i get the feeling they are not happy at all
the lawyer is entitled to his view
it is up to the employment relations authority to decide on the out come
UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ACT 2000
BEFORE THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY AT AUCKLAND
File No. 5315212
BETWEEN PAUL EVANS-MCLEOD
Applicant
AND TELECOM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Respondent
STATEMENT IN REPLY
Simpson Grierson
Barristors & Solicitors
J D RooneylS L Hogg
Telephone: +64-9-358 2222
Facsimile: +64-9-307 0331
Email: john.rooney©simpsongrierson.com
DX CX1 0092
Private Bag 92518
Auckland
To: The applicant
And to: The Employment Relations Authority
1. The respondent’s view in relation to the problem specified in the application is:
(a) The Authority has no jurisdiction to hear and consider the applicant’s claim under section 161 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA) as it is not an employment relationship problem.
2. The first respondent’s account of the relevant facts is:
(a) The applicant is a former employee of the respondent. The applicant’s employment with the respondent terminated on 20 August 2009.
(b) The parties entered into a settlement agreement which was signed by a mediator on 24 August 2009 pursuant to section 149 of the Employment Relations Act 2000.
(c) The applicant subsequently sought, unsuccessfully, to pursue a personal grievance in relation to his employment with the respondent.
(d) The respondent does not accept that the Authority has jurisdiction to hear and consider the applicant’s claim which relates to events that are alleged to have occurred after the cessation of the applicant’s employment with the respondent.
"events that are alleged to have occurred after the cessation of the applicant’s employment with the respondent".
sorry bro what part of an email that says do not re-employ dated etc with in three weeks of my resignation don,t we get
it happened i have proof they are pissed off they got the office junior to pack the box of documents and it slipped thru
(e) The applicant’s claim is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. Further, it is brought in the applicant’s full knowledge that he has no means to meet an award of costs against him.
fuck off it was you wankers that abused the disciplainary process you all lied shaun bridget michelle hannah iain thinking you where safe in the knowledge that no one would challenge you and it would be uncovered
which is why each time i show you lawyer where the lies are he stops persuing that avenue and changes tack the blood is on your hands and it wont wash off oh bugger
the many who have been following the blog have already seen a couple of you caught out so keep pouncing around the site knowing that your work mates think very little of you and your actions your integrity and your honesty
you would be amazed at the commnets and the level of support i have for my blog quite heat warming really
(f) Without prejudice to the respondent’s position, it denies the allegations set out in the statement of problem.
3. The first respondent makes the following comments and supplies the following further information:
For the reasons set out above, the Authority does not have jurisdiction to grant remedies sought by the applicant in his statement of problem.
4. The respondent attaches copies of the following documents (which it thinks are relevant to the problem):
(a) The Authority’s determination in Evans-McLeod v Telecom New Zealand Limited (AA 187/10, V Campbell (Member), 26 April 2010).
Mediation
5. Have you, the respondent, tried to resolve this problem by using mediation services provided by the Department of Labour?
Yes/ No
6. Have you, the respondent, tried to resolve this problem by using mediation provided by someone other than the Department of Labour? Yes / No ~
7. Have you, the respondent, taken any other steps of any kind to resolve the problem? Yes No ~
Signature of Counsel for:
Telecom New Zealand Limited
Date: _______________ __________________
This statement in reply is lodged by JOHN DOMINIC ROONEY, on behalf of the abovenamed respondent, whose address for service is at the offices of Simpson Grierson, Lumley Centre, 88 Shortland Street, Auckland 1141 and whose telephone number is ÷64-9-977 5070 and whose fax number for service is +64-9-977 5083 and whose document exchange number for service is DX CX1 0092 and whose e-mail address for service is john.rooney~simpsongrierson.com.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Worst NZ corporate what a suprise
Worst NZ corporate
lTelecom is perceived as the country's worst company, according to new research.
AMR Interactive's 2010 Corporate Reputation Index measured how New Zealanders rate our 20 largest companies on products, innovation, workplace, citizenship, governance, leadership and financial performance.
Telecom's overall score was not just the worst of the New Zealand bunch, it also scored lower than the 60 companies in the Australian study.
Telecom spokesperson Mark Watts said he believed the results reflected the problems the XT Network had earlier this year. At the other end, NZ Post took out top prize.
just think at one time they both formed part of the same company new zealand post and telegraph the old p & t
lTelecom is perceived as the country's worst company, according to new research.
AMR Interactive's 2010 Corporate Reputation Index measured how New Zealanders rate our 20 largest companies on products, innovation, workplace, citizenship, governance, leadership and financial performance.
Telecom's overall score was not just the worst of the New Zealand bunch, it also scored lower than the 60 companies in the Australian study.
Telecom spokesperson Mark Watts said he believed the results reflected the problems the XT Network had earlier this year. At the other end, NZ Post took out top prize.
just think at one time they both formed part of the same company new zealand post and telegraph the old p & t
reply from era re telecom bullying tactic re costs interesting reply
IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY AUCKLAND
AA 388/10
5311630
BETWEEN TELECOM NEW ZEALAND
LIMITED
Applicant
AND PAUL EVANS-MCLEOD
Respondent
Member of Authority: Vicki Campbell
Investigation: On the Papers
Submissions received: 6 August 2010 from Applicant
10 August 2010 from Respondent
Determination: 26 August 2010
DETERMINATION OF THE AUTHORITY
[1] Telecom New Zealand Limited (“Telecom”) makes application for a compliance order against the respondent Mr Paul Evans-McLeod. Compliance is sought with the Authority’s Determination numbered AA 187A/10 dated 1 June 2010 (“the determination”).
[2] Telecom was awarded costs in the sum of $1500 plus disbursements of $401.48. The full payment of the costs award has not been paid by Mr Evans¬McLeod who has, instead, been paying Telecom incremental amounts each week up to $10.00 per week.
