Defamation Act 1992 No 105 (as at 01 January 2011), Public Act
Punitive damages
In any proceedings for defamation, punitive damages may be awarded against a defendant only where that defendant has acted in flagrant disregard of the rights of the plaintiff.
defamation this will hinge on the ERA,s findings but the question remains is that i can sue both collectively and individually . consideration to proceed will be at the behest of my consul offers are being considered on a no win to pay basis consul is as eager for the conclusions as i am however ERA DECISION MAY PRE-EMEMPT NEED
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 centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
Monday, April 18, 2011
Friday, April 15, 2011
workplace bully versus micro-management
both are pretty much the same in my experience
Are You a Victim?
The Top 10 negative acts experienced by bully victims, according to Pamela Lutgen-Sandvik and colleagues reporting in the Journal of Management Studies:
•Had information withheld that affected your performance
•Been exposed to an unmanageable workload yes asked to achive targets 100% right100% of time
•Ordered to do work below your level of competence
•Given tasks with unreasonable/impossible targets/deadlines yes asked to achive targets 100% right100% of time
•Had your opinions and views ignored yes they failed to respond to any of my concerns expressed during performance management
•Had your work excessively monitored yes daily reports where run
•Reminded repeatedly of your errors or mistakes yes at every meeting
•Humiliated or ridiculed in connection with your work yes at every meeting
•Had gossip and rumors spread about you
•Had insulting/offensive remarks spread about you
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 centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are You a Victim?
The Top 10 negative acts experienced by bully victims, according to Pamela Lutgen-Sandvik and colleagues reporting in the Journal of Management Studies:
•Had information withheld that affected your performance
•Been exposed to an unmanageable workload yes asked to achive targets 100% right100% of time
•Ordered to do work below your level of competence
•Given tasks with unreasonable/impossible targets/deadlines yes asked to achive targets 100% right100% of time
•Had your opinions and views ignored yes they failed to respond to any of my concerns expressed during performance management
•Had your work excessively monitored yes daily reports where run
•Reminded repeatedly of your errors or mistakes yes at every meeting
•Humiliated or ridiculed in connection with your work yes at every meeting
•Had gossip and rumors spread about you
•Had insulting/offensive remarks spread about you
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 centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, April 8, 2011
sometimes
sometimes you see things that are so bad and corroupt , you simply must act, even if it harms you persoanlly in the end
some times you have decide whether you are the one on the cross or the one banging the nails in
im the one with nothing left to lose
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 centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
some times you have decide whether you are the one on the cross or the one banging the nails in
im the one with nothing left to lose
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 centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
Final report from privacy commissioner
My personal comments are both in red and underlined
• Privacy Commissioner
- Te Mana Matapono Matatapu
6 April 2011
Paul Evans-McLeod
17 Minnie Place
Pukete
HAMILTON 3200
Dear Mr Evans-McLeod
Privacy Act Complaint: Paul Evans-McLeod and Telecom New Zealand Limited (Our Ref:C/22243)
I refer to previous correspondence concerning the Privacy Act complaint you have made about the actions of Telecom New Zealand Limited (“Telecom’).
I have now had a chance to review this file in full and consider the issues raised.
I am satisfied that in this case Telecom has interfered with your privacy by initially withholding some information from you without a proper basis.
However I am also satisfied that you have now been provided with the information you are entitled to. It is also my view that there is no evidence to demonstrate that Telecom has accessed emails which you had sent and received from your work computer while you were still an employee at Telecom. I note that even if Telecom had accessed these emails, I believe it would have been entitled to do so in reliance on its clear computer use policy.
Background
The background to this complaint is extensive and has been dealt with at length in previous correspondence, but briefly; during the course of an ongoing employment dispute between you and Telecom, you formed the view that Telecom management had read personal emails which you had sent to your friends and family from work.
You also sent emails to Telecom in early 2010 requesting that it provide you with access to personal information it held about you. You did not receive a response from Telecom to these requests.
The Privacy Act
There are two main aspects to your complaint. The first is in relation to your request for information from Telecom. The second is in relation to your concerns that Telecom had accessed your personal emails while you were at work.
Issue I — Telecom’s response to your request for inform at/on
This aspect of your complaint raises issues in terms of principle 6 of the Privacy Act. Principle 6 sets out that an individual is entitled to request access to the personal information which an agency holds about them. However, this is not an absolute right as the agency may withhold the requested information in reliance on one of the withholding grounds set out in sections 27-29 of the Privacy Act. This aspect of your complaint also raises issues in terms of part 6 of the Privacy Act which sets out the procedural requirements on agencies in terms of how they are required to respond to requests for information.
Initial Request to Telecom
You had initially sent an email request for information to Trish Keith, Bridget Dalzell, Michelle Young and Shaun Holt, although it was unclear exactly when this request was sent. You advised that as you did not receive a response to this initial request, you then sent a copy of the request to Tanya Bowers on 6 March 2010. You advised that you did not receive a response to this request.
As set out in Ms Thompson’s letter of 30 June 2010, Telecom has advised that it did not receive your initial request for information. Telecom had placed a block on your email address due to the content of previous emails you had sent to Telecom. Telecom noted that on 25 February 2010 it had written to you requesting that all future correspondence be directed to Simpson Grierson, the lawyers acting for Telecom in this matter.
As Telecom did not receive your initial request for information due to the fact that your email address had been blocked, I am satisfied it has not breached the Privacy Act by not responding to your initial request.
Request of 26 May 2010
You sent a fresh request for information to Telecom on 26 May 2010 asking for all of the information it held in relation to you.
On 4 June 2010 Telecom responded to your request of 26 May 2010 and advised that given the wide ranging nature of your request it would not be possible for Telecom to make a decision within the timeframe set out in section 40 of the Privacy Act. On this basis Telecom extended the time limit to respond to your request by a further 20 working days. This meant that Telecom was required to provide a response to you by 22 July 2010. I am satisfied that given the nature of your request, Telecom was entitled to seek an extension and has complied with its obligations under section 41 in informing you of this.
I note that you contacted our office on 20 July 2010 and confirmed that you had received documents from Telecom in response to your information request.
I am therefore satisfied that Telecom had met its procedural obligations under part 6 of the Act in terms of its response to your request of 26 May 2010.
Content of Telecom’s Response to 26 May 2010 Information Request
Although Telecom provided a number of documents in response to your request, it also withheld information from you under sections 29(1)(a), 29(1)(f) and 29(2)(b). For the reasons set out in Ms Thompson’s letters of 12 November 2010 and 25 March 2011, I am satisfied that Telecom is entitled to rely on these sections to withhold information from you.
I note that on a number of occasions since Telecom provided you with information in relation to your 26 May 2010 request, you have advised us that you believe there are additional documents which Telecom has not provided to you. We have sought comment from you regarding specific documents which you believe were outstanding and have provided you with Telecom’s responses in terms of why it considers it has already provided you with these documents, to the extent that they exist. As previously advised Telecom is entitled to refuse a request for information which does not exist under section 29(2)(b).
this portion refers to the letter that was supposedly written customer complaint by the handicap girl who said I was “condescending and rude” they are therefore admitting fraud in the disciplinary process
In response you have sent additional emails again requesting Telecom provide you with further documents which it has already said do not exist. I note your comments and acknowledge that you believe that Telecom should hold further information as you believe it would have been appropriate for them to record and retain this information as part of the employment process.
However, as Ms Thompson has previously advised you, in terms of the Privacy Act there is no obligation on agencies to have created or kept specific information. The Privacy Act is only able to look at whether the agency has provided you with the information it does hold at the time you made the request. Your concerns that Telecom has not generated information that you believe it should have as part of the employment process, is not something we are able to assist you with.
So telecom or any other agency can shred incriminating evidence thats not fair
I am satisfied that Telecom is entitled to withhold the remaining information it has withheld from you under the sections set out above.
However, there was one email which Telecom had initially withheld from you in its entirety which we were not satisfied that it could continue to withhold. I understand that on 24 March 2011 Telecom wrote to you and provided you with a copy of this email, with a small amount withheld under section 29(1)(a).
Because Telecom initially withheld this email in its entirety without a proper basis to do so, I consider that Telecom has interfered with your privacy under section 66(2)(a). However, I note that this is a minor interference and as Telecom has now released the information to you I do not consider that it warrants further action.
Ok so I have to get it 100% right /100% of the time but they don’t interesting
Issue 2— Access to personal emails
You also raised concerns with us that Telecom had collected information from personal emails which you had sent from your work email address. You believe that Telecom had accessed your emails based on the fact that it had sent an email to you dated 6 April 2009 which asked for you to confirm that Mr Nigel Dick was acting for you. Mr Dick was also copied into this email.
Concerns relating to the collection of personal information raise issues under principles 1-4 of the Act. These principles set out the obligations on agencies when they are collecting
personal information, including what information they are allowed to collect, who they can collect personal information from, what they should tell people when they are collecting personal information, and the manner in which they can collect this personal information.
As previously set out in Ms Thompson’s letter of 30 June 2010, Telecom advised that it did not collect any information from your work email in the way which you have alleged. Rather Telecom advised that Ms Daizell’s comments had been based on previous discussions with you along with email correspondence that you had sent to Telecom which you had copied Mr Dick into. You have been provided with a copy of the email Telecom had referred to in which you had included Mr Dick.
At no point did I advise Ms Dalzell in any discussion that Mr Dick was my lawyer, I was setting a trap, why would I there was no indication as to Mr Dick Status in emailed he was copied into so explain why Ms Dalzell emailed Mr Dick directly asking for confirmation he was my lawyer ????
Based on this, it was our view that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Telecom collected information from personal emails which you had sent from your work email during your employment with Telecom.
