this one just tickled my fancy

Don't mess with the old dogs... Age and skill will always overcome youth and treachery!


Bull Shit and brilliance only come with age and experience.

Those invested in the process are as follows



Bridget Dalzell: national manager : who had oversight of the process

Michelle Young: Call Centre Manager who had oversight of Shaun Hoult

Shaun Hoult: My team manager and instigator of alleged letter

Iain Galloway :HR representative on Hamilton Site .who was involved in disciplinary meetings, sometimes as note taker

Hannah Sullivan: national HR representative who had oversight of process

letter sent to NBR

Hi Alex






I see you have commented on my last determination, to be honest I can’t even afford the fee to find out, what the comment is ,would love a copy for my records and my blog



I would invite you check out my blog http://hwyop.blogspot.com/ to check out developments since then



Post 52: “ in defence of my good name against impossible odds “ will give you the submission I made plus an overall coverage of the events leading up to all this

POST : 11 back to 1 will give you events since the posting of the determination



All I ever asked of Telecom was to be treated with honesty integrity and transparency and to be judged fairly against my peers all I got was fraud, deceit, defamation, breach of my human rights




Along with some acts that are in my opinion ,contrary to employment law and a breach of the tenets of “ good faith” in negations




All I am asking now is the answer to a simple question



Does this act of fraud proven with details supplied with my submission , negate any and all effects of the mediation and events that flowed from it , if it doesn’t please show me the precedence in law that allows it



The act of fraud’ was perpetrated as a means in part to get me to mediation .and preceded the mediation



So why is everybody dodging it. .now it has gone to the minister



“”Hello Paul



Further to my reply to you yesterday, I can now advise that as this matter has been brought to the attention of the Minister of Labour, there will be a singular response to you from the Minister.””



Regards


Those invested in the process are as follows



Bridget Dalzell: national manager : who had oversight of the process

Michelle Young: Call Centre Manager who had oversight of Shaun Hoult

Shaun Hoult: My team manager and instigator of alleged letter

Iain Galloway :HR representative on Hamilton Site .who was involved in disciplinary meetings, sometimes as note taker

Hannah Sullivan: national HR representative who had oversight of process

statistics

statistics on my blog are spiking  wonder why



Those invested in the process are as follows



Bridget Dalzell: national manager : who had oversight of the process

Michelle Young: Call Centre Manager who had oversight of Shaun Hoult

Shaun Hoult: My team manager and instigator of alleged letter

Iain Galloway :HR representative on Hamilton Site .who was involved in disciplinary meetings, sometimes as note taker

Hannah Sullivan: national HR representative who had oversight of process

Sarah Thompson Investigating Officer Office of the Privacy Commissioner

Hi Sarah
It me again
The unions lawyers are considering taking telecom on by claiming fraud specific to one of the letter of complaint that after month of wrangling we finally got a admission out of them that it didn’t exist
Could you please check my files and provide copies of my emails to you specially relating to enquiries regarding me requesting a copy of the alleged written complaint done by an intellectually handicapped girl where I was accused of being condescending and rude

Telecoms initial response to it

And my email as to which reason for withholding referred to which specific document And the commissioners final statement
If you have the time if you could do a short covering letter giving a time line with the above requests as attachment would be just great
It just, has to be specific to the actual event, the letter showing the element of my specifically requesting the actual letter ,their reply me going back and asking for specific reasons for withholding i.e. which reason for which document

Many many thanks



Dear Paul

Thank you for your email. We are treating your email as a request for personal information and are currently in the process of responding to this.