[3] Parties who take claims to the Authority or the Court do so with the risk that if they are not successful there may be financial consequences in that the unsuccessful party may have to contribute to the costs of the successful party.
yes thats fine i realised that going into it and am happy to pay
[4] Mr Evans-McLeod says he is complying with the determination albeit slowly. Mr Evans-McLeod is not currently in paid employment and is in receipt of a WINZ benefit. He has provided a copy of his weekly budget for the assistance of the Authority. I have some sympathy for Mr Evans-McLeod’s financial position, however, costs are payable in their entirety.
oh bugger where am i going to get the money from sell some stuff on trade me may be
[5] Telecom seeks an order from the Authority that Mr Evans-McLeod materially increases his weekly instalments and that Mr Evans-McLeod be required to notify Telecom if he resumes his employment, until such time as the costs award is paid in full.
will do my best and have already agreed to in previous correspondance to notify telecom when i resume employment mind you telecom blacklisting me in the industry was not helpful to same
[6] The Authority does not have jurisdiction to make such orders with respect tounsuccessfti1-applicants. -Section 13 8(4A) provides the Authority with the discretion to make an order that payments to an employee may be made by instalments, however, this can only be done if the financial position of the employer requires it.
[7] This case is not about an employer seeking relief to make payments by instalment and the Act does not provide the Authority with the discretion to order instalments of payments for impecunious unsuccessful applicants.
impecunious big legal word means "poor"
[8] In coming to my conclusions in this matter I have also taken into account the fact that continuing defiance of the Authority’s orders places Mr Evans-McLeod at peril of serious consequences. The Authority’s orders may be the subject of a further application for compliance in the Employment Court which is empowered to impose penalties for continuing non-compliance which include imprisonment, fines and the sequestration of property.
not sure about this one and the word defiance might be meant in a legal context cause im not defying the order just not paying alot
jail doesnt worry me get 3 hots and a cot long as it has a library can cath up on my reading
[9] It seems to me that Telecom is not averse to Mr Evans-McLeod paying the costs determination by instalment. Therefore the parties are ordered to attend mediation within the next 28 days to resolve the matter of the quantum and timing of any incremental payments to be made.
means john rooney the lawyer can clip the ticket to charge telecom and have a nice drive to hamilton cause im not going anywhere cant afford it and talking about it might help
she is also saying to telecom dont be so demanding let him pay by installments regonise that i am under fiancial duress
[10] Should mediation fail in assisting the parties to reach an agreement as to the amount and timing of any instalments, leave is reserved for Telecom to return to the Authority for an order requiring Mr Evans-McLeod to pay the costs award in full.
another words she is telling us both to be sensible about it again other wise the hammer drops
Costs
[11] Costs relating to this application shall lie where they fall.
means telecom pays and i dont have to plus is indicating to telecom do waste my time with silly bullying shit cause i will make you pay every time dumb fuckers
have decided to make them an offer lets see how they react
Vicki Campbell
Member of Employment Relations
AA 388/10
5311630
BETWEEN TELECOM NEW ZEALAND
LIMITED
Applicant
AND PAUL EVANS-MCLEOD
Respondent
Member of Authority: Vicki Campbell
Investigation: On the Papers
Submissions received: 6 August 2010 from Applicant
10 August 2010 from Respondent
Determination: 26 August 2010
DETERMINATION OF THE AUTHORITY
[1] Telecom New Zealand Limited (“Telecom”) makes application for a compliance order against the respondent Mr Paul Evans-McLeod. Compliance is sought with the Authority’s Determination numbered AA 187A/10 dated 1 June 2010 (“the determination”).
[2] Telecom was awarded costs in the sum of $1500 plus disbursements of $401.48. The full payment of the costs award has not been paid by Mr Evans¬McLeod who has, instead, been paying Telecom incremental amounts each week up to $10.00 per week.
[3] Parties who take claims to the Authority or the Court do so with the risk that if they are not successful there may be financial consequences in that the unsuccessful party may have to contribute to the costs of the successful party.
yes thats fine i realised that going into it and am happy to pay
[4] Mr Evans-McLeod says he is complying with the determination albeit slowly. Mr Evans-McLeod is not currently in paid employment and is in receipt of a WINZ benefit. He has provided a copy of his weekly budget for the assistance of the Authority. I have some sympathy for Mr Evans-McLeod’s financial position, however, costs are payable in their entirety.
oh bugger where am i going to get the money from sell some stuff on trade me may be
[5] Telecom seeks an order from the Authority that Mr Evans-McLeod materially increases his weekly instalments and that Mr Evans-McLeod be required to notify Telecom if he resumes his employment, until such time as the costs award is paid in full.
will do my best and have already agreed to in previous correspondance to notify telecom when i resume employment mind you telecom blacklisting me in the industry was not helpful to same
[6] The Authority does not have jurisdiction to make such orders with respect tounsuccessfti1-applicants. -Section 13 8(4A) provides the Authority with the discretion to make an order that payments to an employee may be made by instalments, however, this can only be done if the financial position of the employer requires it.
