File number 5315212: Paul. Evans-McLeod and Telecom New Zealand
We refer to your letter 28 January
Paragraph 4 consul for telecom Mr. John Rooney states that these matters have “previously been the subject matter of a personal grievance which the respondent successfully defended “
This is incorrect as matters relating to "improper process " "lack of good faith" " good process "deception" ‘’ fraud " "defamation" and breech of my human rights where not addressed under the personal grievance , as at that point in time ,the applicant was unaware of the depth of duplicity and dishonesty Telecom had sunk (sunken) to effect my exit via a constructive dismissal
Paragraph 5 the conclusion drawn is erroneous the applicant only wishes to advise the employment court of the relevant new facts now available, gained through the auspices of the privacy commission.(This information was held by Telecom at the time of the hearing but not presented by them.)
The applicant seeks a rehearing now all parties have the relevant facts at hand as the applicant feels the respondents failed in the “good faith tenant “by their failure to bring all RELEVANT INFORMATION to both at the applicants and the authorities notice
Para 7 the claim is not frivolous vexatious or an abuse of process, in fact as fully stated in previous submission the only abuse of process was that ably perpetrated by the respondents client
I do not openly boast that that I lack the means to meet any award against him. If fact I am ashamed and humbled that I for the first time in my life are unable to meet commitments accrued
I was actually restating the fact that the respondent himself alluded to. It is the unintended consequences of the respondent’s client’s actions .The applicant reiterates that the proceedings should be re-opened in light of the new information available
My previous submission was dismissed with the decision being "statue based"
This is the same approach being taken here. There is reference to following the correct process, and addressing the matter via the employment court.
A view could be taken, that should the employment matter that gave rise to this dispute , be based on possible criminal acts of fraud and deception, that those matters should first be addressed in a criminal court, as that judgment, would determine any following course of action.
There is an irony in all this, there was a failure of process and procedure in their dealings with me, their defence is to claim lack of correct process by myself.
As stated in my submission,
"The approach appears to be, micro management, designed to stress the individual to the extreme, wait until the individual is exhausted mentally and physically offer mediation and then close all proceedings and legal liabilities with a mediation settlement."
At least in that I was accurate..It is also a timely warning for anyone involved in any disciplinary proceedings with Telecom. As this has been their consistent successful approach in the past
Questions arise, unbidden in my perusal of this.
Has any one asked for the complaint letter?
If it is unable to be produced...
What is the response that displays integrity?
What is the response that will address the cost implications of being embroiled in vexatious litigation, that they are seriously concerned about...?
The solution (combined with the cost implications) remains entirely in their hands the options are continue to defend the indefensible or produce the letter
Yours faithfully
Paul Evans-McLeod
Monday, January 31, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
wrong post on wrong blog no i dont think so
Hi paul,
How many times have you been trapped by a more experienced or tricky player? We all fall into these traps from time to time... but why? How can we detect a trap and avoid it?
First, what is a trap? A trap play is where an opponent with a strong hand represents weakness, luring their opponent into overplaying their hand. For example, I hit a nut flush (Ace-high flush) on the flop. I have the best hand at the table now, unless the board pairs (such that someone could pull a boat or four of a kind - not likely).
So, instead of betting it big, I might throw out a smaller bet or even check it (slowplay). Another player holding big slick (A-K) pairs up with an Ace on the flop, thinking he's got the best hand so far. Another player has a small pair (e.g., 4's) and picks up a set on the flop (assuming flop was something like 4-A-J).
Now, had I bet really big or raised back too early, the player holding the Ace would realize he's trouble and the
small pair would've likely folded pre-flop. Since
I just checked it down, no reason to be afraid of me, since I'm obviously on some kind of a draw...
The person with the three of a kind (the 4's) tosses out a bet of 4 times the blind. The guy with Aces calls it. After delaying slightly, I go ahead and also call it (why not, I'm getting decent enough pot odds).
So, I'm trapping them both at this point, letting them bet into me and just calling their bets. The same thing happens again on the turn, except the player with Aces drops out.
Now it's just me and the set of 4's. They bet big again, this time the size of the pot. Again, after a slight pause, I just call them "reluctantly". Then comes the river, and they go all-in.
I immediately call them...oops! They're sunk! What happened here?
These players never asked themselves two simple questions:
1) Why is he calling that raised pot (on the flop and turn)?
2) What hands might he be holding? What could he be up to by calling my bets like that? Trapping? On a draw?