In response you have provided us with further information, including emails showing that Telecom had accessed emails you had sent to and from your work email on 14 March 2009, 24 August 2009, 9 March 2009 and 11 March 2009. I note that these emails were accessed by Telecom on 26 August 2009, after your employment with Telecom had ceased.
Telecom has confirmed that it did not monitor your email during your employment, and has advised that the only time it accessed your emails was after you had alleged Telecom had breached confidentiality during the mediation process. Telecom has advised that your emails were accessed as part of an investigation into that allegation.
Interesting YEAH RIGHT so where did Ms Dalzell gain the impression that Mr Dick was my lawyer those emails predate the allegation
As previously noted by Ms Thompson, it was also our view that if Telecom had collected information from your work emails this did not raise issues in terms of principles 1-4 of the Act. This is due to the fact that Telecom has clear guidelines in place regarding the use of work emails and that as part of these guidelines Telecom notes that it may monitor and inspect its system at any time to ensure compliance with email guidelines. I am therefore satisfied that Telecom did not breach the Privacy Act by accessing emails sent and received from your work email address on this basis.
I note that in recent correspondence you have provided extracts from Telecom’s guidelines regarding monitoring emails. In particular you have noted that under the Privacy and Monitoring Section it sets out that Telecom reserves the right to monitor and inspect individual staff’s email activity for reasons including during a business crisis, if the employee is absent when information thought to be in the employee’s mailbox is required. The guideline also sets out that Telecom may monitor and inspect individual staff email activity under the direction of a body that has necessary authority. In the case that Telecom had monitored email usage during a business crisis, the guidelines say that the employee will be notified by EDS administration staff.
You have said that you were not notified that Telecom had accessed your emails, and have asked Telecom to provide comments regarding this. You have also asked Telecom to advise which body had authorised it to inspect your emails.
At no stage has Telecom advised that it had accessed your emails on this basis. The list included in Telecom’s guidelines sets out the circumstances under which it may access an individual staff member’s work emails.
I am satisfied that Telecom did not access your work emails in the way you had initially alleged. I am also satisfied that when Telecom did access your emails it was entitled to do so under the email guidelines it has in place. On this basis it is my view that Telecom has not breached the Privacy Act in relation to this aspect of your complaint.
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above I am satisfied that while Telecom has interfered with your privacy by withholding a small amount of information from you initially without a proper basis, I do not consider it has breached the Privacy Act in relation to any of the other concerns you have raised.
Where it is my final view that there has been an interference with privacy we have the discretion to refer the matter to the Director of Human Rights Proceedings who may take the case as a matter to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. There are a number of issues we must take into- account before making this decision. They include whether a significant issue of law is involved and the likely outcome in the Tribunal taking into account the outcome options available to it.
Having reviewed this file, I do not consider that it warrants referral to the Tribunal. This is on the basis that the amount of information which was improperly withheld from you was small and that this information has now been provided to you. I do not believe that you have suffered any harm from the withholding of this information that will warrant damages being awarded by the Tribunal.
However, you are free to take the matter as a case before the Human Rights Review
Tribunal yourself. If you wish to do so you should write to the Tribunals Unit, Ministry of
Justice, Private Bag 32001, Wellington, requesting the necessary application forms.
will be doing so at the conclusion of dealings with the ERA most definitely
As part of initiating proceedings in the Tribunal you would have to show the Tribunal that I have conducted an investigation into this complaint. I enclose a Certificate of Investigation that you should give to the Tribunal for this purpose.
Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. The file relating to this complaint will now be closed.
Yours sincerely
Assistant Commissioner (Investigations)
End: Certificate of Investigation
Privacy Commissioner Ta Mana Matapono Matatapu
Certificate of Investigation
for Human Rights Review Tribunal
Complainant Paul Evans-McLeod (Our Ref: C122243)
Respondent Telecom New Zealand Limited
Matters investigated Mr Evans-McLeod raised concerns on the basis that he believed his former employer, Telecom, had monitored personal emails he had sent and received from his work email address during his employment.
-
Mr Evans-McLeod also requested Telecom provide him with a copy of all of the personal information it held in relation to him.
Principle(s) applied 1-4 and 6.
Commissioner’s opinion:
- application of principle(s)
- adverse consequences
- interference with privacy No breach of principles 1-4.
Breach of principle 6 in relation to one document which has now been provided to Mr Evans-McLeod.
N/A.
Interference with privacy. No referral.
~Wk~ Flahive
I Assistant Commissioner (Investigations)
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 centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
Date:
• Privacy Commissioner
- Te Mana Matapono Matatapu
6 April 2011
Paul Evans-McLeod
17 Minnie Place
Pukete
HAMILTON 3200
Dear Mr Evans-McLeod
Privacy Act Complaint: Paul Evans-McLeod and Telecom New Zealand Limited (Our Ref:C/22243)
I refer to previous correspondence concerning the Privacy Act complaint you have made about the actions of Telecom New Zealand Limited (“Telecom’).
I have now had a chance to review this file in full and consider the issues raised.
I am satisfied that in this case Telecom has interfered with your privacy by initially withholding some information from you without a proper basis.
However I am also satisfied that you have now been provided with the information you are entitled to. It is also my view that there is no evidence to demonstrate that Telecom has accessed emails which you had sent and received from your work computer while you were still an employee at Telecom. I note that even if Telecom had accessed these emails, I believe it would have been entitled to do so in reliance on its clear computer use policy.
Background
The background to this complaint is extensive and has been dealt with at length in previous correspondence, but briefly; during the course of an ongoing employment dispute between you and Telecom, you formed the view that Telecom management had read personal emails which you had sent to your friends and family from work.
You also sent emails to Telecom in early 2010 requesting that it provide you with access to personal information it held about you. You did not receive a response from Telecom to these requests.
The Privacy Act
There are two main aspects to your complaint. The first is in relation to your request for information from Telecom. The second is in relation to your concerns that Telecom had accessed your personal emails while you were at work.
Issue I — Telecom’s response to your request for inform at/on
This aspect of your complaint raises issues in terms of principle 6 of the Privacy Act. Principle 6 sets out that an individual is entitled to request access to the personal information which an agency holds about them. However, this is not an absolute right as the agency may withhold the requested information in reliance on one of the withholding grounds set out in sections 27-29 of the Privacy Act. This aspect of your complaint also raises issues in terms of part 6 of the Privacy Act which sets out the procedural requirements on agencies in terms of how they are required to respond to requests for information.
Initial Request to Telecom
You had initially sent an email request for information to Trish Keith, Bridget Dalzell, Michelle Young and Shaun Holt, although it was unclear exactly when this request was sent. You advised that as you did not receive a response to this initial request, you then sent a copy of the request to Tanya Bowers on 6 March 2010. You advised that you did not receive a response to this request.
As set out in Ms Thompson’s letter of 30 June 2010, Telecom has advised that it did not receive your initial request for information. Telecom had placed a block on your email address due to the content of previous emails you had sent to Telecom. Telecom noted that on 25 February 2010 it had written to you requesting that all future correspondence be directed to Simpson Grierson, the lawyers acting for Telecom in this matter.
As Telecom did not receive your initial request for information due to the fact that your email address had been blocked, I am satisfied it has not breached the Privacy Act by not responding to your initial request.
Request of 26 May 2010
You sent a fresh request for information to Telecom on 26 May 2010 asking for all of the information it held in relation to you.
On 4 June 2010 Telecom responded to your request of 26 May 2010 and advised that given the wide ranging nature of your request it would not be possible for Telecom to make a decision within the timeframe set out in section 40 of the Privacy Act. On this basis Telecom extended the time limit to respond to your request by a further 20 working days. This meant that Telecom was required to provide a response to you by 22 July 2010. I am satisfied that given the nature of your request, Telecom was entitled to seek an extension and has complied with its obligations under section 41 in informing you of this.
I note that you contacted our office on 20 July 2010 and confirmed that you had received documents from Telecom in response to your information request.
I am therefore satisfied that Telecom had met its procedural obligations under part 6 of the Act in terms of its response to your request of 26 May 2010.
Content of Telecom’s Response to 26 May 2010 Information Request
Although Telecom provided a number of documents in response to your request, it also withheld information from you under sections 29(1)(a), 29(1)(f) and 29(2)(b). For the reasons set out in Ms Thompson’s letters of 12 November 2010 and 25 March 2011, I am satisfied that Telecom is entitled to rely on these sections to withhold information from you.
I note that on a number of occasions since Telecom provided you with information in relation to your 26 May 2010 request, you have advised us that you believe there are additional documents which Telecom has not provided to you. We have sought comment from you regarding specific documents which you believe were outstanding and have provided you with Telecom’s responses in terms of why it considers it has already provided you with these documents, to the extent that they exist. As previously advised Telecom is entitled to refuse a request for information which does not exist under section 29(2)(b).
this portion refers to the letter that was supposedly written customer complaint by the handicap girl who said I was “condescending and rude” they are therefore admitting fraud in the disciplinary process
In response you have sent additional emails again requesting Telecom provide you with further documents which it has already said do not exist. I note your comments and acknowledge that you believe that Telecom should hold further information as you believe it would have been appropriate for them to record and retain this information as part of the employment process.
However, as Ms Thompson has previously advised you, in terms of the Privacy Act there is no obligation on agencies to have created or kept specific information. The Privacy Act is only able to look at whether the agency has provided you with the information it does hold at the time you made the request. Your concerns that Telecom has not generated information that you believe it should have as part of the employment process, is not something we are able to assist you with.
So telecom or any other agency can shred incriminating evidence thats not fair
I am satisfied that Telecom is entitled to withhold the remaining information it has withheld from you under the sections set out above.
However, there was one email which Telecom had initially withheld from you in its entirety which we were not satisfied that it could continue to withhold. I understand that on 24 March 2011 Telecom wrote to you and provided you with a copy of this email, with a small amount withheld under section 29(1)(a).
