do they read emails between myself and my union advocate yes they do

Their arrogance and dishonesty knows no bounds they even read emails between my union advocate and myself



I have sent a copy of this one to andrew little head of the epmu no doubt there will be high level talks emanating from this little event



Not my fault all managers are supposed to know all the rules and regulations



Me thinks some managers should be brushing up their CV,s


Hannah Sullivan




From: Richard Lowe



Sent: Wednesday, 26 August 2009 8:09 a.m.

To: Hannah Sullivan

Subject: FW: work place bullying

Attachments: Healthy Work Stress guide.pdf




From: Paul Evans-Mcleod

Sent: Friday, 21 August 2009 3:24 a.m.

To: paul.evans-mcleod@xtra.co.nz

Subject: RN: work place bullying









From: Paul Evans-Mcleod

Sent: Mon 7/13/2009 12:48 PM

To: ~peter.cooper-davies@epmu.org.nz’

Subject: work place bullying



Peter please be across this for meeting tomorrow we will let them prattle on and then hit them with it Bryan Abraham is the health and safety manager for telecom



I will be advising them that on Tuesday evening by 7 pm I will be filling a submission with osh unless they have contacted you as my advocate with some resolution to current difficulties



As my advocate I want you to advise them all Shaun ian michelle that we will also be issuing pg re same



If they want this to go away theses are the conditions



My file cleaned of this mess



As written letter of apology from all as well as Richard parker iain manager and Trish Keith Shaun and Michele’s manager



An written assurance that I will never be attacked again in any way shape or form that threatens my job ( I will accept day to day normal management requirements but nothing like this ever again



Three month fully paid stress leave penal rates included so I am not financially disadvantaged and so I can recover my health and may be my marriage



The whole deal to be signed off “without prejudice “so its available to as leverage at a latter date no confidentially agreements Its their call l,m not fucking around



The complaint will be between osh lawyers and telecom lawyers but heres the rub it will be against them as individuals not against telecom the fines are up to $500000 and are they can be jailed for two years



And if they are reading my emails as usual I hope they are shifting themselves cause power doesn’t build character it displays it and what I have seen from these three disgusts me nobody get to make me feel inferior without my permission and I didn’t fuckeen give it



Cheers paul





From: Bryan Abraham

Sent: Monday, 13 July 2009 12:22 p.m.

To: Paul Evans-Mc!eod

Subject: RE: some clarity please



Hi Paul,



As discussed, DoL (OSH) do very much identify workplace stress as a workplace hazard - they have a number

do they read emails between myself and my lawyer yes they do

to be clear i rang nigel and asked that he pretend to be my lawyer  all emails between us where formatted as thought it was client lawyer correspondance 
which should have been confidential 

by no hr think the are a law unto them selves







Hannah Sullivan




From: Richard Lowe

Sent: Wednesday, 26 August 2009 7:59 a.m.

To: Hannah Sullivan

Subject: FW: well well well

From: Paul Evans-Mcleod

Sent: Wednesday, 11 March 2009 3:29 p.m.

To: paul.evans-mcleod©xtra.co.nz

Subject: FW: well well well









From: Paul Evans-Mcleod

Sent: Mon 3/9/2009 7:35 AM

To: Nigel Dick (nigel.dick@xtra.co.nz)

Subject: well well well



Hi nigel



I had a sleep on the events of yesterday an have decided that at the first hint of a disciplinary I’m going to hit



them between their eyes with a few home truths from around here



Such as 1 managers turning up drunk two other managers had to leave the floor and escort her home
 2 under the influence of p

3 shagging their team members to the point where one had to seek counselling

4 a ccm and a team leader observed shagging each in 6th floor meeting room the male actually took a photo of the act and showed to other UI on floor and nothing was done

5 staff stoned



6 in all people have to be consistent in their discipline for like offences with yesterdays incident which was factually incorrect in the most part It was addressed in a performance feed back session a work mate who was penalised for same thing it was a disciplinary letter makes you think doesn’t it

7 and I will involved the unions lawyers so all gets addressed



8 you might have guessed I through playing games





Add to file please





Cheers paul

do the read your emails yes they do

a richard lowe access,s the data base and forwards them to hannah sullivan in hr with in days

this incudes team leaders emails  this series of emails is myself emailing from home to sandra le to sort out my home account

take carefull note of the dates

Hannah Sullivan




From: Richard Lowe


Sent: Wednesday, 26 August 2009 7:48 a.m.

To: Hannah Sullivan



Subject: FW: from paul

From: Paul Mcleod [maflto:paul.evans-mcleod@xtra.co.nz]

Sent: Monday, 24 August 2009 4:57 p.m.

To: Sandra-Le Mckay

Subject: RE: from paul



Thanks heaps didn’t feel like talking to anyone there


Cheers Paul







From: Sandra-Le Mckay [mailto:Sandra-Le. McKay@telecom.co.nz]

Sent: Monday, 24 August 2009 4:48 p.m.