Can you please let me know whether would you prefer a hard copy of the documents or an electronic copy or both.
Regards

Sarah Thompson

Both please
Again many many thanks
Warm regards

’ Paul


Those invested in the process are as follows



Bridget Dalzell: national manager : who had oversight of the process

Michelle Young: Call Centre Manager who had oversight of Shaun Hoult

Shaun Hoult: My team manager and instigator of alleged letter

Iain Galloway :HR representative on Hamilton Site .who was involved in disciplinary meetings, sometimes as note taker

Hannah Sullivan: national HR representative who had oversight of process

Given that Mr Evans-McLeod continues to pursue what appears to be little short of a vexatious and misguided campaign of litigation against Telecom,

Given that Mr Evans-McLeod continues to pursue what appears to be little short of a vexatious and misguided campaign of litigation against Telecom,

right  i have had enough of being treated like an idiot from telecom and in many ways from the system
if my campaign is vextious and misguided as everybody feels

why are these people wasting thier time investigating it . they at least can see the pionts i have raised

1 From bill  :My Service Manager is in Auckland today speaking to our Legal Services about your matter. We should be in a position to respond later in the week.


2 Further to my reply to you yesterday, I can now advise that as this matter has been brought to the attention of the Minister of Labour, there will be a singular response to you from the Minister.


3 Good morning Paul
Thank you for your email to Hon Annette King.

I will pass your email to Annette for her information.

I have also forwarded your email to Darien Fenton, Labour’s spokesperson on labour issues, for her information.

Kind Regards
Deb Thornton
Private Secretary
Hon Annette King

4 Dear Paul
On behalf of Hon Nathan Guy, thank you for your email which has been forwarded to the Minister for his information.
Yours sincerely
Lorraine Jones, Senior Private Secretary for Hon Nathan Guy




Those invested in the process are as follows



Bridget Dalzell: national manager : who had oversight of the process

Michelle Young: Call Centre Manager who had oversight of Shaun Hoult

Shaun Hoult: My team manager and instigator of alleged letter

Iain Galloway :HR representative on Hamilton Site .who was involved in disciplinary meetings, sometimes as note taker

Hannah Sullivan: national HR representative who had oversight of process

bills replies

Hello Paul
My Service Manager is in Auckland today speaking to our Legal Services about your matter. We should be in a position to respond later in the week.
Regards
Bill




Hello Paul
Further to my reply to you yesterday, I can now advise that as this matter has been brought to the attention of the Minister of Labour, there will be a singular response to you from the Minister.
Regards

Bill

Finally i getting some response

and then a reporter from the National Business Review rings me up and asks for a response: Im both dumbfounded and elated


Those invested in the process are as follows



Bridget Dalzell: national manager : who had oversight of the process

Michelle Young: Call Centre Manager who had oversight of Shaun Hoult

Shaun Hoult: My team manager and instigator of alleged letter

Iain Galloway :HR representative on Hamilton Site .who was involved in disciplinary meetings, sometimes as note taker

Hannah Sullivan: national HR representative who had oversight of process

right about now im angry

I don’t have an insurmountable problem I just need someone to put it all in a time and I context so nobody is listening and analysing what is going on


so I’m pissed off very pissed off .I ring the helpline for the department of labour I lady I get doesn’t conceptualise the problems I’m having so in frustration I say please have the head of the mediation team ring me asap


which he dually does he asks me to forward my concerns to him which I do he promises to get back to me

so i give him about 4 days and send him a wee note

hi bill

Have we had any progress on my concern. regarding questions posed, as I am under a time limit

I have received this reply from ERA member Mr. Anderson

“Further to your email Paul – Authority Member – Ken Anderson has advised the following: -

“The role of the Authority in regarding his claims and allegations is now completed. If Mr Evans-McLeod is unhappy with my determination he has 28 days from the date of the determination to file a challenge (appeal) with the Employment Court”.
Kind regards,
Sara Norman”



Which is not helpful .as he is focusing on the fact that the agreement was signed not that fact that the “fraud’ was perpetrated as a means in part to get me to mediation .and preceded the mediation



It seems to me to be a simple question either



Does this act of fraud proven with details supplied with my submission , negate any and all effects of the mediation and events that flowed from it , if it doesn’t please show me the precedence in law that allows it