Because Telecom initially withheld this email in its entirety without a proper basis to do so, I consider that Telecom has interfered with your privacy under section 66(2)(a). However, I note that this is a minor interference and as Telecom has now released the information to you I do not consider that it warrants further action.
Ok so I have to get it 100% right /100% of the time but they don’t interesting
Issue 2— Access to personal emails
You also raised concerns with us that Telecom had collected information from personal emails which you had sent from your work email address. You believe that Telecom had accessed your emails based on the fact that it had sent an email to you dated 6 April 2009 which asked for you to confirm that Mr Nigel Dick was acting for you. Mr Dick was also copied into this email.
Concerns relating to the collection of personal information raise issues under principles 1-4 of the Act. These principles set out the obligations on agencies when they are collecting
personal information, including what information they are allowed to collect, who they can collect personal information from, what they should tell people when they are collecting personal information, and the manner in which they can collect this personal information.
As previously set out in Ms Thompson’s letter of 30 June 2010, Telecom advised that it did not collect any information from your work email in the way which you have alleged. Rather Telecom advised that Ms Daizell’s comments had been based on previous discussions with you along with email correspondence that you had sent to Telecom which you had copied Mr Dick into. You have been provided with a copy of the email Telecom had referred to in which you had included Mr Dick.
At no point did I advise Ms Dalzell in any discussion that Mr Dick was my lawyer, I was setting a trap, why would I there was no indication as to Mr Dick Status in emailed he was copied into so explain why Ms Dalzell emailed Mr Dick directly asking for confirmation he was my lawyer ????
Based on this, it was our view that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Telecom collected information from personal emails which you had sent from your work email during your employment with Telecom.
In response you have provided us with further information, including emails showing that Telecom had accessed emails you had sent to and from your work email on 14 March 2009, 24 August 2009, 9 March 2009 and 11 March 2009. I note that these emails were accessed by Telecom on 26 August 2009, after your employment with Telecom had ceased.
Telecom has confirmed that it did not monitor your email during your employment, and has advised that the only time it accessed your emails was after you had alleged Telecom had breached confidentiality during the mediation process. Telecom has advised that your emails were accessed as part of an investigation into that allegation.
Interesting YEAH RIGHT so where did Ms Dalzell gain the impression that Mr Dick was my lawyer those emails predate the allegation
As previously noted by Ms Thompson, it was also our view that if Telecom had collected information from your work emails this did not raise issues in terms of principles 1-4 of the Act. This is due to the fact that Telecom has clear guidelines in place regarding the use of work emails and that as part of these guidelines Telecom notes that it may monitor and inspect its system at any time to ensure compliance with email guidelines. I am therefore satisfied that Telecom did not breach the Privacy Act by accessing emails sent and received from your work email address on this basis.
I note that in recent correspondence you have provided extracts from Telecom’s guidelines regarding monitoring emails. In particular you have noted that under the Privacy and Monitoring Section it sets out that Telecom reserves the right to monitor and inspect individual staff’s email activity for reasons including during a business crisis, if the employee is absent when information thought to be in the employee’s mailbox is required. The guideline also sets out that Telecom may monitor and inspect individual staff email activity under the direction of a body that has necessary authority. In the case that Telecom had monitored email usage during a business crisis, the guidelines say that the employee will be notified by EDS administration staff.
You have said that you were not notified that Telecom had accessed your emails, and have asked Telecom to provide comments regarding this. You have also asked Telecom to advise which body had authorised it to inspect your emails.
At no stage has Telecom advised that it had accessed your emails on this basis. The list included in Telecom’s guidelines sets out the circumstances under which it may access an individual staff member’s work emails.
I am satisfied that Telecom did not access your work emails in the way you had initially alleged. I am also satisfied that when Telecom did access your emails it was entitled to do so under the email guidelines it has in place. On this basis it is my view that Telecom has not breached the Privacy Act in relation to this aspect of your complaint.
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above I am satisfied that while Telecom has interfered with your privacy by withholding a small amount of information from you initially without a proper basis, I do not consider it has breached the Privacy Act in relation to any of the other concerns you have raised.
Where it is my final view that there has been an interference with privacy we have the discretion to refer the matter to the Director of Human Rights Proceedings who may take the case as a matter to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. There are a number of issues we must take into- account before making this decision. They include whether a significant issue of law is involved and the likely outcome in the Tribunal taking into account the outcome options available to it.
Having reviewed this file, I do not consider that it warrants referral to the Tribunal. This is on the basis that the amount of information which was improperly withheld from you was small and that this information has now been provided to you. I do not believe that you have suffered any harm from the withholding of this information that will warrant damages being awarded by the Tribunal.
However, you are free to take the matter as a case before the Human Rights Review
Tribunal yourself. If you wish to do so you should write to the Tribunals Unit, Ministry of
Justice, Private Bag 32001, Wellington, requesting the necessary application forms.
will be doing so at the conclusion of dealings with the ERA most definitely
As part of initiating proceedings in the Tribunal you would have to show the Tribunal that I have conducted an investigation into this complaint. I enclose a Certificate of Investigation that you should give to the Tribunal for this purpose.
Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. The file relating to this complaint will now be closed.
Yours sincerely
Assistant Commissioner (Investigations)
End: Certificate of Investigation
Privacy Commissioner Ta Mana Matapono Matatapu
Certificate of Investigation
for Human Rights Review Tribunal
Complainant Paul Evans-McLeod (Our Ref: C122243)
Respondent Telecom New Zealand Limited
Matters investigated Mr Evans-McLeod raised concerns on the basis that he believed his former employer, Telecom, had monitored personal emails he had sent and received from his work email address during his employment.
-
Mr Evans-McLeod also requested Telecom provide him with a copy of all of the personal information it held in relation to him.
Principle(s) applied 1-4 and 6.
Commissioner’s opinion:
- application of principle(s)
- adverse consequences
- interference with privacy No breach of principles 1-4.
Breach of principle 6 in relation to one document which has now been provided to Mr Evans-McLeod.
N/A.
Interference with privacy. No referral.
~Wk~ Flahive
I Assistant Commissioner (Investigations)
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 centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
Date:
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Pulling together
Pulling together
When we had training we had certain rules depending on who the national manager was .one didn’t like the trainers being challenged you accepted what was put in front of you as gospel and like a cult anybody that disagreed was ostracised written up told the weren’t playing the team game blah blah
Thus at time we required to sell product that was flawed i.e. TiVo
Some much for ethics honesty and integrity if you showed it the message firstly flowed to the national manger and site managers team leaders were to control it usually by having the person ejected from the company
I always quoted the if you accepted the counsel of yes men you reap the wisdom of mediocrity
Consider my reasoning
Profound questions generate profound understanding. Questions that dig deep, really deep, open our minds to continuous learning, provocative discovery and unlimited growth. By asking the right questions, we identify latent needs and clarify expectations. We test ourselves. We disrupt the status quo. We gain candid and valuable feedback on performance, a critical step in the cycle for on-going improvement. We learn what we don't know. We gain insight about the market and our competition. We uncover root causes that drive results, both good and bad. We identify the critical "leverage points" governing organizational behaviour. We discover opportunities for improvement. We tap into resources. We unleash the spirit of innovation and build healthier, more productive relationships.
The art of questioning is indeed a key leadership skill. It is a "pulling" technique, challenging people to think, to probe, to investigate, to challenge assumptions and to find answers for themselves.
Socrates used the technique so masterfully that it later became known as the Socratic teaching method, a profound stepping stone to enablement, empowerment and ultimately enlightenment. Einstein, Deming and many other thoughtful leaders used the questioning technique as well. Deliberate, profound questioning leads to innovative, profound discovery.
Building a high performance team requires a healthy level of questioning with positive and productive intent.
For example, what is the team's mission and why?
What is the team's vision and why?
What are the team's critical performance indicators and why?
What information needs to be collected and shared? Why?
Who is on board and who is not on board? Why?
What are the facts? Why are they important?
What are the forces against the team? Why do they exist?
What is our plan to overcome these forces? Do we have countermeasures in place?
What other options do we have? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each option?
What assumptions are we making? Why?
What is our time line?
What resources do we need?
What are our constraints?
How is the team doing?
What changes or adjustments do we need to make? When? Who will champion these changes?
What do our customers really think of us? How do we know?
What do our employees think of us?
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 centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
When we had training we had certain rules depending on who the national manager was .one didn’t like the trainers being challenged you accepted what was put in front of you as gospel and like a cult anybody that disagreed was ostracised written up told the weren’t playing the team game blah blah
Thus at time we required to sell product that was flawed i.e. TiVo
Some much for ethics honesty and integrity if you showed it the message firstly flowed to the national manger and site managers team leaders were to control it usually by having the person ejected from the company
I always quoted the if you accepted the counsel of yes men you reap the wisdom of mediocrity
Consider my reasoning
Profound questions generate profound understanding. Questions that dig deep, really deep, open our minds to continuous learning, provocative discovery and unlimited growth. By asking the right questions, we identify latent needs and clarify expectations. We test ourselves. We disrupt the status quo. We gain candid and valuable feedback on performance, a critical step in the cycle for on-going improvement. We learn what we don't know. We gain insight about the market and our competition. We uncover root causes that drive results, both good and bad. We identify the critical "leverage points" governing organizational behaviour. We discover opportunities for improvement. We tap into resources. We unleash the spirit of innovation and build healthier, more productive relationships.
The art of questioning is indeed a key leadership skill. It is a "pulling" technique, challenging people to think, to probe, to investigate, to challenge assumptions and to find answers for themselves.
Socrates used the technique so masterfully that it later became known as the Socratic teaching method, a profound stepping stone to enablement, empowerment and ultimately enlightenment. Einstein, Deming and many other thoughtful leaders used the questioning technique as well. Deliberate, profound questioning leads to innovative, profound discovery.