There's a potential flush showing on the flop, and since I'm kind of "lurking" in this hand, it's very suspicious behavior, and unlikely I'm on a draw with those kind of bets to call.
Unless you're playing against a beginner or a drunk, there's no reason to believe someone will likely call a raise that's 4 times the big blind on a draw. That's the first mistake - assuming another player has no hand and not realizing why they're behaving as they are.
Second, the board is showing a possible flush - and both of these players aren't holding it! Just because I didn't bet on the flop does not mean I don't have it!
Had either of these players slowed down and considered my betting (calling) behavior, and asked themselves these questions, they'd probably have realized what was going on.
Was there any other explanation?
Traps aren't easy to detect. When a good player calls a big bet, there's a better than average chance they are trapping!
Good players don't usually call bets - they usually raise/re-raise with strength or fold. They don't often waste their money on draws, so if they're lurking there with you it isn't out of curiosity...
Nevertheless, if you aren't spending twice as much time thinking about what your opponent's hand might be, based upon their betting (calling) pattern and position, you should be.
Your own hand strength is quick and easily determined. Spend more time on the opponents, learning to read their normal betting patterns, then when they do something that doesn't match that pattern, slow down and ask yourself why.
I hope this helps you become a better trapper (and avoid falling in yourself :)
wrong post on wrong blog no i dont think so
Current Telecom participants
Bridgette Dalzell :current head of outsourced customer care at telecom New Zealand whom is Michelle Young's direct report at time of incident
Michelle Young :call centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
How many times have you been trapped by a more experienced or tricky player? We all fall into these traps from time to time... but why? How can we detect a trap and avoid it?
First, what is a trap? A trap play is where an opponent with a strong hand represents weakness, luring their opponent into overplaying their hand. For example, I hit a nut flush (Ace-high flush) on the flop. I have the best hand at the table now, unless the board pairs (such that someone could pull a boat or four of a kind - not likely).
So, instead of betting it big, I might throw out a smaller bet or even check it (slowplay). Another player holding big slick (A-K) pairs up with an Ace on the flop, thinking he's got the best hand so far. Another player has a small pair (e.g., 4's) and picks up a set on the flop (assuming flop was something like 4-A-J).
Now, had I bet really big or raised back too early, the player holding the Ace would realize he's trouble and the
small pair would've likely folded pre-flop. Since
I just checked it down, no reason to be afraid of me, since I'm obviously on some kind of a draw...
The person with the three of a kind (the 4's) tosses out a bet of 4 times the blind. The guy with Aces calls it. After delaying slightly, I go ahead and also call it (why not, I'm getting decent enough pot odds).
So, I'm trapping them both at this point, letting them bet into me and just calling their bets. The same thing happens again on the turn, except the player with Aces drops out.
Now it's just me and the set of 4's. They bet big again, this time the size of the pot. Again, after a slight pause, I just call them "reluctantly". Then comes the river, and they go all-in.
I immediately call them...oops! They're sunk! What happened here?
These players never asked themselves two simple questions:
1) Why is he calling that raised pot (on the flop and turn)?
2) What hands might he be holding? What could he be up to by calling my bets like that? Trapping? On a draw?
There's a potential flush showing on the flop, and since I'm kind of "lurking" in this hand, it's very suspicious behavior, and unlikely I'm on a draw with those kind of bets to call.
Unless you're playing against a beginner or a drunk, there's no reason to believe someone will likely call a raise that's 4 times the big blind on a draw. That's the first mistake - assuming another player has no hand and not realizing why they're behaving as they are.
Second, the board is showing a possible flush - and both of these players aren't holding it! Just because I didn't bet on the flop does not mean I don't have it!
Had either of these players slowed down and considered my betting (calling) behavior, and asked themselves these questions, they'd probably have realized what was going on.
Was there any other explanation?
Traps aren't easy to detect. When a good player calls a big bet, there's a better than average chance they are trapping!
Good players don't usually call bets - they usually raise/re-raise with strength or fold. They don't often waste their money on draws, so if they're lurking there with you it isn't out of curiosity...
Nevertheless, if you aren't spending twice as much time thinking about what your opponent's hand might be, based upon their betting (calling) pattern and position, you should be.
Your own hand strength is quick and easily determined. Spend more time on the opponents, learning to read their normal betting patterns, then when they do something that doesn't match that pattern, slow down and ask yourself why.