So why is everybody dodging it. comment as been passed that era is afraid of the corporate power
This note form part of my submissions
I take heed and note that Clive McGregor who holds a senior position within the DOL was concerned enough with both cases to indicate he wish to peruse the matter


Refer attachment 28 Tuesday 26 Jan subject dol update


And would ask the ERA to find out why he was dissuaded for this option

Thanks for your time and effort in at least looking into the matter it is appreciated if the tone of letter is not quite right it is unintended as I am very frustrated with it .if fact so frustrated I have put my concerns to the attorney general



Those invested in the process are as follows



Bridget Dalzell: national manager : who had oversight of the process

Michelle Young: Call Centre Manager who had oversight of Shaun Hoult

Shaun Hoult: My team manager and instigator of alleged letter

Iain Galloway :HR representative on Hamilton Site .who was involved in disciplinary meetings, sometimes as note taker

Hannah Sullivan: national HR representative who had oversight of process

the reply

Good Morning,




Further to your email Paul – Authority Member – Ken Anderson has advised the following: -

“The role of the Authority in regarding his claims and allegations is now completed. If Mr Evans-McLeod is unhappy with my determination he has 28 days from the date of the determination to file a challenge (appeal) with the Employment Court”.



Kind regards,



Sara Norman

________________________________________

Those invested in the process are as follows



Bridget Dalzell: national manager : who had oversight of the process

Michelle Young: Call Centre Manager who had oversight of Shaun Hoult

Shaun Hoult: My team manager and instigator of alleged letter

Iain Galloway :HR representative on Hamilton Site .who was involved in disciplinary meetings, sometimes as note taker

Hannah Sullivan: national HR representative who had oversight of process

but wait these is more

i sent this as a reply

Sara


Please find for your kind attention a question/submission for the honourable member K J ANDERSON



Sir



The determination AA 187/10 member Campbell 26 April 2010 states in parg 25



“Further there is no evidence that Mr. Evans-McLeod’s resignation resulted from any inappropriate or unlawful action on Telecom’s part or by anybody else.”



FOR CLARITY I WILL RESTATE MY CASE



This coming August the 20th it will be 2 years since “my resignation” from Telecom , over this time I approached the Privacy Commission for all my details, notes, meeting notes conversation notes memo etc



In perusing said details I discovered clear and substantiated evidence of fraud with in my disciplinary procedures



This took the form of a false accusation with regard to two purported letters of complaint from two disgruntled customers, one of these letters in fact did not exist and has never existed, finally admitted to by Telecom to the Privacy Commissioner after many months of wrangling for a copy of said document, I was repeatly however held to account during the disciplinary procedure over this purported complaint .



The sequence of events that followed my “resignation” preclude me for seeking a resolution with the Employment Relation Authority as you have in no uncertain terms in your latest judgement, informed me of same, as I am no longer in a employment relationship with Telecom, the Authority no longer has jurisdiction



Simply put “jurisdiction” comes down to a matter of timing with respect to the process coupled with telecom failing to show “good faith” during mediation and an adroit piece of manipulation



Telecom committed an act of fraud which is an unlawful action in a predetermined premeditated course of action to facilitate getting me to mediation where the confidentiality of the process cloaked their actions to exit me from the company, they not only managed to hoodwink me but the authority member as well



It also highlights a certain degree of contempt for both the ERA and the mediation process where the withholding of information allowed them to manipulate the process to their own ends, Michelle Young Call Centre manager who was present at the hearing failed in her duty of care in informing Ms Campbell that said act of fraud had been committed ,so much for the “good faith” tenet where honesty and integrity are required ,they made fools and a mockery of us all



Fraud against me is separate issue in its self. However it has some relevance to the employment matters at hand



If the disciplinary procedure was “tainted” by fraud some questions arise

.