Building a high performance team requires a healthy level of questioning with positive and productive intent.
For example, what is the team's mission and why?
What is the team's vision and why?
What are the team's critical performance indicators and why?
What information needs to be collected and shared? Why?
Who is on board and who is not on board? Why?
What are the facts? Why are they important?
What are the forces against the team? Why do they exist?
What is our plan to overcome these forces? Do we have countermeasures in place?
What other options do we have? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each option?
What assumptions are we making? Why?
What is our time line?
What resources do we need?
What are our constraints?
How is the team doing?
What changes or adjustments do we need to make? When? Who will champion these changes?
What do our customers really think of us? How do we know?
What do our employees think of us?
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 centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Did you know that fraud is an indictable offence that
And so where is all this nonsense going to end
Do I have hope that the truth will finally out
We need to consider what has happened in the past, my first attempt failed because of lack of knowledge regarding requirements of employment law and I was required to pay costs
My seconded attempt gained a partial failure where I was subtly instructed that I should seek learned counsels before I proceeded any further
Then I succeeded on the third attempt where the era decided that jusrisdictional issues had to be decided before we progressed
This gave me hope, at least it was being considered it, also indicated that the ERA saw some glimmer concern for them to even consider taking the time to consider my submission
Due to the recession and hard times the ERA is exceptionally busy ,as employers and employees battle for their perceived rights thru the only legal avenue open to them
So they are not going to waste time educating me .therefore I must have raised some issues that concern them or they have had a complete gutful of corporates acting in this cavalier way and have finally decided enough is enough
Even telecoms counsel I believe has had enough ,as soon as he found out his own clients where hiding the truth from him and the revelations of my last two submission have effectively ripped the guts out his case, the tone off his submissions as altered in fact I now believe they are being churned out by his office junior
Telecom in their unmigated arrogance and wilful deceit have tarnished Johns reputation and image they fail to see that it is this simple lawyers never ever ask a question unless they already know the answers for it
.They don’t like surprises or being treated as idiots they Telecom will reap the rewards of their idiocy ,they will be hung out to dry
So we shall patiently wait and see the outcome part of which will put telecoms senior management in an invidious position
How so you ask
.well all of us that have had a descipliany letter will be familiar with the following phrases, the wankers use them every time
It is your responsibility to ensure you are aware of and comply with any and all of telecoms policies and guidelines these are all available on the exchange interanet site .you are to review these on a regular basis
guess who hasnt been doing thier home work
This one I love
It is your responsibility not to take actions which would bring the company into disrepute you are accountable for your actions both with your customers and your colleges in whatever capacity your are representing Telecom
if we catch them they will be held accountable
Meet all expectations in the operation separation compliance and code of conduct
micro-mangement remember GRIFT get it right the first time its been about ten times now and you still cant get it right
Codes of conduct.
Telecom has clear expectations of all staff for appropriate conduct and behaviour these are highlighted in all employment agreements and are available to all staff on the company intra net .They outline explicit expectations about fulfilling lawful obligations with professionalism and integrity, and performing duties to the best of one’s ability while respecting the rights of others and avoiding behaviour that might impair ones effectiveness to effect same
these people have no idea what integrity is
Plus there is their code of ethics as well
ditto
Now I will paraphrase bits of my written warning this these comments will apply to all who have participated in my dismissal Bridget Dalzell Iain Galloway Hannah Sullivan Michelle Young Shaun Hoult
The matters of concern
Consistent failure to meet defined performance standards in your roles as my direct lines of mamanegemnt
Failure to meet agreed expectations set out in employment law codes of conduct and codes of ethics as set out on the exchange intranet site you are required to review theses on a regular basis
Alleged abuse and misuse of the right telecom requirements and protocols regarding disciplinary procedures lack of due diligence and wilful neglect
Accessing confidential information as defines in email guideline f,ailure to follow correct procedures
Committing common law fraud
Thus fulfilling the nine elements of fraud
1 a representation of an existing fact
2 is materiality
3 its falsity
4 the speakers knowledge of it falsity
5 the speakers intent that it shall be acted on by the plaintiff (that’s me )
6 the plaintiffs ignorance of its falsity
7 plaintiff reliance on the truth of the representation
8 the plaintiffs right to rely on it and
9 consequent damages suffered by the plaintiff
You did well 100% pass 9 out of 9
So we will all sit back and see what happens but no pressure, do take note however of the last sentence in my summary of argument
If any/or all of the participants have breached the law that the authority holds them accountable under the law
Did you know that fraud is an indictable offence that means jail time OH BUGGER
Question: which is worse” a do not re-employ” on your file which effects only the company you had worked for or a criminal charge that will be a matter of public record for the rest of your life
Question Which is worse having to explain it all to your future employers or to your kids when they discover the wonders of the internet and Google
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 centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
Do I have hope that the truth will finally out
We need to consider what has happened in the past, my first attempt failed because of lack of knowledge regarding requirements of employment law and I was required to pay costs
My seconded attempt gained a partial failure where I was subtly instructed that I should seek learned counsels before I proceeded any further
Then I succeeded on the third attempt where the era decided that jusrisdictional issues had to be decided before we progressed
This gave me hope, at least it was being considered it, also indicated that the ERA saw some glimmer concern for them to even consider taking the time to consider my submission
Due to the recession and hard times the ERA is exceptionally busy ,as employers and employees battle for their perceived rights thru the only legal avenue open to them
So they are not going to waste time educating me .therefore I must have raised some issues that concern them or they have had a complete gutful of corporates acting in this cavalier way and have finally decided enough is enough
Even telecoms counsel I believe has had enough ,as soon as he found out his own clients where hiding the truth from him and the revelations of my last two submission have effectively ripped the guts out his case, the tone off his submissions as altered in fact I now believe they are being churned out by his office junior
Telecom in their unmigated arrogance and wilful deceit have tarnished Johns reputation and image they fail to see that it is this simple lawyers never ever ask a question unless they already know the answers for it
.They don’t like surprises or being treated as idiots they Telecom will reap the rewards of their idiocy ,they will be hung out to dry
So we shall patiently wait and see the outcome part of which will put telecoms senior management in an invidious position
How so you ask
.well all of us that have had a descipliany letter will be familiar with the following phrases, the wankers use them every time
It is your responsibility to ensure you are aware of and comply with any and all of telecoms policies and guidelines these are all available on the exchange interanet site .you are to review these on a regular basis
guess who hasnt been doing thier home work
This one I love
It is your responsibility not to take actions which would bring the company into disrepute you are accountable for your actions both with your customers and your colleges in whatever capacity your are representing Telecom
if we catch them they will be held accountable
Meet all expectations in the operation separation compliance and code of conduct
micro-mangement remember GRIFT get it right the first time its been about ten times now and you still cant get it right
Codes of conduct.
Telecom has clear expectations of all staff for appropriate conduct and behaviour these are highlighted in all employment agreements and are available to all staff on the company intra net .They outline explicit expectations about fulfilling lawful obligations with professionalism and integrity, and performing duties to the best of one’s ability while respecting the rights of others and avoiding behaviour that might impair ones effectiveness to effect same
these people have no idea what integrity is
Plus there is their code of ethics as well
ditto
Now I will paraphrase bits of my written warning this these comments will apply to all who have participated in my dismissal Bridget Dalzell Iain Galloway Hannah Sullivan Michelle Young Shaun Hoult
The matters of concern
Consistent failure to meet defined performance standards in your roles as my direct lines of mamanegemnt
Failure to meet agreed expectations set out in employment law codes of conduct and codes of ethics as set out on the exchange intranet site you are required to review theses on a regular basis
Alleged abuse and misuse of the right telecom requirements and protocols regarding disciplinary procedures lack of due diligence and wilful neglect
Accessing confidential information as defines in email guideline f,ailure to follow correct procedures
Committing common law fraud
Thus fulfilling the nine elements of fraud
1 a representation of an existing fact
2 is materiality
3 its falsity
4 the speakers knowledge of it falsity
5 the speakers intent that it shall be acted on by the plaintiff (that’s me )
6 the plaintiffs ignorance of its falsity
7 plaintiff reliance on the truth of the representation
8 the plaintiffs right to rely on it and
9 consequent damages suffered by the plaintiff
You did well 100% pass 9 out of 9
So we will all sit back and see what happens but no pressure, do take note however of the last sentence in my summary of argument
If any/or all of the participants have breached the law that the authority holds them accountable under the law
Did you know that fraud is an indictable offence that means jail time OH BUGGER
Question: which is worse” a do not re-employ” on your file which effects only the company you had worked for or a criminal charge that will be a matter of public record for the rest of your life
Question Which is worse having to explain it all to your future employers or to your kids when they discover the wonders of the internet and Google
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 centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
Saturday, April 2, 2011
so i kicked back with this reponse
Summary of argument
To the authority file no 5315212 Attn K J Anderson
As I am a litigant representing my self, my understanding of jurisdictional issues is limited by my basic knowledge of the law and my research thus I am presenting same as a summary of argument
To my understanding
The Employment Relations Act 2000 section 187 gives jurisdiction to hear all matters relating to employment disputes
That Jurisdiction covers the following areas: among others
• To review how various persons have exercised, or refused, or proposed, or purported to exercise, any of their powers under the Employment Relations Act 2000
• When people are alleged to have committed offences under the Employment Relations Act 2000
• Where proceedings are referred or removed to the Court by the Employment Relations Authority
It is under theses areas I wish to address the ERA
In summary
My allegations of fraud and deception against the staff of New Zealand Telecom presents a direct challenge (dependant on its out come) to the extent to which Telecom deserves and holds the respect of not only its employees but effects also its image as company in the commercial public arena with regard to its integrity .