[7] This case is not about an employer seeking relief to make payments by instalment and the Act does not provide the Authority with the discretion to order instalments of payments for impecunious unsuccessful applicants.
impecunious big legal word means "poor"
[8] In coming to my conclusions in this matter I have also taken into account the fact that continuing defiance of the Authority’s orders places Mr Evans-McLeod at peril of serious consequences. The Authority’s orders may be the subject of a further application for compliance in the Employment Court which is empowered to impose penalties for continuing non-compliance which include imprisonment, fines and the sequestration of property.
not sure about this one and the word defiance might be meant in a legal context cause im not defying the order just not paying alot
jail doesnt worry me get 3 hots and a cot long as it has a library can cath up on my reading
[9] It seems to me that Telecom is not averse to Mr Evans-McLeod paying the costs determination by instalment. Therefore the parties are ordered to attend mediation within the next 28 days to resolve the matter of the quantum and timing of any incremental payments to be made.
means john rooney the lawyer can clip the ticket to charge telecom and have a nice drive to hamilton cause im not going anywhere cant afford it and talking about it might help
she is also saying to telecom dont be so demanding let him pay by installments regonise that i am under fiancial duress
[10] Should mediation fail in assisting the parties to reach an agreement as to the amount and timing of any instalments, leave is reserved for Telecom to return to the Authority for an order requiring Mr Evans-McLeod to pay the costs award in full.
another words she is telling us both to be sensible about it again other wise the hammer drops
Costs
[11] Costs relating to this application shall lie where they fall.
means telecom pays and i dont have to plus is indicating to telecom do waste my time with silly bullying shit cause i will make you pay every time dumb fuckers
have decided to make them an offer lets see how they react
Vicki Campbell
Member of Employment Relations
Thursday, August 26, 2010
work place bullying
Have just been advised and sent a copy of a case before the employment relations court where the plaintiff was fired for sick leave (caused by workplace bullying) she won the case
It has set a precedent on how to handle complaints from staff about another employee and how stress is handled in the work place
The employee was being bullied by her supervisor and her employer failed to investigate it properly thus she suffered disadvantage in her employment and her dismissal was unjustified
An interesting read with many parallels to my case especially when i have highlighted my problems to the board and HR stepped across it and intervened with thier version of events rather in investigate it
watch for a post entitled "disgruntled employee" that was the title of the document sent by HR to the board i am in the middle of answering each paragraph with statements of my own
trying to decide who to send it to the board agian or maybe the media
It has set a precedent on how to handle complaints from staff about another employee and how stress is handled in the work place
The employee was being bullied by her supervisor and her employer failed to investigate it properly thus she suffered disadvantage in her employment and her dismissal was unjustified
An interesting read with many parallels to my case especially when i have highlighted my problems to the board and HR stepped across it and intervened with thier version of events rather in investigate it
watch for a post entitled "disgruntled employee" that was the title of the document sent by HR to the board i am in the middle of answering each paragraph with statements of my own
trying to decide who to send it to the board agian or maybe the media
Thursday, August 19, 2010
i always get a spike in my stats when i publish a post
very encouraging that builds over time soon it will reach the tipping piont then all hell will break lose an some people will be required to answer questions
oh bugger !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pageviews today
OverviewRefresh Now Day Week Month All timeAug 19, 2010 12:00 AM – Aug 19, 2010 11:00 PM
Pageviews today
1,059
not hard to guess who this is
From~
Sent: 1 thursday, 3 September 2009 8:15 p.m.
To:
Subject: PEM the latest
Some discussion via the Gen-i team that is worth noting:
As context there are people within the Gen-i team with extensive tenure and within Hamilton long standing relationships exist between once-Post Office engineers who are now across Transfield, Telecom and withing Gen-i.
What I have outlined here is 3rd or 4th hand via any of these links but clearly demonstrates that information is being shared/speculated outside of the 123 environment - and is quite clear that this is originating from people who hear directly from Paul himself - and not from anyone in our site.
Main points made - over the past 4 days are: (and from at least 3 separate conversations over several days as updates..
- Paul has engaged a “well respected and highly regarded” lawyer
this im pissing myself about someone asked me what i was going to do
i said i had hired a lawyer from Friend and Mackenzie
these people need to broaden thier knowledge a bit
check what a mackenzie friend is and does in the courts structure and you will understand what a hoot
- Lawyer claims they have a ‘water-tight case
why wouldnt he you dumb fucks the lawyer was me
- Case will use ‘the stress angle’ and is based on the fact that Paul had had a heart attack, and knowing that Telecom continued to proceed.
correct i had lodged health and safety complaints with the dept of labour and osh which is why telecoms internal documents had to be amended quick smart as they didnt realise untill the last minute that the health and safety amendment act 2002 stated that stress in the owrk place was a harzard and they as individuals not the company could be held to account jailed for up to three years and fined $500.000.00 they shit themsleves the dumb fucks this is where this might have come from
- He only agreed to mediation because of his poor health and stress; the mediation and/or settlement was not what he really wanted
correct imediately after informing them of above and them shitting themselves they moved speedily to give me a final written warning
the net effect of that was it forced me to mediation which is where iain galloway had said it would end out the onset it was all staged to get me to that piont as they had it all planed
- He more or less felt coerced into agreeing to both mediation and settling because he was so unwell
cant say a word about medaition as im still constrained by confidentially clauses
but never ever attend one and never ever sign one and before you go look up the words constructive dissmissal before you enter the room
- Paul has stated he will get much more $$$ this way than he would have by redundancy
well this might come to pass i have lodged a statement of problem to the employment relations authority check previous blogs we are alleging the failed to act in good faith
- The company was ‘out to get him1’ and he ‘always knew that they wanted to get rid of him” and therefore masked performance managment as a means to do that.
.
what esle is micro-manageing and why did they black list me without my knowledge within three weeks of my resignation
Obviously this is considerable detail for someone outside proceedings to have - and given the engineer contacts not something that we have been party to.
Cheers
obviously they where keeping an eye on me god they must have been parnoid im not doing too bad i gone up against a partner of simpson gierson and am managing to hold my own
they seem to think that this is the beginning of the end it just the end of the beginning
“Being challenged in life is inevitable, being defeated is optional.” -Roger Crawford
not done yet by a very long shot page hits on blog just keep on coming laughing my head off the dumb fucks still havent worked it all out will let you know when they do
was asked recently why am i doing this
well telecom and other big corporations do this all the time its long overdue someone
exposed them and they where held accountable once a precedent has been set the practice will stop cause if i manage to win this david and goliath struggle it will be a massively big fine oh bugger
besides the blacklisted me and made me unemployable it helps fill in the day
Sent: 1 thursday, 3 September 2009 8:15 p.m.
