there are some glaring deficiencies in their process( they the appeared to have had no hcp in place specific to stress )and the admission on more than one occasion that they were practicing micro-management on me, leading to my lodging a complaint via “Notification of circumstances of Incident/Injury - Accident or Serious Harm” section 10 - Mental Stress, report which should be on file, along with others referred to above invites investigation as Para 235 obstruction (1) (a) (b).
14. I put it to the Authority that what was being considered in the first personal grievance was the preliminary question of what is effectively accord and satisfaction in an effort to negotiate a settlement.
That was the only matter before the Authority and the only matter which it determined.

The Authority did not embark on a full investigation of the Employment relationship problems as alleged in the statement of problem.

Thus a failure to address and consider these issues at this first meeting and accept the mediated settlement as full and final, allows Telecom to effectively and deliberately disenfranchise me of my basic human and legal rights under the referred to acts. I am not a lawyer but natural justice says this should not be allowed to happen

15. I put in summary to the Authority that in their attempt to oust me from the Company they effectively ignored my rights under various employment laws and acts and I was constructively dismissed . Coupled with the fact it culminated in my being physically, mentally and emotionally exhausted, their actions were extremely unfair.
16
I tried to stand up against the bullying and refused to join in, but found in my case that I was bullied, harassed, victimized and scapegoated until my health is so severely impaired that I was will on the way to having a stress breakdown (my medical support primary concern was which would occur first another heart attack or a nervous stress induced break down)

This was done in a number of ways and receipt of all meeting notes and careful analysis will go a long way to proving my contention
At times I was
• constantly criticized and subjected to destructive criticism (often euphemistically called constructive criticism, which is an oxymoron) - explanations and proof of achievement are ridiculed, overruled, dismissed or ignored
• forever subject to nit-picking and trivial fault-finding (the triviality was the giveaway)
• undermined, especially in front of others; false concerns are raised, or doubts are expressed over a person's performance or standard of work - however, the doubts lack substantive and quantifiable evidence,( I was told all others where achieving the standard when the truth was Terri Wilson’s survey found otherwise )
• overruled, ignored, sidelined, marginalized, ostracized
• singled out and treated differently (for example everyone else can have access to the web during work hours but if it was me it's a disciplinary offence)
• set unrealistic goals and deadlines which are unachievable I was required to achieve 100% of all requirement 100% of the time but their own survey by call center manager showed none on site where achieving same
denied support by my manager( as he abandoned me to save his own job) and thus found myself working in a management vacuum
• subject to excessive monitoring, supervision, micro-management, recording, snooping etc
• the subject of written complaints by other members of staff (most of whom may have been coerced into fabricating allegations - the complaints are trivial(, complaints by Terri Wilson call center manager and Owen Farrar-Purcell lead trainer )
• are invited to "informal" meetings which turn out to be disciplinary hearings
• encouraged to feel guilty, and to believe I was always the one at fault I was constantly told that everybody else was achieving to the standard they required of me but on becoming aware of the survey done by Terri Wilson was denied access due to” privacy issues”
subjected to unwarranted and unjustified verbal or written warnings I was held to account for saying “bugger” on a call yet the ceo Paul Reynolds in a interview on close up recently says ‘shit happens” and “people were taking the piss” on national television
facing unjustified disciplinary action on trivial or specious or false charges I complained of inadequate training with regard to xt launch as did the trainer and most of the team I was the only one disciplined
• facing dismissal on fabricated charges or flimsy excuses, often using a trivial incident from months or years previously these formed part of the initial complaint
• coerced into reluctant resignation,
• Denial of the right to earn my livelihood including preventing me getting another job, usually with a bad or misleading reference. In spite of once being the top seller on site for three years in a row, have failed, to attain any jobs at various telecom retail shops although it is illegal and it will be firmly denied It is a well known fact that Telecom holds a list of those that will never work in telecom or its environs again or associated companies, .sub contractors thus limiting my opportunities in the area of my expertise and experience
I believe that I was selected to be bullied as I fulfilled some of the following criteria:
• being good at my job,
• being popular with people (colleagues, customers, clients)
• More than anything else, the manager feared exposure of his inadequacy and incompetence; my presence, popularity and competence unknowingly and unwittingly fueled that fear as the manager was hardly ever there I became the defacto team leader in his absences
• A survey done annually by the staff he controlled placed him at bottom of all team leaders on site .approx 24/24 I believe his comment on receiving same was “I paid the price for being absent all the time”
• At times being the expert and the person to whom others come for advice, either personal or professional
• I had a well-defined set of values which I was unwilling to compromise
• I was known for strong sense of integrity I refused to join any established clique
• I always showed independence of thought or deed
• My refusing to become a corporate clone and drone I was always questioning and asking for answers in fact prior to the at launch demanding answers as we where woefully underprepared especially with regard to the technical details
• Being too old and too expensive I was on a very old contract called “the expired collective” I was working ten hour days four days a week incurring penal rates at double time and time and half
• Thus the only ones earning more than me would have been possibly the national manager at 57 years old I had accumulated 39years 3 months service and with the current trend of out sourcing overseas and the possibility of moving to a new purpose build campus currently under construction in Auckland there may or may not have been a considerable redundancy package on the horizon
On reflection some of the events that may have triggered this event could have been
(a) A new manager was appointed
(b)My refusing to obey an order which violates rules, regulations, procedures, or is illegal
.I wasn’t doing my job after returning to work from illness (heart attack) was taken aside and dressed down, for lack of performance. All issues where addressed and improvement shown and acknowledged.
However in spite of being warned by my immediate manager not to readdress the same issues ,as he felt they had been resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.
The call center manager Michelle Young decided to readdress same and upon my subsequent refusal to re-engaged in the discussion, passed me on to the national manager Bridgette Dalzell where the same discussion and out come ensured as I expressed it was perhaps illegal to admonished for the same misdemeanor three times
The micromanagement started with in fourteen days of this meeting.
This coupled with standing up for a several colleagues who where being bullied, of three people I had supported I had “won” two of the cases which unfortunately showed the incompetence of one of the site mangers So in a de-facto way I was undertaking the duties and role of a trade union representative and winning which in hindsight was not appreciated by management
I believe that I was displaying qualities that management where finding it increasingly hard to deal with