1. Does this act of fraud proven with details supplied with my submission , negate any and all effects of the mediation and events that flowed from it , if it doesn’t please show me the precedence in law that allows it


2. If it does so, with whom and how do I seek recourse

3. Who holds Telecom to account for this illegal act

4. Does the ERA once presented with the proof act for me



I wish to state for the record that I’m am not “pursuing a vexatious and misguided campaign of litigation against Telecom”



I am a simple layman with few or no resources, learning by my mistakes as I progress, who by representing myself, have saved myself from the corporations usual tactic of using their deep pockets to beat me into submission.

I as yourselves have relied on their honesty integrity and transparency but unfortunately have found them badly wanting, I simply wish to hold them accountable for their inappropriate or unlawful action



For in committing said fraud they have defamed my reputation of honesty and integrity build up over 39. years 3months of service I will not waver in my resolve to clear my name



These inappropriate or unlawful actions effect the integrity honesty and transparency of the whole process and disregard of same by one or both parties erodes the principles of the acts of law that support the mediation and era process, failure to address these issues makes the whole thing a farce,



I have found the proof of an unlawful act and I have provided proof verified in documents from the privacy commission ,with copies provided in my submission


It is my expectation that the ERA AND/OR THE DOL will act according to the law




Those invested in the process are as follows



Bridget Dalzell: national manager : who had oversight of the process

Michelle Young: Call Centre Manager who had oversight of Shaun Hoult

Shaun Hoult: My team manager and instigator of alleged letter

Iain Galloway :HR representative on Hamilton Site .who was involved in disciplinary meetings, sometimes as note taker

Hannah Sullivan: national HR representative who had oversight of process



They are all culpable, as all where invested in my disciplinary procedure, all failed in their due diligence in requiring oversight of said letter

all failed to recognise the disconnect of an intellectually handicap girl, being able to write a letter of complaint using the words “patronising and condescending” her disability precludes her from understanding the concept let alone voicing it or for that matter spelling the words

Any attempt by any party to deny knowledge of same would beggar belief as their positions within the company require a least a modicum of intelligence



My apologies for presenting yourself with such a conundrum to resolve, however please remember it was not of my making



Warm regards



Paul Evans-McLeod

so thats that

So that’s that




Someone please explain to me how telecom can falsely accuse me on supposed evidence that doesn’t exist and no one not even these era people can hold them accountable



It fucking unbelievable parg 6 says it all it can no longer be pursued because of jurisdictional issues as I’m no longer an employee of telecom it however doesn’t deny the fact that I found them severely wanting in terms of their veracity proving on paper via the privacy commissioner



If I had had access to the above information before I was forced into the mediation and effectively signed my rights away I would have had them


Those invested in the process are as follows



Bridget Dalzell: national manager : who had oversight of the process

Michelle Young: Call Centre Manager who had oversight of Shaun Hoult

Shaun Hoult: My team manager and instigator of alleged letter

Iain Galloway :HR representative on Hamilton Site .who was involved in disciplinary meetings, sometimes as note taker

Hannah Sullivan: national HR representative who had oversight of process

file number 5315212 - Paul Evans-McLeod and Telecom New Zealand Limited 190711

5315212 - Paul Evans-McLeod and Telecom New Zealand Limited date 190711

IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY AUCKLAND


[2011] }4ZERA Auckland 315     5315212

BETWEEN PAUL EVANS~-MCLEOD

Applicant

AND TELECOM NEW ZEALAND

LIMITED

Respondent





Member of Authority: K J Anderson



Representatives: P Evans-McLeod, In p~on

J Rooney, Counsel kr Respondent



Investigation: On the papers



Determination: 19 July 2011





DETERMINATION OF THE AUTHORITY







Employment Relationship Problem



[1] The applicant, Mr Evans-McLeod, seeks compensation “for loss of income” that he claims has been brought about because, he alleges, Telecom New Zealand Limited (Telecom) has deliberately “blacklisted” his name within the telecommunications industry:, hence Mr Evans-McLeod alleges that he has been unable to obtain employment in the industry following the termination of his employment with Telecom. But Telecom says that that the Authority does not have jurisdiction under section 161 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act), because the claim being pursued by Mr Evans-McLeod is not an employment relationship problem.

