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