To:
Subject: PEM the latest
Some discussion via the Gen-i team that is worth noting:
As context there are people within the Gen-i team with extensive tenure and within Hamilton long standing relationships exist between once-Post Office engineers who are now across Transfield, Telecom and withing Gen-i.
What I have outlined here is 3rd or 4th hand via any of these links but clearly demonstrates that information is being shared/speculated outside of the 123 environment - and is quite clear that this is originating from people who hear directly from Paul himself - and not from anyone in our site.
Main points made - over the past 4 days are: (and from at least 3 separate conversations over several days as updates..
- Paul has engaged a “well respected and highly regarded” lawyer
this im pissing myself about someone asked me what i was going to do
i said i had hired a lawyer from Friend and Mackenzie
these people need to broaden thier knowledge a bit
check what a mackenzie friend is and does in the courts structure and you will understand what a hoot
- Lawyer claims they have a ‘water-tight case
why wouldnt he you dumb fucks the lawyer was me
- Case will use ‘the stress angle’ and is based on the fact that Paul had had a heart attack, and knowing that Telecom continued to proceed.
correct i had lodged health and safety complaints with the dept of labour and osh which is why telecoms internal documents had to be amended quick smart as they didnt realise untill the last minute that the health and safety amendment act 2002 stated that stress in the owrk place was a harzard and they as individuals not the company could be held to account jailed for up to three years and fined $500.000.00 they shit themsleves the dumb fucks this is where this might have come from
- He only agreed to mediation because of his poor health and stress; the mediation and/or settlement was not what he really wanted
correct imediately after informing them of above and them shitting themselves they moved speedily to give me a final written warning
the net effect of that was it forced me to mediation which is where iain galloway had said it would end out the onset it was all staged to get me to that piont as they had it all planed
- He more or less felt coerced into agreeing to both mediation and settling because he was so unwell
cant say a word about medaition as im still constrained by confidentially clauses
but never ever attend one and never ever sign one and before you go look up the words constructive dissmissal before you enter the room
- Paul has stated he will get much more $$$ this way than he would have by redundancy
well this might come to pass i have lodged a statement of problem to the employment relations authority check previous blogs we are alleging the failed to act in good faith
- The company was ‘out to get him1’ and he ‘always knew that they wanted to get rid of him” and therefore masked performance managment as a means to do that.
.
what esle is micro-manageing and why did they black list me without my knowledge within three weeks of my resignation
Obviously this is considerable detail for someone outside proceedings to have - and given the engineer contacts not something that we have been party to.
Cheers
obviously they where keeping an eye on me god they must have been parnoid im not doing too bad i gone up against a partner of simpson gierson and am managing to hold my own
they seem to think that this is the beginning of the end it just the end of the beginning
“Being challenged in life is inevitable, being defeated is optional.” -Roger Crawford
not done yet by a very long shot page hits on blog just keep on coming laughing my head off the dumb fucks still havent worked it all out will let you know when they do
was asked recently why am i doing this
well telecom and other big corporations do this all the time its long overdue someone
exposed them and they where held accountable once a precedent has been set the practice will stop cause if i manage to win this david and goliath struggle it will be a massively big fine oh bugger
besides the blacklisted me and made me unemployable it helps fill in the day
Are Shaun Hoult and Michelle Young both lairs?
Are Shaun Hoult and Michelle Young both lairs?
Well you decide
I have proved that Bridgette Dalzell is and Hannah Sullivan has possibility mislead telecoms lawyer and maybe breeched some of the tenants of acting in “good faith” and the mediation process
Plus a very heavily censored email has been presented to the employment relations authority
All will come to light soon enough when the ERA makes it ruling WHICH WILL BE SOON
As today the 20th of Aug 2010 marks exactly one year since I resigned from telecom I thought it auspicious to mark it with more evidence of lairs, dishonesty, unfairness, betrayal you decide
Let’s take you all back a year and eight months
This bullshit all started when in late dec 2008 when I was called into an office by my team leader Shaun and presented with a disciplinary notice and advised I would be performance managed
Reading the notes it was immediately obvious this was the start of the end of my career as I was being micro-managed
I had been retrospectively looked at for the preceding 4 months and every little misdeamour had been noted from being eight seconds in a work email while I was talking to a customer to treating a short lead mf service order as a breech of the operational separation agreement
Micro-managing is a from of work place bullying Michelle Young and Iain Galloway the hr person admitted micro-managing was occurring on two separate occasions I have the dairy notes
So in meeting after meeting I was told by both Shaun and Michelle that I was required to get 100% of things right 100% of the time
Was anyone else held to these standards, can it be demonstrated, if not why not...
Now I will apply the same approach via any legal channel available.100% right 100% of the time...where they are lacking it will be exposed.....
Their own evidence indicates that the site was not meeting the required targets,,,whom is accountable...the staff or the managers....whom decides...whom does it serve...
Meeting after meeting I was presented with all the statistics they have all highlighted where I hadn’t achieved and told that others where achieving these very results
Not being a dumb ass I asked to be judged fairly among my peers I accepted I couldn’t achieve what was required but felt quite rightly it turns out that nor could others alot of others
I even said to them fine give me the boot but a good third of the sight should be joining me
Now remember the year and month this started dec 2008
Remember I gained a lot of information under the privacy act well take a read of this note from Shaun note the date
22/02/09
Today we had a meeting that was focused on the call structure & how it needs to be adhered to provide a better more consistent experience for our customers.
