Telecom pissed off im not paying them quick enough

telecom are pissed off im not paying them quick enough  not sure who is driving it but hannah sullivan is the instructions agent to john rooney the lawyer

so is hannah doing it or is someone esle instructing her who knows

they are a nasty bunch that dont like being challenged in any way shape or form  so off to the employment relations authority we go again the lawyers must be laughing al the way to the bank




UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ACT 2000






BEFORE THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY AT AUCKLAND





File No. 5311630

BETWEEN TELECOM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

Applicant

AND PAUL EVANS-MCLEOD

Respondent









SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT































~ Simpson Grierson

Barristers & Solicitors



J D Rooney/S L Hogg

Telephone: +64-9-358 2222

Facsimile: +64-9-307 0331

Email: john.rooney@simpsongrierson.com

DX CX1 0092

Private Bag 92518







~

MAY IT PLEASE THE AUTHORITY:





Introduction





1. The applicant seeks a compliance order pursuant to sections 137(2) and



138 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 requiring the respondent to comply with the costs determination of the Authority in Evans-McLeod v Telecom New Zealand Limited (AA 1 87N1 0).





Background facts





2. On 1 June 2010 the Authority ordered the respondent to pay to the applicant the sum of $1,500 as costs, plus disbursements of $401.48. This amounts to a total of $1,901.48.

all correct




3. Payment of that sum has not been made by the respondent. As at today, 6 August 2010, the respondent has only paid $77.00 of the total sum. He is currently paying $10.00 per week into the applicant’s solicitor’s trust account (in five daily instalments of $2.00).


yeap thats correct thats all i can afford


4. If the respondent continues to make payments at this rate, the applicant will not receive full payment of the sums awarded by the Authority for approximately three and a half years. To date, the respondent has refused to make payment in full. -

no havent refused dont have the money to comply



Compliance Order





5. The applicant respectfully submits that it would be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances for the Authority to make an order requiring the respondent to make a material increase in the amount of the weekly instalments.

oh ok and where is this money going to magically appear from dah!!!!!!!!!!!!!



6. The applicant acknowledges that the respondent has limited means, however it is submitted that it is unreasonable for the respondent to simply ignore the Authority’s costs determination. The respondent has not sought to reach any agreement with the applicant over the costs determination and instead has unilaterally decided to repay the sum of $1 ,901 .48 in instalments of $10.00 per week over the next three and a half years.

if i cant unilaterally decide how it going to be paid well dah!! niether can they and no havent sought to reach any agreement because they have demanded  payment in full
and as he himself has quoted i have limited means






7. The respondent has been putting the applicant to considerable cost in relation to a claim that was never going to succeed. The Authority held in its substantive determination (AA 187/10) that the respondent was clearly statute barred by section 149(3) of the Act from pursuing a personal grievance and, in any case, there was no evidence that the respondent’s personal grievance had any substantive merit.

like thier actions cost me nothing they lied during the disciplinary process
they failed to act in good faith during the mediation
and then they black listed me in the industry
personal greivance substantive merit fine this bullshit has left me personally pissed off and very fucken angry



8. The applicant respectfully submits that if the respondent is simply allowed to ignore the Authority’s determination and make repayments at his discretion, there will have been no real consequences for the respondent in brining this unmeritorious claim and, further, the applicant will have derived no real benefit from the Authority’s award. It is submitted that the respondent needs to appreciate that “poorly based litigation has consequences’ (see Parker v Alliance Group Ltd (Employment Relations Authority, CA 73N10, 11 May 2010)). It is submitted that up to this point, the respondent has taken a dismissive and contemptuous approach to complying with the Authority’s costs determination.

im not ignoring any thing the applicant needs to appreciate that dishonesty,  lying ,lack of good faith in meadiation ,will have consequences as well

as along with my reply im firing off a statement of problem as well



9. The applicant respectfully submits that he respondent should not be allowed any further discretion in relation to this matter. It is submitted that it would be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances for the Authority to make an order requiring the respondent to make a material increase in the amount of the weekly instalments, in fulfilment of the Authority’s costs determination.

again they have my budget where is this material increase coming from i having got a fucken money tree you idiots



10. The applicant further seeks an order that the respondent is required to notify the applicant if he resumes employment, or otherwise has a change in his financial circumstances, at any time up until the costs award is paid in full. In addition, the applicant seeks leave to apply to the Authority from time to time for an adjustment to the minimum amount of the weekly instalments ordered by the Authority.

this is so telecom can increase my debt to them as often as they feel like this lawyer knows how to clip the ticket as often as possible
my reply

I am anxious given the current state of my finances; to mitigate future needless increment of costs







I am therefore hesitant about getting involved with this pointless, needless, waste of the Authority’s time and resources



I find telecoms actions mean spirited, they are fully aware of my financial position.






I view this application as just a continuation of the work place bullying, that they inflicted on me, to effect my dismissal, after a very long career.