It especially holds a direct accountability reflected by its actions to the regard it holds for such basic things as human rights, employment law and its integrity when dealing with same and other public entities such as the privacy commission (to whom it was happy to provide false evidence as referred to in previous submissions as well as in this submission)
My concerns have over time addressed a number of questions
1 / Was my disciplinary process managed correctly in accordance with the relevant laws and Telecoms own code of conduct. Were the correct procedures followed i.e. were my concerns expressed ever acted upon; or even followed up?
2/ why were meeting notes incomplete.
Having regard to the information in the documents at issue I have concluded that they each reflected an element of choice about what was recorded and how the record was expressed. The documents themselves would satisfy me that in their preparation there was sufficient exercise of skill, selection, effort and or judgment to come within the rational for further concerns of fraud and deception by “willful neglect” and / or “willful omissions”
It is my contention that there was a conspiracy by all parties to be “wilfully negligent “and to “lie in unison” this is supported by the complete ignoring of proper process and perhaps just plain old common sense in not requesting/asking for, a copy of a customer complaint letter; which formed part of the displainary action against me: now known to be a fraudulent.
In fact was there a conspiracy to deceive amongst various officers within management and HR; as they appeared to be working in concert with each other? This is exemplified by the apparent inability of all telecom participants failure to apply due diligence to the letter that supposedly came from an intellectually handicap girl accusing me of being rude and condescending.
3/ In relation to my case of dismissal ,where the employment laws policies and systems for managing employment issues appropriately and effectively applied i.e. “good faith”
4/ In relation to my case were Telecoms own expectations of appropriate conduct and behaviour clear and up held ,it is my contention they did not
Codes of conduct.
Telecom has clear expectations of all staff for appropriate conduct and behaviour these are highlighted in all employment agreements and are available to all staff on the company intranet .They outline explicit expectations about fulfilling lawful obligations with professional ism and integrity, and performing duties to the best of ones ability while respecting the rights of others and avoiding behaviour that might impair ones effectiveness to effect same.
5/ What are the implications from this situation for the company’s practices and policies relating to standards and behaviours expected of them with a firm regard to the way their employees are treated under employment law ,not only in my own treatment .but in the treatment of all employees . Only a full and extensive audit can reveal what is covertly going on , firstly applied to my own case and if they is sufficient evidence of abuse of process etc progressively audit all other cases a required
I failed in my last attempt to prove a constructive dismissal I ask that consideration again be given based on the following precepts
There are three situations where a constructive dismissal might occur:
(i) where the employee was given a choice of resignation or dismissal;
(ii) where the employer had followed a course of conduct with the deliberate and dominant purpose of coercing an employee to resign; micromanaging few other employees, if any where required to work to this exacting standard, which by its very nature is unachievable from the outset, you are setup for failure. Telecoms admission to me, that they where employing it, signifies both their guilt and their intent
(iii) Where a breach of duty by the employer led a worker to resign. Good faith
Mutual obligations of trust and confidence
All of those three situations may have applied in my case. Certainly 2 & 3
Confidentiality clauses prevent confirmation of the first
In considering whether there was a breach of the implied mutual obligations of trust and confidence or the overall obligation of good faith, it was necessary to look at whether the employer’s conduct as a whole judged reasonably and sensibly, was such, that the defendant should not have been expected to have put up with it.
In reality it was micro-management disguised as performance management a severe case of work place bullying in that
A / It was a deliberate act
Requested and organized by senior management in collusion with HR (refer previous submission HR and senior admitted twice to micro management)
Conspiracy to deceive /working in concert with each other/using privacy act to defeat Era requirements i.e. i was refused access to all forms of data available that compared my outputs against my peers quoting” peers privacy issues” in so doing preventing me access to information that would clearly refute their nefarious claims
B/ It was disrespectful
C/ It was repeated on a daily basis for approximately 8 months
This was exemplified by a email sighted by me where the national manager comments to the general manager that my immediate manager and my site manager “had a nice rhythm going on “ this in response to an enquiry as to how the disciplinary action against me was proceeding
Where a breach of duty by the employer led a worker to resign.
Their breech of duty where outlined in my last submission
References AEC 81/92 AA199/08 may have, in part , some relevance
In closing
I may not have a clear understanding of issues of jurisdiction and other concepts of the legal frame work with regard to employment law and if I have wasted the authority time with this further submission I apologise.
But I am moving forward on this one simple fact
I cannot understand how Telecom can get away with dismissing me on fraudulent evidence
Fraud in my view is an indictable offense thus again in my view all participants are liable to a term of imprisonment
In my view the act of fraud could be established by proof of the following
1 the prohibited act being one of deceit, falsehood or some other fraudulent means and
2 deprivation caused by the prohibited act which may consist of actual loss or the placing of the victim pecuniary interest at risk I lost my job hence my income
Proof of deceit or falsehood is sufficient to establish the actus reus of fraud – no other proof of dishonest action is needed;
- the fundamental question in determining the actus reus of “other fraudulent means” is whether the means used to carry out the alleged fraud can be characterized as dishonest
- Dishonesty is determined by applying the standard of a reasonable person – whether a reasonable person would stigmatize what was done as dishonest;
- while dishonesty is difficult to define with precision, it connotes an underhanded design which has the effect, or which engenders the risk, of depriving others of what is theirs – it has, at its heart, the wrongful use of something in which another person has an interest, in such a manner that this other’s interest is extinguished or put at risk;
Use is “wrongful” in this context if it constitutes conduct that reasonable, decent persons would consider dishonest and unscrupulous –
The element of deprivation is satisfied¬ on proof of detriment, prejudice, or risk of prejudice to the economic interests of the victim,
One of my primary objectives in bringing this case to the ERA attention the fact my good name was impugned
If not investigated, and proven to the fullest extent these allegations seriously undermine the integrity of myself and my good name, it reflects directly on my self ,and others perception of my self , built on close to forty years service of being honest and a man of good character within the company .
It becomes a pervasive form of defamation indeed published by staff in public arenas such Facebook ‘’that I left under a cloud “This can be substantiated by a witness if required as he rebutted the allegation in my defence I left and the confidentially of the mediation left me no way to explain to my peers the reason
It completely contradicted my own sense of ethical behaviour .I was quite frankly stunned close to forty years service came to this .unbelievable
Thus their actions mean “Telecom” and the participants no longer have my confidence or trust
My dismissal started with a lie, over time I have caught ALL participants lying to me so why I am not surprised that the end it all with more lies .this time to the Privacy Commissioner. Please refer attachment Sarah doc
I am resigned to the fact that if my submissions are accepted and my case is won .that an appeal to the employment court is inevitable as will be the rush to the shredders
The first is their right and to be expected. The latter I lack the means to control
With relation to respondents submission on preliminary matters 2011-03-31
In summary telecom is a large and complex organisation with many facets across the whole industry .over the course of my long career and in an effort to avoid redundancy, I have successfully moved across the industry a number of times
And successfully retrained myself to provide exemplary service in my new roles assisted by my wide breath of knowledge I could fit the disparate parts together more ably then most
Without breaching confidentially, the outcome of the mediation allowed the option of doing the same, finding another facet with in telecom that would suit my strengths
I duly applied for numerous jobs, only to be unsuccessful in all. I emailed telecom and alluded to my suspicions. The outcome of that enquiry was strongly worded responses indicating if I proceeded down that path that I would be meet with very strong resistance
My immediate thoughts where Hamlet act 3 scene 2 “the lady doth protest too much “
My question was answered
I was unable to gain confirmation of anything untoward until I received documents, under a request to the privacy commission a copy of the email referred to was submitted in my previous submissions
Less than two weeks after my mediation Hannah Sullivan had requested my file be stamped do” not re-employ”
This action effectively black listed me with in Telecom as well as the industry, as surely as all roads lead to Rome all Telecom wires lead to Telecom premises so if having succeeded in gaining employment to companies involved in the industry contracted to Telecom the minute I applied for access to these buildings , a requirement of the job , this notation would have negated my endeavours
Thus they have blacklisted me if I had been made aware of this manoeuvre during the mediation .it was obviously in their minds , perhaps a lack of “good faith” and a mood of evil intent prevented them from mentioning it . The outcome of the mediation may have taken on a different light
If not a black listing then it is certainly a de facto restraint of trade
“No man can be prevented from earning a wage according to his craft”
This has been my craft for close to forty years I know no other
In my simplistic view, a mediation conference serves to invite parties to reach a mutual agreement, in an attempt to prevent future legal action.
Natural justice would dictate that matters should be addressed on facts in evidence; application of good faith should ensure that.
Disciplining on a document (complaint letter) that is nonexistent taints both the process and the outcome, and prejudices my human rights.
As does undisclosed intent as described above, it appears timing is critical.
Procedurally this must be in error.
"deceit which avoids the contract need not be by means of misrepresentations in words it exists where the party who obtains the consent does so by means of concealing or omitting to state material facts, with intent to deceive, by reason of which omission or concealment the other party was induced to give a consent which he would not otherwise have given....
"[I]t is based upon the proposition that, under all the circumstances of the case, it was the duty of the party who obtained the consent, acting in good faith, to have disclosed the facts which he concealed."
1 In the event the authority dismisses the respondent’s submissions the applicant seeks costs
2 If any/or all of the participants have breeched the law that the authority holds them accountable under the law
Paul Evans-McLeod
To the authority file no 5315212 Attn K J Anderson
As I am a litigant representing my self, my understanding of jurisdictional issues is limited by my basic knowledge of the law and my research thus I am presenting same as a summary of argument
To my understanding
The Employment Relations Act 2000 section 187 gives jurisdiction to hear all matters relating to employment disputes
That Jurisdiction covers the following areas: among others
• To review how various persons have exercised, or refused, or proposed, or purported to exercise, any of their powers under the Employment Relations Act 2000
• When people are alleged to have committed offences under the Employment Relations Act 2000
• Where proceedings are referred or removed to the Court by the Employment Relations Authority
It is under theses areas I wish to address the ERA
In summary
My allegations of fraud and deception against the staff of New Zealand Telecom presents a direct challenge (dependant on its out come) to the extent to which Telecom deserves and holds the respect of not only its employees but effects also its image as company in the commercial public arena with regard to its integrity .