In attendance were
My self
Gail Wiley
Paul Miller
Ella Benton
Ross Smith
Sue Rae
Marc Morey
Karen Flack
Absent were
Paul Evans McLeod
Ken Robinson
Chris Barr
Tim Speak
Emma Jeffery
Stephanie Henriksen
In this meeting we reviewed the findings from the recent managers workshop that was held on Monday 1616th & Tuesday 1717th of February 2009, this was done by way of a PowerPoint presentation where we reviewed a sample of 300 calls, that were listened to over a 32 rep sample, we looked at compliance from these reps on the following parts of the call structure, also listed is the % achieved in each area.
Pops 49%
Name & # 70%
Authority check 42%
Ask open questions 46%
Provide the best solution 65%
Positive language 80%
Read market market alerts 4%
Right plan 8%
There was some shock in the meeting that we were not doing a better job of looking after our customers, & we discussed the reasons that we need to follow the call structure 100% to put this right
All present agreed that we needed to be better then this & agreed to follow the call structure as requested by my self. I further stated that this was not a choice but what I required from each member of the team.
I also provided a printed call structure for every member of the team which is identical to what I am looking for on my call observations & have offered to help any member who may need help in a particular area
Those team members that were not present at today’s meeting will be taken through the presentation & the same expectations will be placed on each of them.
Please note that all team members will be held accountable for there own performance & failure to carry these requirements out, may result in disciplinary measures
So where they lying to me its very unclear you think?
To me it was pretty obvious that to have a two day work shop about this sort of thing that the whole of the site was in the shit everybody was doing badly,very badly
So the big question is why I was the only one micro-managed surely everybody should have been dealt with the same set of rules that would be fair you think
It pretty obvious that I never did get to attend this meeting other wise I would have had my disciplainary action stopped immediately I would have been all other Shaun
So why did both Michelle and Shaun continue month after month micro-managing me till it culminated in my dismissal
Has it got you thinking is it fair ,is it right, is it honest ,is it ethical, as required by telecoms own code of ethics
Is this the behavior you want to see in your management structure? At this point I had loyally served the site for 12 years having only two days sick inn the whole time
If you find these managers action abhorrent wait till you see what esle i have uncovered
I urge you to make sure you have your work/life balance in order don’t come to work when you are not feeling up to it use your sick leave they just dont appreciate things like loyalty someone decides he/she is out and thats it
only one person in the whole site had the guts to make a stand for me one person
Just look at the reward I got for putting my health on the line the shaft
You know all that information I got
thanks Phil and Pam for your support
you smile to my face, you ask me for help and then you stab me fair and square in the back
you two faced arseholes I have the paper work so don’t even bother denying it
Michelle and Shaun and you two when you see me in the street cross over stay away from me
Not for fear that I might attack you but more for the fact that you and your behavior sickens me so much
I might vomit all over you
Well you decide
I have proved that Bridgette Dalzell is and Hannah Sullivan has possibility mislead telecoms lawyer and maybe breeched some of the tenants of acting in “good faith” and the mediation process
Plus a very heavily censored email has been presented to the employment relations authority
All will come to light soon enough when the ERA makes it ruling WHICH WILL BE SOON
As today the 20th of Aug 2010 marks exactly one year since I resigned from telecom I thought it auspicious to mark it with more evidence of lairs, dishonesty, unfairness, betrayal you decide
Let’s take you all back a year and eight months
This bullshit all started when in late dec 2008 when I was called into an office by my team leader Shaun and presented with a disciplinary notice and advised I would be performance managed
Reading the notes it was immediately obvious this was the start of the end of my career as I was being micro-managed
I had been retrospectively looked at for the preceding 4 months and every little misdeamour had been noted from being eight seconds in a work email while I was talking to a customer to treating a short lead mf service order as a breech of the operational separation agreement
Micro-managing is a from of work place bullying Michelle Young and Iain Galloway the hr person admitted micro-managing was occurring on two separate occasions I have the dairy notes
So in meeting after meeting I was told by both Shaun and Michelle that I was required to get 100% of things right 100% of the time
Was anyone else held to these standards, can it be demonstrated, if not why not...
Now I will apply the same approach via any legal channel available.100% right 100% of the time...where they are lacking it will be exposed.....
Their own evidence indicates that the site was not meeting the required targets,,,whom is accountable...the staff or the managers....whom decides...whom does it serve...
Meeting after meeting I was presented with all the statistics they have all highlighted where I hadn’t achieved and told that others where achieving these very results
Not being a dumb ass I asked to be judged fairly among my peers I accepted I couldn’t achieve what was required but felt quite rightly it turns out that nor could others alot of others
I even said to them fine give me the boot but a good third of the sight should be joining me
Now remember the year and month this started dec 2008
Remember I gained a lot of information under the privacy act well take a read of this note from Shaun note the date
22/02/09
Today we had a meeting that was focused on the call structure & how it needs to be adhered to provide a better more consistent experience for our customers.
In attendance were
My self
Gail Wiley
Paul Miller
Ella Benton
Ross Smith
Sue Rae
Marc Morey
Karen Flack
Absent were
Paul Evans McLeod
Ken Robinson
Chris Barr
Tim Speak
Emma Jeffery
Stephanie Henriksen
In this meeting we reviewed the findings from the recent managers workshop that was held on Monday 1616th & Tuesday 1717th of February 2009, this was done by way of a PowerPoint presentation where we reviewed a sample of 300 calls, that were listened to over a 32 rep sample, we looked at compliance from these reps on the following parts of the call structure, also listed is the % achieved in each area.
Pops 49%
Name & # 70%
Authority check 42%
Ask open questions 46%
Provide the best solution 65%
Positive language 80%
Read market market alerts 4%
Right plan 8%
There was some shock in the meeting that we were not doing a better job of looking after our customers, & we discussed the reasons that we need to follow the call structure 100% to put this right
All present agreed that we needed to be better then this & agreed to follow the call structure as requested by my self. I further stated that this was not a choice but what I required from each member of the team.