To: Paul Mcleod

Subject: RE: from paul

From: Paul Mcleod [mailto:paul.evans-mcleod©xtra.co.nz]

Sent: Monday, 24 August 2009 16:04

To: Sandra-Le McKay

Subject: from paul


Sandra could you check my account on 07 8494584 if it has been taken off concessions could you kindly strip it back to just total home and faxability on land line

they just might have Celebrated a little early

Hannah Sullivan




From: Bridgette Dalzell



Sent: Tuesday, 27Apr11 2010 9:13 a.m.



To: Hannah Sullivan; Tush Keith; Shaun Hoult; Wayne Peat



Cc: Richard Parker (HR); Michelle Young; lain Galloway



Subject: RE: P Evans-McLeod - Authority Determination



That is fantastic news, thanks Hannah...





Regards

Bridgette Daizell

Head of Outsourced Customer Care

I



M +64 9 358 6687

0274 317 268

+64 9 303 1243

br~doette.dalzelk~telecom .co.nz

E

Level 12, Telecom House,

8 Hereford Street

Auckland

_________________ www.telecom.co.nz















This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it -please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.







From: Hannah Sullivan

Sent: Tuesday, 27 April 2010 9:11 a.m.

To: Trish Keith; Bridgette DaIzell; Shaun Hoult; Wayne Peat

Cc: Richard Parker (HR); Michelle Young; lain Galloway

Subject: P Evans-McLeod - Authority Determination



Dear All,



I’m delighted to advise that the Employment Authority have found that Paul is statute barred from pursuing his personal grievance.



We may yet hear from him regarding his privacy complaint, but otherwise he is pretty much out of options.



Have a good day. Regards, Hannah





Hannah Sullivan

Employment Relations Manager



I 09 357 4683 (extn 94683~

the gotcha document

for those that know me
 you know i didnt derserve this treatment



From: Hannah Sullivan




Sent: Thursday, 3 September 2009 12:29 p.m.



To: Ask HR



Subject: Paul Evans-Mcleod



Please mark Paul’s file as “do not re-employ”





Regards



Hannah Sullivan

Employment Relations Manager





+64 9 357 4683 (extn 94683)



+64 9 375 1588



+64 27 677 7780















Level 10, Telecom House, 8 Hereford Street Auckland

 hannah
 im not running out of options
bridgette
isnt this fantastic news


required reading 
we are here to help by dave henderson or you could rent the dvd

time to strike back

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

aug 20 th marks a year since i got dismissed

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

still  alot of material to come

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

well im gong to direct the spotlight on thier behaviours



UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ACT 2000




BEFORE THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY

AT AUCKLAND



File No.

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

Te Rapa, Hamilton

Applicant



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

Respondent



________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

________________________________________________________________













________________________________________________________________

PAUL EVANS-McLEOD

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

Pukete Facsimile: +64-7-8494 684

Hamilton



To: The Employment Relations Authority

And To: The Applicant



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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


”It is therefore my belief that the instruction person, Hannah Sullivan, is and has acted outside of the requirements of the settlement of the mediation and blacklisted my name within HR thus effectively negated any efforts I make to practice the only craft I know this has the compounding effect of a “restraint of trade” due to the confidentiality of the documents the only thing that should be known within her is that I resigned. Thus my punishment for my perceived misdemeanours that brought about this case about has far exceeded both the crime and the penalty imposed.”


(i) The response from John Rooney was:


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

(b) Jobs applied for within umbrella of Telecom.

(c) Jobs applied for in related industries.

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



Mediation

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

NO

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

NO

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

NO

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

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

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

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



Fee

This application is accompanied by the prescribed fee.



_____________________________________________

Paul Evans-McLeod (Applicant)

__________________________

Telecom pissed off im not paying them quick enough

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

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

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




UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ACT 2000






BEFORE THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY AT AUCKLAND





File No. 5311630

BETWEEN TELECOM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

Applicant

AND PAUL EVANS-MCLEOD

Respondent









SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT































~ Simpson Grierson

Barristers & Solicitors



J D Rooney/S L Hogg

Telephone: +64-9-358 2222

Facsimile: +64-9-307 0331

Email: john.rooney@simpsongrierson.com

DX CX1 0092

Private Bag 92518







~

MAY IT PLEASE THE AUTHORITY:





Introduction





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



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





Background facts





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

all correct




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


yeap thats correct thats all i can afford


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

no havent refused dont have the money to comply



Compliance Order





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

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



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

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






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

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



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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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







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



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






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



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



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



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





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





So I reserve the same right as the applicant






I the respondent, consider the matter resolved and closed










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






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






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






















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






I can do no more






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






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






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






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






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






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






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






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






So I ask what ruling am I in breach of?






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






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










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






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






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






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






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






Furthermore in direct response to the applicants assertion in his submissions


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






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






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






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






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






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






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






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






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










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