It especially holds a direct accountability reflected by its actions to the regard it holds for such basic things as human rights, employment law and its integrity when dealing with same and other public entities such as the privacy commission (to whom it was happy to provide false evidence as referred to in previous submissions as well as in this submission)
My concerns have over time addressed a number of questions
1 / Was my disciplinary process managed correctly in accordance with the relevant laws and Telecoms own code of conduct. Were the correct procedures followed i.e. were my concerns expressed ever acted upon; or even followed up?
2/ why were meeting notes incomplete.
Having regard to the information in the documents at issue I have concluded that they each reflected an element of choice about what was recorded and how the record was expressed. The documents themselves would satisfy me that in their preparation there was sufficient exercise of skill, selection, effort and or judgment to come within the rational for further concerns of fraud and deception by “willful neglect” and / or “willful omissions”
It is my contention that there was a conspiracy by all parties to be “wilfully negligent “and to “lie in unison” this is supported by the complete ignoring of proper process and perhaps just plain old common sense in not requesting/asking for, a copy of a customer complaint letter; which formed part of the displainary action against me: now known to be a fraudulent.
In fact was there a conspiracy to deceive amongst various officers within management and HR; as they appeared to be working in concert with each other? This is exemplified by the apparent inability of all telecom participants failure to apply due diligence to the letter that supposedly came from an intellectually handicap girl accusing me of being rude and condescending.
3/ In relation to my case of dismissal ,where the employment laws policies and systems for managing employment issues appropriately and effectively applied i.e. “good faith”
4/ In relation to my case were Telecoms own expectations of appropriate conduct and behaviour clear and up held ,it is my contention they did not
Codes of conduct.
Telecom has clear expectations of all staff for appropriate conduct and behaviour these are highlighted in all employment agreements and are available to all staff on the company intranet .They outline explicit expectations about fulfilling lawful obligations with professional ism and integrity, and performing duties to the best of ones ability while respecting the rights of others and avoiding behaviour that might impair ones effectiveness to effect same.
5/ What are the implications from this situation for the company’s practices and policies relating to standards and behaviours expected of them with a firm regard to the way their employees are treated under employment law ,not only in my own treatment .but in the treatment of all employees . Only a full and extensive audit can reveal what is covertly going on , firstly applied to my own case and if they is sufficient evidence of abuse of process etc progressively audit all other cases a required
I failed in my last attempt to prove a constructive dismissal I ask that consideration again be given based on the following precepts
There are three situations where a constructive dismissal might occur:
(i) where the employee was given a choice of resignation or dismissal;
(ii) where the employer had followed a course of conduct with the deliberate and dominant purpose of coercing an employee to resign; micromanaging few other employees, if any where required to work to this exacting standard, which by its very nature is unachievable from the outset, you are setup for failure. Telecoms admission to me, that they where employing it, signifies both their guilt and their intent
(iii) Where a breach of duty by the employer led a worker to resign. Good faith
Mutual obligations of trust and confidence
All of those three situations may have applied in my case. Certainly 2 & 3
Confidentiality clauses prevent confirmation of the first
In considering whether there was a breach of the implied mutual obligations of trust and confidence or the overall obligation of good faith, it was necessary to look at whether the employer’s conduct as a whole judged reasonably and sensibly, was such, that the defendant should not have been expected to have put up with it.
In reality it was micro-management disguised as performance management a severe case of work place bullying in that
A / It was a deliberate act
Requested and organized by senior management in collusion with HR (refer previous submission HR and senior admitted twice to micro management)
Conspiracy to deceive /working in concert with each other/using privacy act to defeat Era requirements i.e. i was refused access to all forms of data available that compared my outputs against my peers quoting” peers privacy issues” in so doing preventing me access to information that would clearly refute their nefarious claims
B/ It was disrespectful
C/ It was repeated on a daily basis for approximately 8 months
This was exemplified by a email sighted by me where the national manager comments to the general manager that my immediate manager and my site manager “had a nice rhythm going on “ this in response to an enquiry as to how the disciplinary action against me was proceeding
Where a breach of duty by the employer led a worker to resign.
Their breech of duty where outlined in my last submission
References AEC 81/92 AA199/08 may have, in part , some relevance
In closing
I may not have a clear understanding of issues of jurisdiction and other concepts of the legal frame work with regard to employment law and if I have wasted the authority time with this further submission I apologise.
But I am moving forward on this one simple fact
I cannot understand how Telecom can get away with dismissing me on fraudulent evidence
Fraud in my view is an indictable offense thus again in my view all participants are liable to a term of imprisonment
In my view the act of fraud could be established by proof of the following
1 the prohibited act being one of deceit, falsehood or some other fraudulent means and
2 deprivation caused by the prohibited act which may consist of actual loss or the placing of the victim pecuniary interest at risk I lost my job hence my income
Proof of deceit or falsehood is sufficient to establish the actus reus of fraud – no other proof of dishonest action is needed;
- the fundamental question in determining the actus reus of “other fraudulent means” is whether the means used to carry out the alleged fraud can be characterized as dishonest
- Dishonesty is determined by applying the standard of a reasonable person – whether a reasonable person would stigmatize what was done as dishonest;
- while dishonesty is difficult to define with precision, it connotes an underhanded design which has the effect, or which engenders the risk, of depriving others of what is theirs – it has, at its heart, the wrongful use of something in which another person has an interest, in such a manner that this other’s interest is extinguished or put at risk;
Use is “wrongful” in this context if it constitutes conduct that reasonable, decent persons would consider dishonest and unscrupulous –
The element of deprivation is satisfied¬ on proof of detriment, prejudice, or risk of prejudice to the economic interests of the victim,
One of my primary objectives in bringing this case to the ERA attention the fact my good name was impugned
If not investigated, and proven to the fullest extent these allegations seriously undermine the integrity of myself and my good name, it reflects directly on my self ,and others perception of my self , built on close to forty years service of being honest and a man of good character within the company .
It becomes a pervasive form of defamation indeed published by staff in public arenas such Facebook ‘’that I left under a cloud “This can be substantiated by a witness if required as he rebutted the allegation in my defence I left and the confidentially of the mediation left me no way to explain to my peers the reason
It completely contradicted my own sense of ethical behaviour .I was quite frankly stunned close to forty years service came to this .unbelievable
Thus their actions mean “Telecom” and the participants no longer have my confidence or trust
My dismissal started with a lie, over time I have caught ALL participants lying to me so why I am not surprised that the end it all with more lies .this time to the Privacy Commissioner. Please refer attachment Sarah doc
I am resigned to the fact that if my submissions are accepted and my case is won .that an appeal to the employment court is inevitable as will be the rush to the shredders
The first is their right and to be expected. The latter I lack the means to control
With relation to respondents submission on preliminary matters 2011-03-31
In summary telecom is a large and complex organisation with many facets across the whole industry .over the course of my long career and in an effort to avoid redundancy, I have successfully moved across the industry a number of times
And successfully retrained myself to provide exemplary service in my new roles assisted by my wide breath of knowledge I could fit the disparate parts together more ably then most
Without breaching confidentially, the outcome of the mediation allowed the option of doing the same, finding another facet with in telecom that would suit my strengths
I duly applied for numerous jobs, only to be unsuccessful in all. I emailed telecom and alluded to my suspicions. The outcome of that enquiry was strongly worded responses indicating if I proceeded down that path that I would be meet with very strong resistance
My immediate thoughts where Hamlet act 3 scene 2 “the lady doth protest too much “
My question was answered
I was unable to gain confirmation of anything untoward until I received documents, under a request to the privacy commission a copy of the email referred to was submitted in my previous submissions
Less than two weeks after my mediation Hannah Sullivan had requested my file be stamped do” not re-employ”
This action effectively black listed me with in Telecom as well as the industry, as surely as all roads lead to Rome all Telecom wires lead to Telecom premises so if having succeeded in gaining employment to companies involved in the industry contracted to Telecom the minute I applied for access to these buildings , a requirement of the job , this notation would have negated my endeavours
Thus they have blacklisted me if I had been made aware of this manoeuvre during the mediation .it was obviously in their minds , perhaps a lack of “good faith” and a mood of evil intent prevented them from mentioning it . The outcome of the mediation may have taken on a different light
If not a black listing then it is certainly a de facto restraint of trade
“No man can be prevented from earning a wage according to his craft”
This has been my craft for close to forty years I know no other
In my simplistic view, a mediation conference serves to invite parties to reach a mutual agreement, in an attempt to prevent future legal action.
Natural justice would dictate that matters should be addressed on facts in evidence; application of good faith should ensure that.
Disciplining on a document (complaint letter) that is nonexistent taints both the process and the outcome, and prejudices my human rights.
As does undisclosed intent as described above, it appears timing is critical.
Procedurally this must be in error.
"deceit which avoids the contract need not be by means of misrepresentations in words it exists where the party who obtains the consent does so by means of concealing or omitting to state material facts, with intent to deceive, by reason of which omission or concealment the other party was induced to give a consent which he would not otherwise have given....
"[I]t is based upon the proposition that, under all the circumstances of the case, it was the duty of the party who obtained the consent, acting in good faith, to have disclosed the facts which he concealed."