I also provided a printed call structure for every member of the team which is identical to what I am looking for on my call observations & have offered to help any member who may need help in a particular area
Those team members that were not present at today’s meeting will be taken through the presentation & the same expectations will be placed on each of them.
Please note that all team members will be held accountable for there own performance & failure to carry these requirements out, may result in disciplinary measures
So where they lying to me its very unclear you think?
To me it was pretty obvious that to have a two day work shop about this sort of thing that the whole of the site was in the shit everybody was doing badly,very badly
So the big question is why I was the only one micro-managed surely everybody should have been dealt with the same set of rules that would be fair you think
It pretty obvious that I never did get to attend this meeting other wise I would have had my disciplainary action stopped immediately I would have been all other Shaun
So why did both Michelle and Shaun continue month after month micro-managing me till it culminated in my dismissal
Has it got you thinking is it fair ,is it right, is it honest ,is it ethical, as required by telecoms own code of ethics
Is this the behavior you want to see in your management structure? At this point I had loyally served the site for 12 years having only two days sick inn the whole time
If you find these managers action abhorrent wait till you see what esle i have uncovered
I urge you to make sure you have your work/life balance in order don’t come to work when you are not feeling up to it use your sick leave they just dont appreciate things like loyalty someone decides he/she is out and thats it
only one person in the whole site had the guts to make a stand for me one person
Just look at the reward I got for putting my health on the line the shaft
You know all that information I got
thanks Phil and Pam for your support
you smile to my face, you ask me for help and then you stab me fair and square in the back
you two faced arseholes I have the paper work so don’t even bother denying it
Michelle and Shaun and you two when you see me in the street cross over stay away from me
Not for fear that I might attack you but more for the fact that you and your behavior sickens me so much
I might vomit all over you
Sunday, August 15, 2010
is Hannah Sullivan a liar
you decide
lets re examine my statement of problem a little more closely
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.”
here im hinting very very strongly that i think i know what is happening behind the scenes
(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.”
here they are saying quite strongly don’t go near this or we will jump all over you. I felt at the time they were protesting a little too much and that i had hit a nerve and they wanted to steer me away from going near it later discoveries proved me correct
“Telecom has fully complied with its confidentiality obligations”
question
the only thing that should be known is that i resigned nothing more nothing less
by Hannah Sullivan placing do not re-employ on my file she is being very disingenuous it implicates me and breaks the agreement
as the combination of my long service and the statement do not re-employ give ample room for prospective employers to make the wrong assumptions it a subtle but very dishonest move Hannah would be fully aware of the impact
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.
John is just the messenger boy all be it a very expensive one he acts on instruction from his client telecom represented by Hannah Sullivan Telecoms agent in this matter
John must be getting more than little pissed off with telecom as this is the third time i have caught them misbehaving
The other two times John was instructed to inform me that Telecom has instructed those subject will no longer be discussed because i had yet again caught them lying
So you decide these are the facts as i see them Has Hannah Sullivan lied or not
it amazes me they just lie from start to finish and keep getting away with it because no one will challenge them
they have withheld alot of information back im making efforts in the back ground to get it the i will prove two more people in thier discipling of me lied as well
they seem to think im out options shortly with a bit of luck on my side an when i can gain the access i require to some very specfic documents they are going tobe servely embarassed very foolish people
lets re examine my statement of problem a little more closely
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.”
here im hinting very very strongly that i think i know what is happening behind the scenes
(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.”
here they are saying quite strongly don’t go near this or we will jump all over you. I felt at the time they were protesting a little too much and that i had hit a nerve and they wanted to steer me away from going near it later discoveries proved me correct
“Telecom has fully complied with its confidentiality obligations”
question
the only thing that should be known is that i resigned nothing more nothing less
by Hannah Sullivan placing do not re-employ on my file she is being very disingenuous it implicates me and breaks the agreement
as the combination of my long service and the statement do not re-employ give ample room for prospective employers to make the wrong assumptions it a subtle but very dishonest move Hannah would be fully aware of the impact
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.
John is just the messenger boy all be it a very expensive one he acts on instruction from his client telecom represented by Hannah Sullivan Telecoms agent in this matter
John must be getting more than little pissed off with telecom as this is the third time i have caught them misbehaving
The other two times John was instructed to inform me that Telecom has instructed those subject will no longer be discussed because i had yet again caught them lying
So you decide these are the facts as i see them Has Hannah Sullivan lied or not
it amazes me they just lie from start to finish and keep getting away with it because no one will challenge them
they have withheld alot of information back im making efforts in the back ground to get it the i will prove two more people in thier discipling of me lied as well
they seem to think im out options shortly with a bit of luck on my side an when i can gain the access i require to some very specfic documents they are going tobe servely embarassed very foolish people
interesting isnt it
Interesting isn’t it
Hannah Sullivan is reading my emails . in this process I am alerting her and telecom and HR to some serious misdermeanors that are/have occurred on site I’m hunted down for every little mistake and the perpetrators of said misdemeanours get off scott free
Is that victimisation or am I just being pedantic
Hannah Sullivan is reading my emails . in this process I am alerting her and telecom and HR to some serious misdermeanors that are/have occurred on site I’m hunted down for every little mistake and the perpetrators of said misdemeanours get off scott free
Is that victimisation or am I just being pedantic
Friday, August 13, 2010
telecom really needs to be across the privacy act
telecom really needs to be across the privacy act i wonder how many laws/rules they have broken i will let you know later
in doing so they have by their arrogance and dishonesty brought telecom into disrepute and should be sacked
have a read of some of the act
PRIVACY ACT 1993 I
Principle I
Purpose of collection of personal information
Personal information shall not be collected by any agency unless —
(a) the information is collected for a lawful purpose connected with a function or activity of the agency; and
(b) the collection of the information is necessary for that purpose.