Background

[2] Mr Evans-McLcod is a former employee of Telecom. His employment terminated on or about 20th August 2009; brought about by his resignation. The parties consequently entered into a settlement agreement signed by a mediator pursuant to section 149 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act).

[3] Mr Evans-McLeod then sought to pursue a personal grievance action before the Authority. The outcome was that via a determination’ the Authority ibund that Mr Evans-McLeod was barred by s. 149 of the Act from pursuing a personal grievance. in arriving at this conclusion, the Authority also found that:



[24] 1 find that both parties freely entered into the final and binding Record of Settlement in which they agreed, among other things, that Mr Evans-McLeod would resign and Telecom would pay him a sum of money.



[25] Further there is no evidence that Mr Evans-MeLeod’s resignation resulted from any inappropriate or unlawful action on Telecom’s part or by anybody else. Mr Evans-McLeod was represented by an experienced officer of the EPMU and entered into the Record of Settlement after mediation and subsequent negotiation with the assistance of the mediator.


[4] One reasonably could have anticipated that the explicit determination of the Authority (above) should have been the end of the litigation path for Mr Evans¬McLeod However, pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1993, Mr Evans¬McLeod has since obtained information that Telecom has “marked” his personnel file “do not re-employ.” Mr Evans-McLeod alleges that he has been “blacklisted” by ~ Telecom and that he is unable to obtain re-employment in the telecommunications ~ industry, hence his claim for a remedy from the Authority in this matter.

[5] While Mr Evans-McLeod has provided the Authority with considerable material that he believes supports his attempt to re-litigate matters with Telecom, unfortunately the Authority is unable to give consideration to any of this material. This is because the Authority does not have jurisdiction to do so. Pursuant to section 161(l)oftheAct:




The Authority has exclusive jurisdiction to make determinations about employment

relationship problems generally, including — (Emphasis added)

(a)

(1,)...

Determination
[5] While Mr Evans-McLeod has provided the Authority with considerable material that he believes supports his attempt to re-litigate matters with Telecom, unfortunately the Authority is unable to give consideration to any of this material. This is because the Authority does not have jurisdiction to do so. Pursuant to section 161(l)oftheAct:

The Authority has exclusive jurisdiction to make determinations about employment

relationship problems generally, including — (Emphasis added)

(a)

(1,)...

AA 187/l0, Member CampIell, 26April 2010
[6] The insurmountable problem that Mr Evans-McLeod has, in regard to pursuing the current claim, is that he is no longer in an “employment relationship” with Telecom2 and hence it follows, that he is not able to pursue any further actions within the Employment Relations Authority relating to his past employment with Telecom. This is because the Authority does not have jurisdiction to hear any further claims from him. Therefore, the current claim is dismissed for want ofjurisdiction.





[7] Given that Mr Evans-McLeod continues to pursue what appears to be little short of a vexatious and misguided campaign of litigation against Telecom, I would trust that he now understands that it is just not possible for him to bring any other matters to the Authority pertaining to his past relationship with Telecom.


Costs: Costs are reserved. The respondent has 28 days from the date of this determination to file and serve submissions with the Authority. The applicant has a further 14 days to file and serve submissions.


Those invested in the process are as follows



Bridget Dalzell: national manager : who had oversight of the process

Michelle Young: Call Centre Manager who had oversight of Shaun Hoult

Shaun Hoult: My team manager and instigator of alleged letter

Iain Galloway :HR representative on Hamilton Site .who was involved in disciplinary meetings, sometimes as note taker

Hannah Sullivan: national HR representative who had oversight of process

asked for update

 

So after waiting 12  weeks I was starting to get a little impatient so I sent an email to Michael Barraclough 

Michael

I appreciate completely that your office is snowed under ,and I do not wish to annoy unduly the DOL or the authority member in question Mr K J Anderson in regard to my concerns ,

But would you be able to give me some indication as to progress of my case and the expectation of when it may be resolved ,this would go a long way to relieving my anxiety concerning same

Michael is a support officer in the office of the ERA
 
he replied promptly 
 
Paul,




I did refer your email to the Member, he is still working on the matter.