1 In the event the authority dismisses the respondent’s submissions the applicant seeks costs
2 If any/or all of the participants have breeched the law that the authority holds them accountable under the law
Paul Evans-McLeod
THEY SNEAKY BUGGERS
they leave it aprroximately 10 days then stamp my file do not re-employ
then on the very last day the drop this shit on me cheeky buggers so they knew what they where going to do but breeched "good faith" by not telling me
and it all a matter of thier timing
UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ACT 2000
BEFQRE THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY AT AUCKLAND
File No. 5315212
BE1WEEN PAUL EVANS-MCLEOD
Applicant
AND TELECOM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Respondent
SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT ON PRELIMINARY MATTERS
Simpson Griërson
Banisters & Solicitors
J D Rooney I S L Hogg
Telephone: +64-9-358 2222
Facsimile: +64-9-307 0331
Email: john.rooney©simpsongrierson.com
DXCXIOO92
Private Bag 92518
Auckland
MAY IT PLEASE THE AUTHORITY
Introduction
1. The respondent submits that the applicant’s claim should be dismissed in its entirety. The applicant does not have standing to bring a claim in relation to the alleged “blacklisting” of him as there was no employment relationship between the parties at the time of the alleged action.
2. The Authority therefore does not have jurisdiction to hear and consider the applicant’s claim under section 161 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA)~as it is not an employment relationship problem.
Applicant not an employee
3. The applicant was not employed by the respondent at the time that the alleged action giving rise to the applicant’s claim occurred.
The law
4. The Authority has exclusive jurisdiction under section 161 of the ERA to make determinations about employment relationship problems. An “employment relationships” is defined in section 5 of the ERA as any of the employment relationships specified in the exhaustive list in section 4(2). Section 4(2) then lists eight employment relationships including that between “an employer and an employee employed by the employef’ (section 4(2)(a)).
5. It is established case law that the employment relationship concerned in section 4(2)(a) must be current employment (see, for example, Balfour v Chief Executive, Department of Corrections [2007] ERNZ 808).
6. The respondent therefore submits that there must be a current employment relationship at the time of the events giving rise to a claim for an applicant to have standing to bring an claim before the Authority. This is supported by the Brookers’ commentary to section 4 which states (at ER4.02) that
The existence of an employment relationship is necessary to found an employment relationship problem and thus create junsdiction in the mediation seivice and in tho Authority.”
ApplicatIon to the facts
7. The applicant’s claim relates to events that are alleged to have occurred after the termination of the applicant’s employment with the respondent:
(a) the applicant’s employment with the respondent terminated on 20 August 2009; and
(b) the applicant’s claim of alleged “blacklisting” is founded on an internal email dated 3 September 2009.
8. The applicant was not employed by the respondent at the time of the events giving rise to the applicant’s claim and therefore the applicant does not have standing to bring a claim before the Authority.
Not a person intending to work
9. Furthermore, the applicant was not a “person intending to work” in terms of section 6(1)(b)(ii) of the ERA. That means a “person who has been offered, and accepted, work as an employee” and, at 3 September 2009 (and to date), the applicant had not been offered re-.employment by the respondent.
10. Therefore, the applicant has no standing to bring this claim and the Authority has no jurisdiction to hear and consider the applicant’s claim under section 161 ERA, as it is not an employment relationship problem.
Applicant’s submissions
11. The respondent submits that the focus of the applicant’s submissions to the Authority to date has been on matters leading up to the termination of the applicants employment with the respondent. Those matters have previously been the subject of a personal grievance claim which the
respondent successfully defended (Evans-MaLeod v Telecom New Zealand Limited, AA 187/10, Member Campbell, 26 April 2010)~
12. The applicanrs submissions do not have any bearing on the claim in these proceedings that the applicant was deliberately “blacklisted” by the respondent after the termination of his employment.
13. In the event the Authority dismisses the applicanVs Statement of Problem, the respondent seeks costs.
DATED this 31st day~of March 2011.
John Rooney
Counsel for the respondent
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 centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
then on the very last day the drop this shit on me cheeky buggers so they knew what they where going to do but breeched "good faith" by not telling me
and it all a matter of thier timing
UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ACT 2000
BEFQRE THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY AT AUCKLAND
File No. 5315212
BE1WEEN PAUL EVANS-MCLEOD
Applicant
AND TELECOM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Respondent
SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT ON PRELIMINARY MATTERS
Simpson Griërson
Banisters & Solicitors
J D Rooney I S L Hogg
Telephone: +64-9-358 2222
Facsimile: +64-9-307 0331
Email: john.rooney©simpsongrierson.com
DXCXIOO92
Private Bag 92518
Auckland
MAY IT PLEASE THE AUTHORITY
Introduction
1. The respondent submits that the applicant’s claim should be dismissed in its entirety. The applicant does not have standing to bring a claim in relation to the alleged “blacklisting” of him as there was no employment relationship between the parties at the time of the alleged action.
2. The Authority therefore does not have jurisdiction to hear and consider the applicant’s claim under section 161 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA)~as it is not an employment relationship problem.
Applicant not an employee
3. The applicant was not employed by the respondent at the time that the alleged action giving rise to the applicant’s claim occurred.
The law
4. The Authority has exclusive jurisdiction under section 161 of the ERA to make determinations about employment relationship problems. An “employment relationships” is defined in section 5 of the ERA as any of the employment relationships specified in the exhaustive list in section 4(2). Section 4(2) then lists eight employment relationships including that between “an employer and an employee employed by the employef’ (section 4(2)(a)).
5. It is established case law that the employment relationship concerned in section 4(2)(a) must be current employment (see, for example, Balfour v Chief Executive, Department of Corrections [2007] ERNZ 808).
6. The respondent therefore submits that there must be a current employment relationship at the time of the events giving rise to a claim for an applicant to have standing to bring an claim before the Authority. This is supported by the Brookers’ commentary to section 4 which states (at ER4.02) that
The existence of an employment relationship is necessary to found an employment relationship problem and thus create junsdiction in the mediation seivice and in tho Authority.”
ApplicatIon to the facts
7. The applicant’s claim relates to events that are alleged to have occurred after the termination of the applicant’s employment with the respondent:
(a) the applicant’s employment with the respondent terminated on 20 August 2009; and
(b) the applicant’s claim of alleged “blacklisting” is founded on an internal email dated 3 September 2009.
8. The applicant was not employed by the respondent at the time of the events giving rise to the applicant’s claim and therefore the applicant does not have standing to bring a claim before the Authority.
Not a person intending to work
9. Furthermore, the applicant was not a “person intending to work” in terms of section 6(1)(b)(ii) of the ERA. That means a “person who has been offered, and accepted, work as an employee” and, at 3 September 2009 (and to date), the applicant had not been offered re-.employment by the respondent.
10. Therefore, the applicant has no standing to bring this claim and the Authority has no jurisdiction to hear and consider the applicant’s claim under section 161 ERA, as it is not an employment relationship problem.
Applicant’s submissions
11. The respondent submits that the focus of the applicant’s submissions to the Authority to date has been on matters leading up to the termination of the applicants employment with the respondent. Those matters have previously been the subject of a personal grievance claim which the
respondent successfully defended (Evans-MaLeod v Telecom New Zealand Limited, AA 187/10, Member Campbell, 26 April 2010)~
12. The applicanrs submissions do not have any bearing on the claim in these proceedings that the applicant was deliberately “blacklisted” by the respondent after the termination of his employment.
13. In the event the Authority dismisses the applicanVs Statement of Problem, the respondent seeks costs.
DATED this 31st day~of March 2011.
John Rooney
Counsel for the respondent
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 centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
correspondance
However in this case, Telecom has advised that it did not collect any information from your work email in the way in which you have alleged. Rather, Telecom has stated that Ms Dalzell’s comments regarding your confirmation as to whether Mr Dick was acting as your lawyer were:
based on a discussion she had had with you previously; where you had advised her that Mr. Dick was acting for you.
Telecom has further advised that Ms Dalzell copied Mr. Dick into her response on the basis that she was responding to an earlier email which you had sent to her that day at 9.l3am, which she had also copied Mr. Dick into.”
agreed with regard to to part Nigel address was copied in to a note sent to Ms Dalzel
As stated in previous correspondence Ms Dalzell is being disingenuous here, in fact she is being dishonest and unethical, I at no point discussed with Ms Dalzell that Mr. Dick was acting for me ( as my lawyer)
The correspondence with Mr. Dick in which the phrasing and content was deliberate so as to give the impression he was in fact my lawyer. was effectively me setting a trap to catch all of management out.
ms Dalzell fell blindly into it , so why would I tell her/telecom about the very thing I was trying to trap her/telecom with.
This gives the lie to her statement that her comments were based on a discussion with me” , it would destroy the efficacy of my approach.
You state “that legal professional privilege only applies in situations where there is communication between a lawyer and a client “
Ms Dalzells seeking of confirmation that Mr. Dick was acting for me thus gives full acknowledgment that at the time of that specific correspondence that in her own mind he was my lawyer; this she confirms again with her dishonest statement that I had advised her Mr Dick was acting for me
“
so at that specific time until telecom and ms Dalzell became aware he was a “friend “rather than a “lawyer;” anybody that accessed those specific emails where acting in breach of legal professional privilege and thus I need them to be held accountable.
If for nothing else but to have this “specific legal professional privilege” clarified under law specific to the accessing of emails ,so I respectfully repeat my request that a forensic audit be done specific to all emails to Mr. Dick
Telecom own guidelines do acknowledge, they are entitled to access emails, however they have clear specific guidelines with reference, specific to the accessing of said emails
the right is reserved to monitor and inspect for very specific reasons (as noted on page 2 )of their own email guidelines
it applies to individual staff email activity but not to the specific reading of each individual email so under their own guidelines I seek clarity as to their reason for monitoring as I do not accept they have adhered to their own specific rules indeed they are in breach of them
and I will not and do not accept it was “done to ensure compliance with these email guidelines”
Their reason, in my belief, was to gain an unfair advantage over me; which taints the whole process they used to effectively micro manage me out
i.e. they acted unlawfully and outside their own agreed process in their efforts to successfully achieve the termination of my employment
“telecom may monitor and inspect individual staff email activity under the direction of a body that has the necessary legal authority”
I enquire whom is that specific body that they sort direction from, and request all copies of any correspondence between telecom and that body with reference to myself
Their own rules state they cannot intercept or access other peoples mail box without proper authorization.