This is legal bullying, it is the bringing of a vexatious legal action to control and punish a person. It is one of the nastiest forms of bullying; however the applicant’s use of same comes as no surprise given some of his client’s actions to date, namely their dishonesty in the disciplinary process and the lack of good faith in the mediation process



The applicant’s consul is no doubt increasingly becoming aware that there is some truth to my assertions. As when they become self evident after discussions with his instruction agent he then immediately acts to close off the discussions /debate/assertions/charges



The frustration they feel is supported by the facts, that upon being challenged when they can’t find facts to support their propositions, their response is to indicate their instructions are that telecom considers the matter, resolved and closed, or it has no relevance to the matter at hand .this has occurred twice already





The applicant is thus frustrated that I continue in my efforts to clear my name and that telecoms’ usual means of defeating anyone that challenges them isn’t working and that I continue to hold them to account for their actions and behaviours





So I reserve the same right as the applicant






I the respondent, consider the matter resolved and closed










Close perusal of determination of costs states the amount to be paid; it does not state term or minimum amount required






Therefore it is my belief that am complying with that determination albeit at a minimal amount however






So I ask what ruling am I in breach of?. I’m complying






















I have indicated previously to both the applicant, Telecom and the Authority that I find myself on the dole and completely bereft of funds, I have provided my budget, my options, coupled with my assurances it will be paid and that the payments will be increased as circumstances permit






I can do no more






They are the instigators of it, the mediation resulted in my resignation, and their blacklisting, of my name within the industry coupled with their de-facto- defamation successfully negated any chance of myself finding employment in the only craft I know






Thus this financial predicament I find myself in is intended consequence of their own actions,






The fact that they lacked the foresight to understand the unintended consequences of their action, which was that I would be left bereft of funds to pay their costs is not of my making






I can assure both them and the authority that sitting on the dole after a full and fruitful working life is not of my liking and most certainly not of my choosing in fact, I find it downright embarrassing






What more do they want from me “to be put in stocks in the town square”






Depending on the outcome of my next appeal to the employment relations authority (covering the black listing and possible defamation) my appeal for costs may well negate Mr. Rooney’s appeal for costs this will be filed within the next fourteen days






Close perusal of determination of costs states the amount to be paid; it does not state term or minimum amount required






Therefore it is my belief that am complying with that determination albeit at a minimal amount however






So I ask what ruling am I in breach of?






Mr. Rooney in previous correspondence 14 th June 2010 has stated






“. We understand you have unilaterally made arrangements to pay the costs by daily instalments of $1.00. Our client has not, and does not agree to payment of the costs and disbursements in this manner. The costs are due and payable in their entirety.”










Instalments where increased to $2 a day on receipt of above correspondence now $10 a week






If I can’t unilaterally make arrangements to pay costs as I desire. Where does the applicant gain the right to unilaterally demand what he/they requires? (His client telecom via their instruction agent Hannah Sullivan was the one that blacklisted me ironic that her actions






The applicant will no doubt pursue other avenues involving more and more costs all to be awarded against me .this will serve no other purpose than exacerbate an already dire situation.






The end result will be to have the authority serve notice/petition Winz to garnish my wages






Therefore I am happy for the authority to apply to Winz, for same, to save further needless pointless applications to the authority as long as I am advised so I may yet again adjusted my budget






Furthermore in direct response to the applicants assertion in his submissions


paga 4 “to date the correspondent has refused to make payment in full “ I have not refused I have submitted my budget and am finding it difficult to comply ‘






Paga 5 the applicant submits that it is fair a reasonable to make a material increase in the amount of weekly instalments I reiterate that in previous correspondence that I would increase payments as circumstances permit , he is just restating the case for effect






Par 8 the respondent is not ignoring authority’s determination he is doing his best to comply. he is not taking a dismissive and contemptuous approach to complying he has produced a budget and indicated to the authority that if they can find any adjustment, he again has reiterated he will do his absolute best to obey the authority ruling






Par 9 again the case is overstated for effect I have indicated on numerous and previous occasions that I will increase as funds permit unfortunately making an order doesn’t put the necessary funds in my account I have given permission for the authority to approach winz on my behalf asking them to cover the debt to the applicant.






I have done this myself but to no avail feel free to communicate with my case manger who is Helen Quinn my client number is 404 739 594 ph 0800559009 to verify






Parg 10 the respondent will happily notify when there is a change in his circumstances by increasing his payment to the fullest extent his budget allows at that given time again it restated for effect he has indicated same in previous correspondence






However the respondent doesn’t agree to the applicant seeking leave to continually apply to the authority for adjustments as this is a vexatious request which only serves to punish the respondent by adding more and more costs exacerbating as stated an already dire situation






The respondent requests that the statement of problem that will accompany this document be taken in to account by the authority when considering a response






The respondent requests the courtesy of a monthly statement for his records










The respondent further seeks the costs of, and incidental to this application/response