Regards


this gave me hope as i had presented them with a 30 page submission and i thought to myself yipee if they are still working on it .my submission has some substance to it i have raised some doubts so there might be a good outcome
unfortunately that assumption was to prove wrong

Those invested in the process are as follows



Bridget Dalzell: national manager : who had oversight of the process

Michelle Young: Call Centre Manager who had oversight of Shaun Hoult

Shaun Hoult: My team manager and instigator of alleged letter

Iain Galloway :HR representative on Hamilton Site .who was involved in disciplinary meetings, sometimes as note taker

Hannah Sullivan: national HR representative who had oversight of process

sound advice which i am following

Expose. Outing bullies and their enablers is essential to eliminating bullying. Corporate bullies use fear of consequence as the main weapon to keeping their victims and enablers silent.
Once bullies are exposed, I recommend an accounting audit
 
part of my submission requires that if discrepancies are found that all dissmissals done by this group are audited  not long now before things see the light of day


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

above/beyond the law

This is all very interesting ...and should you be successful and I wish you the best of luck.



So if fraud and deception and thus subsequent defamation has occurred...which crime is then acted on by the courts, and which requires you to pursue, and which are able to be actioned and how


Is it a liability that is held jointly and severally...I think that it is...


One would need to determine whether the subsequent defamation can then be pursued on both and individual and also separately on a collective basis.


I remain watchful

a question posed by a reader of my blog

i, if successful will persue all avenues available to me they have the impression that they are above/beyond the law
they have little realization of the effect a successful submission from me will have on themselves, on telecom, and on employment law
the famous five or six who invested time and effort in exiting me in doing so broke the law  in its simplist form the era has a central question to answer

when the corporation broke the law by commiting fraud how is it they who did the act remain employed while i was made unemployed
Question?
>who had oversight
> the national manager, failed to do job properly
> site manager same failed to do job
>team manager same failed to do job
> HR site advisor same failed to do job
> HR head office advisor same failed to do job



your watchfull  me i,m just fucken angry as soon as the submission is answered then i start the next phase

jointly and severally


A designation of liability by which members of a group are either individually or mutually responsible to a party in whose favor a judgment has been awarded.




Joint and several liability is a form of liability that is used in civil cases where two or more people are found liable for damages.

The winning plaintiff in such a case may collect the entire judgment from any one of the parties, or from any and all of the parties in various amounts until the judgment is paid in full. In other words, if any of the defendants do not have enough money or assets to pay an equal share of the award, the other defendants must make up the difference.



Defendants in a civil suit can be held jointly and severally liable only if their concurrent acts brought about the harm to the plaintiff. The acts of the defendants do not have to be simultaneous: they must simply contribute to the same event

well that certainly ticks all the boxes so if telecom dumps them to avoid a payout which they well may ,i will launch after each individuals

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

never

"Never be bullied into silence.  Never allow yourself to be made a victim.  Accept no-one's definition of your life; define yourself"


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

the mouse that roared

Great news

 my story is getting out there, have just been in contact with an overseas freelance journalist who has been following my story




He calls me the “the mouse that roared”



Be good title for my book



Yahoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

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

oh dear

i checked with the E R A re progress on my submission reply "we are still working on it " so what is the point then really .


well if they are still working on it , it means the submission has some substance to it .

so wtf ?

well thats really good news for me

but not so good news for some people who are/were lacking honesty and integrity

bugger the truth is finally about to set me free





aug 20 two year anniversary if im celebrating others wont be



i will await the outcome with enthusiam others will with trepidation


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