They have no right to act without it ; unfortunately many perceive they do ..
Did various staff act without the express written authority of that body, please clarify.
Telecom should produce the document which provides the authority specific to myself. As they are required under their own rules;
to keep all copies that “exercise telecoms authority for certain actions” as all staff are required to be fully cognizant with all rules and procedures so there should be no issues around the finding of these documents.
Failure to produce would give credence to my above statement they have acted unlawfully as they are required to keep all material to meet telecoms legal obligations ,so I require clear unequivocal evidence of my concerns and a clear understanding that their breeches at the onset of my dispute taint the whole process and negates any and all actions agreements and settlements post said breeches
Thus I require from telecom legal precedence’s as to why they should not be required to put aside my perhaps unfair termination of my employment in view of a process perhaps tainted by illegal acts at its onset
BUT HEY READERS YOU MAKE UP YOUR OWN MINDS
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 centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
based on a discussion she had had with you previously; where you had advised her that Mr. Dick was acting for you.
Telecom has further advised that Ms Dalzell copied Mr. Dick into her response on the basis that she was responding to an earlier email which you had sent to her that day at 9.l3am, which she had also copied Mr. Dick into.”
agreed with regard to to part Nigel address was copied in to a note sent to Ms Dalzel
As stated in previous correspondence Ms Dalzell is being disingenuous here, in fact she is being dishonest and unethical, I at no point discussed with Ms Dalzell that Mr. Dick was acting for me ( as my lawyer)
The correspondence with Mr. Dick in which the phrasing and content was deliberate so as to give the impression he was in fact my lawyer. was effectively me setting a trap to catch all of management out.
ms Dalzell fell blindly into it , so why would I tell her/telecom about the very thing I was trying to trap her/telecom with.
This gives the lie to her statement that her comments were based on a discussion with me” , it would destroy the efficacy of my approach.
You state “that legal professional privilege only applies in situations where there is communication between a lawyer and a client “
Ms Dalzells seeking of confirmation that Mr. Dick was acting for me thus gives full acknowledgment that at the time of that specific correspondence that in her own mind he was my lawyer; this she confirms again with her dishonest statement that I had advised her Mr Dick was acting for me
“
so at that specific time until telecom and ms Dalzell became aware he was a “friend “rather than a “lawyer;” anybody that accessed those specific emails where acting in breach of legal professional privilege and thus I need them to be held accountable.
If for nothing else but to have this “specific legal professional privilege” clarified under law specific to the accessing of emails ,so I respectfully repeat my request that a forensic audit be done specific to all emails to Mr. Dick
Telecom own guidelines do acknowledge, they are entitled to access emails, however they have clear specific guidelines with reference, specific to the accessing of said emails
the right is reserved to monitor and inspect for very specific reasons (as noted on page 2 )of their own email guidelines
it applies to individual staff email activity but not to the specific reading of each individual email so under their own guidelines I seek clarity as to their reason for monitoring as I do not accept they have adhered to their own specific rules indeed they are in breach of them
and I will not and do not accept it was “done to ensure compliance with these email guidelines”
Their reason, in my belief, was to gain an unfair advantage over me; which taints the whole process they used to effectively micro manage me out
i.e. they acted unlawfully and outside their own agreed process in their efforts to successfully achieve the termination of my employment
“telecom may monitor and inspect individual staff email activity under the direction of a body that has the necessary legal authority”
I enquire whom is that specific body that they sort direction from, and request all copies of any correspondence between telecom and that body with reference to myself
Their own rules state they cannot intercept or access other peoples mail box without proper authorization.
They have no right to act without it ; unfortunately many perceive they do ..
Did various staff act without the express written authority of that body, please clarify.
Telecom should produce the document which provides the authority specific to myself. As they are required under their own rules;
to keep all copies that “exercise telecoms authority for certain actions” as all staff are required to be fully cognizant with all rules and procedures so there should be no issues around the finding of these documents.
Failure to produce would give credence to my above statement they have acted unlawfully as they are required to keep all material to meet telecoms legal obligations ,so I require clear unequivocal evidence of my concerns and a clear understanding that their breeches at the onset of my dispute taint the whole process and negates any and all actions agreements and settlements post said breeches
Thus I require from telecom legal precedence’s as to why they should not be required to put aside my perhaps unfair termination of my employment in view of a process perhaps tainted by illegal acts at its onset
BUT HEY READERS YOU MAKE UP YOUR OWN MINDS
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 centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
Friday, April 1, 2011
Laundered words and deep pockets
Laundered words and deep pockets
So why are high priced lawyers retained by Telecom
1 as with all corporations, when you take them on they use their deep pockets to good effect . they litigate the shit out of you till you just quit .$50.000.00 is pocket change to them but not to the ordinary working man .so it doesn’t matter whether your are right in 99% of the cases you just can’t afford the money to prove it
2 the second part is high priced lawyers and QC have two skills, they know their subject and can confuse and befuddle all with competing parts of the law
skilfully used by using one law to defeat the intentions of another law, in my case the privacy law prevent full access to prove my cause under the employment law
The second skill is a good command of the English language and their ability to use it to their advantage its called laundering
laundered words are deceptive and intended to hide and suppress the reality and truth of the situation
.they create misconceptions that aim at softening the injustice and oppression and attempt to justify and rationalize mistreatment
.in short laundered words blame the victim as being the actual perpetrator of the injustice and acquits the party
few people have a greater skill at this than lawyers, except perhaps dodgy car salesmen they recognise the power of words and their psychological effect. by laundering their words lawyers hope to change reality create new realities erase memory and induce a change in people
thus you dont nesscarily get justice in this world you get the law they are not the same thing
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 centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
So why are high priced lawyers retained by Telecom
1 as with all corporations, when you take them on they use their deep pockets to good effect . they litigate the shit out of you till you just quit .$50.000.00 is pocket change to them but not to the ordinary working man .so it doesn’t matter whether your are right in 99% of the cases you just can’t afford the money to prove it
2 the second part is high priced lawyers and QC have two skills, they know their subject and can confuse and befuddle all with competing parts of the law
skilfully used by using one law to defeat the intentions of another law, in my case the privacy law prevent full access to prove my cause under the employment law
The second skill is a good command of the English language and their ability to use it to their advantage its called laundering
laundered words are deceptive and intended to hide and suppress the reality and truth of the situation
.they create misconceptions that aim at softening the injustice and oppression and attempt to justify and rationalize mistreatment
.in short laundered words blame the victim as being the actual perpetrator of the injustice and acquits the party
few people have a greater skill at this than lawyers, except perhaps dodgy car salesmen they recognise the power of words and their psychological effect. by laundering their words lawyers hope to change reality create new realities erase memory and induce a change in people
thus you dont nesscarily get justice in this world you get the law they are not the same thing
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 centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
Legal professional privilege
Now I need you to be aware of a sentence in the last post
These e-mails were to Nigel Dick who was, they believed to be, my lawyer (plus I emailed them home). With that belief Telecom e-mailed him directly.
then lied to me and the privacy commsioner as to how they got his details (now why would they do that read on i will explain)
The intention of the e-mails was to prove my suspicion, that my e-mails were being accessed..
.
The email guidelines are posted on Telecoms intranet check it out
there is a process that is required to be followed they didn’t they are that arrogant in HR and management they believe they are above the law
Some of what they did are offences under the crimes act which means if I prove them as I have every intention of doing so they face the possibility of jail time
.So they will not only lose their jobs (because their actions have brought telecom into disrepute) they when I have the charges once proven, laid, may well lose their freedom some may required to make long term child care arrangements
The important point here is telecom had the belief at that time that my friend nigel was my lawyer
As seen in last post it didn’t prevent them accessing my emails thus in doing so the are/where in full breech of my legal professional privilege
Legal professional privilege
When people go to see a lawyer, they need to know that what they say will be kept confidential. They also need to know that the lawyer's advice to them is confidential. This means that they can be open and honest with their lawyer, and the lawyer can give them free and frank advice
Remember the boot camp team leaders where HR said we’ve got your back seen much of them lately nah thought not oh dear
These e-mails were to Nigel Dick who was, they believed to be, my lawyer (plus I emailed them home). With that belief Telecom e-mailed him directly.
then lied to me and the privacy commsioner as to how they got his details (now why would they do that read on i will explain)
The intention of the e-mails was to prove my suspicion, that my e-mails were being accessed..
.
The email guidelines are posted on Telecoms intranet check it out
there is a process that is required to be followed they didn’t they are that arrogant in HR and management they believe they are above the law
Some of what they did are offences under the crimes act which means if I prove them as I have every intention of doing so they face the possibility of jail time
.So they will not only lose their jobs (because their actions have brought telecom into disrepute) they when I have the charges once proven, laid, may well lose their freedom some may required to make long term child care arrangements
The important point here is telecom had the belief at that time that my friend nigel was my lawyer
As seen in last post it didn’t prevent them accessing my emails thus in doing so the are/where in full breech of my legal professional privilege
Legal professional privilege
When people go to see a lawyer, they need to know that what they say will be kept confidential. They also need to know that the lawyer's advice to them is confidential. This means that they can be open and honest with their lawyer, and the lawyer can give them free and frank advice
Remember the boot camp team leaders where HR said we’ve got your back seen much of them lately nah thought not oh dear
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)