Principle 2
Source of personal information
(1) Where an agency collects personal information, the agency shall collect the information directly from the individual concerned.
(2) It is not necessary for an agency to comply with subclause (1) if the agency believes, on reasonable ground,-
(a) That the information is publicly available information; or
(b) That the individual concerned authorizes collection of the information from
Someone else; or
(c) That non-compliance would not prejudice the interests of the individual concerned; or
(d) That non-compliance is necessary -
(i) To avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law by any public sector agency, including the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution, and punishment of offences; or
(ii) For the enforcement of a law imposing a pecuniary penalty; or
(iii) For the protection of the public revenue; or
(iv) For the conduct of proceedings before any court or tribunal (being proceedings that have been commenced or are reasonably in contemplation); or
(e) That compliance would prejudice the purposes of the collection; or
(1) That compliance is not reasonably practicable in the circumstances of the particular case; or
(g) That the information -
(i) will not be used in a form in which the individual concerned is identified; or
(ii) will be used for statistical or research purposes and will not be published in a form that could reasonably be expected to identify the individual concerned; or
(h) that the collection of the information is in accordance with an authority granted under section 54. C 22243/A2241 59
4
Principle 3
Collection of information from su~çt
(1) Where an agency collects personal information directly from the individual concerned, the agency shall take such steps (if any) as are, in the circumstances, reasonable to ensure that the individual concerned is aware of -
(a) the fact that the information is being collected; and
(b) the purpose for which the information is being collected; and
(c) the intended recipients of the information; and
(d) the name and address of -
(I) the agency that is collecting the information; and
(ii) the agency that will hold the information; and
(e) if the collection of the information is authorised or required by or under law -(i) the particular law by or under which the collection of the information is so
authorised or required; and
(ii) whether or not the supply of the information by that individual is voluntary
or mandatory; and
(f) the consequences (if any) for that individual if all or any part of the requested
information is not provided; and
(g) the rights of access to, and correction of, personal information provided by these
principles.
(2) The steps referred to in subclause (1) of this principle shall be taken before the
information is collected or, if that is not practicable, as soon as practicable after the
information is collected.
(3) An agency is not required to take the steps referred to in subclause (1) in relation to
the collection of information from an individual if that agency has taken those steps in
relation to the collection from that individual, of the same information or information of
the same kind, on a recent previous occasion.
(4) It is not necessary for an agency to comply with subclause (1) if the agency believes,
on reasonable grounds -
(a) that non-compliance is authorised by the individual concerned; or
(b) that non-compliance would not prejudice the interests of the individual
concerned; or
(c) the non-compliance is necessary -
(I) to avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the Jaw by any public sector
agency, including the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution, and
punishment of offences; or
(ii) for the enforcement of a law imposing a pecuniary penalty; or
(iii) for the protection of the public revenue; or
(iv) for the conduct of proceedings before any court or tribunal (being
proceedings that have been Commenced or are reasonably in
contemplation); or
(d) that compliance would prejudice the purposes of the collection; or
(e) that compliance is not reasonably practicable in the circumstances of the
particular case; or
(f) that the information -
(i) will not be used in a form in which the individual concerned is identified; or
(ii) will be used for statistical or research purposes and will not be published in a form that could reasonably be expected to identify the individual Concerned
Principle 4
Manner of collection of personal information
Personal information shall not be collected by an agency -
(a) by unlawful means; or
(b) by means that, in the circumstances of the case -
(i) are unfair; or
(ii) intrude to an unreasonable extent upon the personal affairs of the individual concerned.
Principle 6
Access to personal information
(1) Where an agency holds personal information in such a way that it can readily be retrieved, the individual concerned shall be entitled —
(a) to obtain from the agency confirmation of whether or not the agency holds such personal information; and
(b) to have access to that information.
(2) Where, in accordance with subclause (1 )(b), an individual is given access to personal information, the individual shall be advised that, under principle 7, the individual may request the correction of that information.
(3) The application of this principle is subject to the provisions of Parts 4 and 5.
Section 66(1)(b) of the Privacy Act
Summary
This section states that an action is an interference with the privacy of an individual if the action breaches an information privacy principle and that action:
• Has caused loss, detriment, damage, or injury to that individual, or may do so; or
• Has adversely affected the rights, benefits, privileges, obligations, or interests of that individual, or may do so; or
• Has resulted in significant humiliation, significant loss of dignity or significant injury to the feelings of that individual, or may do so.
C/22243/A2241 59
in doing so they have by their arrogance and dishonesty brought telecom into disrepute and should be sacked
have a read of some of the act
PRIVACY ACT 1993 I
Principle I
Purpose of collection of personal information
Personal information shall not be collected by any agency unless —
(a) the information is collected for a lawful purpose connected with a function or activity of the agency; and
(b) the collection of the information is necessary for that purpose.
Principle 2
Source of personal information
(1) Where an agency collects personal information, the agency shall collect the information directly from the individual concerned.