• My competence
• My intelligence and intellect
• My honesty and integrity
• I was trustworthy, trusting, conscientious, loyal and dependable in 12 years in current role I had accumulated 90 days sick leave
• I had well-developed integrity which I was unwilling to compromise
• I was always willing to go that extra mile and expected others to do the same
• I was successful, tenacious, determined, courageous, having fortitude
• I had a sense of humour, including displays of quick-wittedness
• I was imaginative, creative, innovative idealistic, optimistic, always working for improvement and betterment of self, family, the employer, my constant questioning of proper or better process, which won national recognition but the chagrin of my management
• I had the ability to master new skills ability, to think long term and to see the bigger picture
• I had a sensitivity to a set of values to be cherished including empathy, concern for others, respect, tolerance etc)
• I was slow to anger
• I was helpful, always willing to share knowledge and my 39 years of experience
• giving and selfless (staff on my leaving card commented I was the kindest person they knew )
• I had difficulty saying no to helping and mentoring others
• I possessed a strong sense of honour
• I was irrepressible, wanting to tackle and correct injustice wherever you see it
• I possessed a strong forgiving streak coupled with a desire to always think well of others
• I, m incorruptible, having high moral standards which I am unwilling to compromise
• I’m unwilling to lower standards having a strong well-defined set of values which I’m
• unwilling to compromise or abandon hence this action

• I have high expectations of those in authority and a dislike of incompetent people in positions of power who abuse power

• However I am quick to apologize when accused, even if not guilty (this is a useful technique for defusing an aggressive customer ) I posses a strong sense of fair play and a desire to always be reasonable
• I have high coping skills under stress, especially when the injury to health becomes apparent perhaps on this occasion to my detriment
• I posses a tendency to internalize anger rather than express it

The sequence of events was as follows
• I was selected using the some of the criteria above, then bullied for 8 1/ 2months

• Eventually, I asserted my right not to be bullied, by filing a complaint/enquiry with Telecom National Manager Health and Safety .the department of labour and verbally in a meeting to HR representative Iain Galloway, their response final writing warning completely ignoring my concerns
• The personnel department are/where complicit in the micro-managing by their own admission thus acting contrary to my best interests and that of their employer
• They suddenly realized they had perhaps acted contrary to their own best interests and perhaps illegally and may have thus incurred the possibility of a large liability against the employer and put their own employment in jeopardy due to their own incompetence
• The employer now realizes that they have sided with the wrong people, but they don’t want to admit that because to do so may incur liability spoken of
• If legal action is taken, employers will have go to increasingly greater lengths to keep things quiet, this is usually by offering a small out-of-court settlement with a comprehensive gagging clause
this was the subsequent out come they constructively dismissed me at a time when my health was completely shattered and I was on high dose’s of medication aimed at preventing either a fatal heart attack or a complete mental break down clearly not functioning at my best and my marriage was collapsing under the stress
• such was state I was in, I advised my twin brother that if a fatal event happened to pursue Telecom for damages
It was only after a relatively long period of rest, rehabilitation and counseling and once the medically induced fog had cleared and I regained the ability to think clearly and logically that it became clear to me that Telecom had effectively and deliberately disenfranchised me of my basic human and legal rights taking full advantage of my ill health caused by their own transgressions
Hence they where fully aware that their actions/inactions during the whole process failed to meet the standard required and where hopeful that my forced resignation would be the end of it and their inadequacies would remain undiscovered to be perpetrated on another unsuspecting employee



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