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
Friday, July 29, 2011
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
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
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
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)