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
File Number 5294885:
Memorandum as to costs
While I accept the authorities ruling, as it is required to act under the terms of the law, sometimes that means you don’t get the perceived justice you desire, but you do get the law applied in a fair and just way. (However it is still my personal belief that the four people involved in my story have while behaving legally have reached their goal of having me dismissed in a very unethical and dishonest way)
My initial response to the respondents counsel is as tabled below
Dear John
Thank you for the recent correspondence with regard to costs: File 5294885
I wish to dispute the costs, and offer the following proposal in respect of those costs.
We note Para.3 that the notional daily rate is $3000 dollars per hearing day.
We also note your acknowledgment in Para.4 that the hearing was half a day, the hearing in fact, in my recollection only lasted at most a hour and half
So on a pro rata basis considering a full day to be eight hours, we consider a contribution to costs( including gst) of $562.50 to be an entirely reasonable contribution
($3000 divided by 480, the number of minutes in a full eight day, times 90 the number of minutes involved in the hearing)
Your comments in regard to the fact that my claim was statue banned and bound to fail are noted..
However my concern in taking my case to the authority was to ascertain the legally of the process I was put through to achieve Telecoms aim.
A successful outcome on my behalf would have effectively negated the mediation ban.
The authority was the only avenue available to me to pursue this question.
With regard to my approach to discovery incurring far more costs to your client than it should have.
This entirely of their own doing.
Over the course of my long dispute with telecom, several compromises were offered by myself, which would have mitigated the cost.
My resignation was offered, this telecom refused to accept.
Secondly (this formed part of the incomplete meeting notes alluded to in the hearing) when I offered that, we end all this nonsense, apologise to each other accept the lesson learned on both sides and put it behind us .Telecoms response was a final written warning forcing me to mediation
Which indicated to me that it was a personal vendetta on behalf of the site manager and the seconded national manager which they proceeded with, being fully aware of impact it was having on my health and my marriage this despite the fact they were fully aware of the medical issues I was facing
This is supported in their own documents from HR written by Helen Sullivan, (the same documents you requested be keep confidential) they indicate, in my view, that the final written warning was to be the outcome; which indicates predetermination and premeditation.
Careful perusal of my response notes would indicate that I advised you in reply that I would not be keeping them confidential and would be using all at my disposal to clear my name, this process is ongoing
One would also question why therefore I should pay for incomplete product of discovery.
Para 6 I quote “ if an agreement cannot be reached by this time we will file a memorandum in the authority seeking costs and disbursements over and above the amount sought in this letter “ I also reserve that right
The offer is full and final, fair and reasonable
All other considerations are immaterial and largely of Telecoms own making
Your faithfully
Paul Evans-McLeod
In answer to the latest communication I offer this as my defense as to costs
1 This whole sorrowful event could have been avoided if Telecom had accepted the compromises alluded to and offered above.
2 If the employment relations authority had advised me that the threshold for a successful claim with regards to stress in the work place was set extremely high I would have accepted the advice given and not proceeded with my complaint. The acceptance by the authority indicated a belief my claims had merit and so I proceeded.
3 As a laymen and even if I judged John's fees to be $1000 an hour I’m afraid I don’t see 13 hours worth of product in his presentation of his brief .
4 As to disbursements costs I feel these are highly inflated as the instructing person Hannah Sullivan had full and complete notes at the mediation, as did Michelle Young, as the copying machine and fax are within five meters of Michele Young’s office. I afraid I just can’t quantify costs to the value they are suggesting.
5 In closing i wish to the authority to note that my subsequent resignation under duress has placed me on the dole for the last nine months since the hearing
Hence my income has shrunken severely to $361 a week my house hold has approximately $202 in required outgoings rate utilities etc, leaving the remainder to provide food and petrol etc.
I will pay what the authority deems fair and just however, unless I can persuade the local winz office to pay in full the amount determined ,it will unfortunately be on a regular but minimal amount until I am fortunate enough to gain employment in the interim.
It is to be noted however that the prolonged stress Telecom put me thru has impacted heavily on my health as indicated in earlier notes I am manic-depressive; a fact that telecom was well aware of.
Currently l have entered what is termed a manic-phase which means im am in a highly hyper –alert state, much akin to being on p, this means I don’t sleep literally for days on end because of my greatly agitated state this can lead to self harm ,harming others or hospitalization. I am being monitored constantly by my physician and my family and am currently on 12 different medications daily to hold any further relapse into a complete breakdown
I have applied on a daily basis to find employment both within the industry and Telecom in completely different departments on to find myself apparently, black listed I have applied to nine jobs within telecom bearing in mind the fact that I was a top performer as with a vast knowledge and network within the industry as well as time served I should have been a sitter
It is therefore my belief that the instruction person Hannah sullivan is and has acted out side of the requirements of the settlement of the mediation and blacklisted my name within HR thus effectively negated any efforts I make to practice the only craft I know this has the compounding effect of a “restraint of trade” due to the confidentiality of the documents the only thing that should be known within hr is that I resigned.
Thus my punishment for my perceived misdemeanors that brought about this case about has far exceeded both the crime and the penalty imposed
I respectfully ask that a senior investigator from your Auckland office pay a surprise visit with the head of hr and ask for my personal file and have a discussion with Hannah Sullivan to ally me of my suspicions if this request is improper please advise me of the required channels to make my request
Kind regards
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
Hannah Sullivan HR Telecom instruction person to lawyer John Rooney
John Rooney Telecoms legal representative partner in Simpson Grierson
Paul Evans-McLeod
No comments:
Post a Comment