time to strike back

this is how you get treated after nearly 40 years service  these people are devious, dishonest and completely lacking in integrity

aug 20 th marks a year since i got dismissed

my plan for the next year is to reveal each bit of dishonesty i have found

still  alot of material to come

these are the people we are supposed to look up to and as per the code of  ethics treat everybody with honesty and intregrity 

well im gong to direct the spotlight on thier behaviours



UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ACT 2000




BEFORE THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY

AT AUCKLAND



File No.

BETWEEN PAUL EVANS-McLEOD, 17 Minnie Place, Pukete,

Te Rapa, Hamilton

Applicant



AND TELECOM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Telecom House, 8 Hereford Street, Auckland

Respondent



________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

________________________________________________________________













________________________________________________________________

PAUL EVANS-McLEOD

17 Minnie Place Telephone: +64-7-849 4584

Pukete Facsimile: +64-7-8494 684

Hamilton



To: The Employment Relations Authority

And To: The Applicant



The problem that the Applicant wishes the authority is to resolves is:

1. The Applicant seeks compensation for loss of income brought about by Telecom’s deliberate “blacklisting” of his name within the telecommunications industry by Telecoms action of having his file marked “do not re-employ” see attachment marked “A”.

The Applicant received the attached document on 20th July 29, 2010 after a request via the privacy commission.

2. The facts that have given rise to the problem are;



(a) The Applicant attended a Mediation Hearing in late 2009. The outcome was he tended his resignation under duress.

(b) The Applicant had the understanding that the resignation was just that, a resignation.

(c) As the Applicant had retrained himself up to four times on different aspects within Telecom in order to survive the continuous changes and rounds of redundancy he felt after a period of rest and the recovery of his health, he had the opportunity of re-applying back to a completely different aspect of telecom, far removed from the environment he had just left

(d) If the Applicant had been dealt with honestly in the mediation and Telecom had made him aware of their intentions to mark his file “do not re-employ” this would have impacted on his decision to accept the mediation offer. Telecom have breached one of the basic tenets of ”good faith” which requires that the parties are responsive and communicative and do not do anything to mislead or deceive each other. I invite them to provide an explanation.

(e) If the explanation does not satisfy the authority I seek that the authority imposes a penalty.

(f) The Applicant applied for numerous jobs and given his background, length of service, contacts, knowledge and achievements within the industry should at least have secured him the minimum of an interview let alone success in the job. See attached marked “B”.

(g) The Applicant also applied for jobs allied to the industry but not specifically under the Telecom umbrella. Se attached marked “C”. This one is especially galling as the Applicant was part of the installation team that installed the communications during the construction of their building which is their Head Office in London Street, Hamilton.

(h) In file number 529488, Memorandums as to Costs, the Applicant alluded to the possibility of blacklisting with the following statement:


”It is therefore my belief that the instruction person, Hannah Sullivan, is and has acted outside 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 her is that I resigned. Thus my punishment for my perceived misdemeanours that brought about this case about has far exceeded both the crime and the penalty imposed.”


(i) The response from John Rooney was:


“We note in your reply to the Authority regarding the issue of costs that you allege a possible breach of the confidentiality of the settlement agreement by Telecom. Our reason for referring to this is to provide you with very early notice that Telecom has fully complied with its confidentiality obligations. If it is forced to defend its position in this regard, it will seek costs from you for doing so. We trust this will not be necessary.”


Thus Telecom, via John Rooney vehemently denies they have blacklisted me. Is this an disingenuous response or an outright lie. I cannot decide. It is very unclear to me. I can only assume he is acting on his instructions from Hannah Sullivan.

(j) The effect of this blacklisting is in fact a “de-facto” restraint of trade across the whole industry, as all roads lead to Rome, all telephone wires lead to a Telecom building, so if I was lucky enough to procure a job with a sub-contractor in the industry, the moment I applied for access cards to telecom infrastructure the blacklisting would negate the application.

(k) It has the effect also of a de-facto – defamation of my character as the response that can only be garnered from Telecom is that we choose not to re-employ, this response tabled against my long service, leaves prospective employers more then ample room to make their own perhaps erroneous assumptions, to my detriment unfortunately, And due the confidentiality of the mediation process I have no room to clarify. Breaching the confidentially would display my lack of integrity.

(l) So telecom has effectively shut me out of the only industry I know; the unintended or perhaps intended consequences.

(m) Natural justice, if not the law, decrees that an employer, whether past or present, acts in anyway that unreasonably disadvantages that employee’s prospects of finding further employment, the employee may  have the employer address the issues for them. As it is the employer that instigated the problem approaching them does not appear to engender a fruitful resolution.

(n) Attending mediation would not resolve matters either as the blacklisting occurred within three weeks of the last mediation. The resignation mediation occurred around the 20th August 2009. The blacklisting occurred on the 3rd September 2009.

(o) It is my belief as well that Telecom cannot be trusted to use the mediation process in the way it should. It uses the resources of its HR Department and the power of its position to achieve desired outcomes time and time again. Safe in the knowledge that few have the resources to challenge them. It is long past time someone did.

(p) I believe my view is strengthened by the deceitful practice that this document is seeking to resolve.

(q) Obtaining all information about me under the auspices of the Privacy Act revealed a document attached marked “D” and “E” that relates to Telecom’s response to a possible breach of the confidentially of the mediation. This document is one of approximately 2500 I received. What is of special interest however is it is the only one that is very heavily censored. Personally I can reach no other conclusion that whoever censored the document realised the contents if revealed would lead Telecom badly exposed to litigation and perhaps to charges of collusion, so the document leaves me with extremely little faith in the veracity and integrity of it participants.

The Applicant would like the problem to be resolved in the following way:

A. The Applicant seeks compensation to the value of $70,000.00 gross per annum from the time of his dismissal to the date the Authority makes it’s ruling.

B. The Applicant further seeks that compensation to the value to $70.000.00 per annum be paid from the time of the authorities ruling to whatever the retirement age may be at the time of him achieving it, be that 65 at present, or whatever increase is enacted before the point of him achieving it.

C. That if any law or principle of employment law has been broken that Telecom are fully informed and charged or chastised accordingly.

D. That if the decision is to be made in the Applicant’s favour that full publicly be given to it to further dissuade other corporate entities and themselves from taking this unfair approach so that no employee is again disadvantaged in the same manner.

E. The Applicant further seeks the costs of and incidental to this application.



The Applicant attaches copies of the following documents relevant to this problem:

(a) A copy of an email requiring my file to be marked “do not re-employ”.

(b) Jobs applied for within umbrella of Telecom.

(c) Jobs applied for in related industries.

(d) Copies of heavily censored emails in relation to series of events.



Mediation

Have you the Applicant tried to resolve this matter using the services provided by the dept of labour

NO

Have you the Applicant tried to resolve this problem using mediation provided by someone other than the department of labour

NO

Have you the Applicant taken any other steps of any kind to resolve the matter

NO

If no to both of above questions please indicate why you have not used mediation to resolve this matter

(a) The Applicant has not used the mediation for reasons state within the body of the application specially paragraphs (k) ( l) (m) (o)

(b) The Applicant is happy for this matter to be decided on the papers presented.

(c) The Applicant seeks costs relevant to this matter.



Fee

This application is accompanied by the prescribed fee.



_____________________________________________

Paul Evans-McLeod (Applicant)

__________________________