(2) It is not necessary for an agency to comply with subclause (1) if the agency believes, on reasonable ground,-
(a) That the information is publicly available information; or
(b) That the individual concerned authorizes collection of the information from
Someone else; or
(c) That non-compliance would not prejudice the interests of the individual concerned; or
(d) That non-compliance is necessary -
(i) To avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law by any public sector agency, including the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution, and punishment of offences; or
(ii) For the enforcement of a law imposing a pecuniary penalty; or
(iii) For the protection of the public revenue; or
(iv) For the conduct of proceedings before any court or tribunal (being proceedings that have been commenced or are reasonably in contemplation); or
(e) That compliance would prejudice the purposes of the collection; or
(1) That compliance is not reasonably practicable in the circumstances of the particular case; or
(g) That the information -
(i) will not be used in a form in which the individual concerned is identified; or
(ii) will be used for statistical or research purposes and will not be published in a form that could reasonably be expected to identify the individual concerned; or
(h) that the collection of the information is in accordance with an authority granted under section 54. C 22243/A2241 59
4
Principle 3
Collection of information from su~çt
(1) Where an agency collects personal information directly from the individual concerned, the agency shall take such steps (if any) as are, in the circumstances, reasonable to ensure that the individual concerned is aware of -
(a) the fact that the information is being collected; and
(b) the purpose for which the information is being collected; and
(c) the intended recipients of the information; and
(d) the name and address of -
(I) the agency that is collecting the information; and
(ii) the agency that will hold the information; and
(e) if the collection of the information is authorised or required by or under law -(i) the particular law by or under which the collection of the information is so
authorised or required; and
(ii) whether or not the supply of the information by that individual is voluntary
or mandatory; and
(f) the consequences (if any) for that individual if all or any part of the requested
information is not provided; and
(g) the rights of access to, and correction of, personal information provided by these
principles.
(2) The steps referred to in subclause (1) of this principle shall be taken before the
information is collected or, if that is not practicable, as soon as practicable after the
information is collected.
(3) An agency is not required to take the steps referred to in subclause (1) in relation to
the collection of information from an individual if that agency has taken those steps in
relation to the collection from that individual, of the same information or information of
the same kind, on a recent previous occasion.
(4) It is not necessary for an agency to comply with subclause (1) if the agency believes,
on reasonable grounds -
(a) that non-compliance is authorised by the individual concerned; or
(b) that non-compliance would not prejudice the interests of the individual
concerned; or
(c) the non-compliance is necessary -
(I) to avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the Jaw by any public sector
agency, including the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution, and
punishment of offences; or
(ii) for the enforcement of a law imposing a pecuniary penalty; or
(iii) for the protection of the public revenue; or
(iv) for the conduct of proceedings before any court or tribunal (being
proceedings that have been Commenced or are reasonably in
contemplation); or
(d) that compliance would prejudice the purposes of the collection; or
(e) that compliance is not reasonably practicable in the circumstances of the
particular case; or
(f) that the information -
(i) will not be used in a form in which the individual concerned is identified; or
(ii) will be used for statistical or research purposes and will not be published in a form that could reasonably be expected to identify the individual Concerned
Principle 4
Manner of collection of personal information
Personal information shall not be collected by an agency -
(a) by unlawful means; or
(b) by means that, in the circumstances of the case -
(i) are unfair; or
(ii) intrude to an unreasonable extent upon the personal affairs of the individual concerned.
Principle 6
Access to personal information
(1) Where an agency holds personal information in such a way that it can readily be retrieved, the individual concerned shall be entitled —
(a) to obtain from the agency confirmation of whether or not the agency holds such personal information; and
(b) to have access to that information.
(2) Where, in accordance with subclause (1 )(b), an individual is given access to personal information, the individual shall be advised that, under principle 7, the individual may request the correction of that information.
(3) The application of this principle is subject to the provisions of Parts 4 and 5.
Section 66(1)(b) of the Privacy Act
Summary
This section states that an action is an interference with the privacy of an individual if the action breaches an information privacy principle and that action:
• Has caused loss, detriment, damage, or injury to that individual, or may do so; or
• Has adversely affected the rights, benefits, privileges, obligations, or interests of that individual, or may do so; or
• Has resulted in significant humiliation, significant loss of dignity or significant injury to the feelings of that individual, or may do so.
C/22243/A2241 59
letter to andrew little head of epmu
Andrew ,
My name is Paul Evans-McLeod
I have been in dispute with my employer telecom , employed for 39 years 3 months.
I was effectively constructively dismissed on Aug 20 2009
Under the privacy act I obtained all documents relevant to my employment
I found the attached document amongst some of the papers
It shows clearly that Telecom HR, Hannah Sullivan requested, Richard Lowe,to access my work e-mail and copy my communications with my EPMU advocate Peter Cooper-Davis to her.
Not a behavior that shows good faith does it. It maybe in breech of several laws, at the minimum my privacy has been breached.
It and any other of my communications would have been used to my detriment.
This action does not even comply with telecoms own privacy policy....with regard to the authority required etc.
It is an abuse of power.
Is it appropriate to have a question asked in the Parliament, could you please refer me to an appropriate person.
Perhaps you may wish address this.
Extremely happy if you want to go public with it .
I have left a hard copy at the local EPMU office on Peter Cooper-Davis desk
I would appreciate your views and assistance.
Thank you
warm regards
Paul Evans-McLeod
17 Minnie Place
Pukete
Te Rapa
Hamilton
New Zealand
My name is Paul Evans-McLeod
I have been in dispute with my employer telecom , employed for 39 years 3 months.
I was effectively constructively dismissed on Aug 20 2009
Under the privacy act I obtained all documents relevant to my employment
I found the attached document amongst some of the papers
It shows clearly that Telecom HR, Hannah Sullivan requested, Richard Lowe,to access my work e-mail and copy my communications with my EPMU advocate Peter Cooper-Davis to her.
Not a behavior that shows good faith does it. It maybe in breech of several laws, at the minimum my privacy has been breached.
It and any other of my communications would have been used to my detriment.
This action does not even comply with telecoms own privacy policy....with regard to the authority required etc.
It is an abuse of power.
Is it appropriate to have a question asked in the Parliament, could you please refer me to an appropriate person.
Perhaps you may wish address this.
Extremely happy if you want to go public with it .
I have left a hard copy at the local EPMU office on Peter Cooper-Davis desk
I would appreciate your views and assistance.
Thank you
warm regards
Paul Evans-McLeod
17 Minnie Place
Pukete
Te Rapa
Hamilton
New Zealand
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
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
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
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~
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~
Thursday, August 12, 2010
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
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)
__________________________
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)
__________________________
Monday, August 9, 2010
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)