I hope this helps you become a better trapper (and avoid falling in yourself :)
wrong post on wrong blog no i dont think so
Current Telecom participants
Bridgette Dalzell :current head of outsourced customer care at telecom New Zealand whom is Michelle Young's direct report at time of incident
Michelle Young :call centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
Friday, January 28, 2011
recieved reply from telecoms lawyer regarding my re-opening of my submission
28 January 2011 Partner Reference
John Rooney - Auckland
Employment Relations Authority Direct DIal’ +64-9-977 5070
P0 Box 105 117 Fax +64-9-977 5083
AUCKLAND 1010
For. Boon Lee
File Number 5315212: Paul Evans-McLeod and Telecom New Zealand Umited
1. We refer to your letter of 12 January 2011 and the documents enclosed with your letter.
2. We note in Mr. Evans-McLeod’s email to the Authority of 9 January 2011 he states “I know wish for file number 5315212 to be reopened and I ask for a ruling on all concerns. I believe I now have relevant documents in hand to surmount the ERA concerns with regard to surmounting the jurisdictional barrier mentioned~ The email refers to “relevant documents” which we take to be the ERA submission and accompanying documents.
3. In the ERA submission, Mr. Evans-McLeod alleges that the respondent acted illegally in relation to its management of him. He requests that the statement of problem under reference 5315212 be reopened, alleging that “This illegal act negates the effect of both the mediation and any matters relevant to jurisdiction as its premeditated occurrence prejudice and predetermined the outcome of the mediation process”.
4. Mr. Evans-McLeod goes on to submit at page four of his submissions that because of Telecom’s actions “it also allows me now to ask the ERA to pursue the original personal grievance for unjustifiable dismissal”. The whole focus of the submissions and attached documents is on matters leading up to the cessation of Mr Evans-McLeod’ employment with Telecom. Those matters have previously been the subject matter of a personal grievance which the respondent successfully defended.
some of the matters where addressed but not the illegal acts mentioned in my latest submission
5. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the submissions is that Mr. Evans-McLeod is effectively seeking to challenge the Determination of the Authority on Preliminary Matters dated 26 April 2010, If Mr. Evans-McLeod is dissatisfied with that determination, section 179 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 sets out the process for challenging a determination which requires an election to have the matter heard by the Employment Court. oooooh does that mean we can get ALL RELEVANT PARTICPANTS, ON STAND, IN COURT, UNDER OATH HOW WIDE CAN THIS NET BE CAST BY MYSELF AND MORE IMPORTANTLY THE AUTHORITY
6. Further, the applicant’s submissions do not have any bearing on the claim in these proceedings that the applicant was deliberately blacklisted by the respondent. The respondent therefore does not consider there to be any justification for the Authority to reopen the proceeding. The submissions do not address the matters raised in the statement in reply and referred to in the Authority’s email to the applicant of 13 September 2010. It would appear that the applicant has chosen to ignore the Authority’s advice that “Perhaps he may wish to seek professional advice about the merits of his application (and possible costs implications) before proceeding further within the Authority.”
7. The respondent remains of the view that the applicants claim under file number
5315212 is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. It is seriously concerned about the costs implications of being embroiled in vexatious litigation, particularly when the applicant openly boasts that he does not have the means to meet an award of costs against him.
wtf piss off all i am doing is agreeing with his own comments im not boasting just stating fact
8. The respondent reiterates its position that the Authority does not have jurisdiction to grant the remedies sought by the applicant in his statement of claim, file number 5315212. Accordingly, the proceedings should go no further.
Yours faithfully
SIMPSON GRIERSON
John Rooney Partner
My previous submission was dismissed with the decision being "statue based"
This is the same approach being taken here.
There is reference to following the correct process, and addressing the matter via the employment court.
A view could be taken, that should the employment matter that gave rise to this dispute , be based on possible criminal acts of fraud and deception, that those matters should first be addressed in a criminal court, as that judgment, would determine any following course of action.
There is an irony in all this, there was a failure of process and procedure in their dealings with myself, their defense is to claim lack of correct process by myself.
As stated in my submission,
"The approach appears to be, micro management, designed to stress the individual to the extreme, wait until the individual is exhausted mentally and physically offer mediation and then close all proceedings and legal liabilities with a mediation settlement."
At least in that I was accurate..it is also a timely warning for any of you involved in any disciplinary proceeding with Telecom.
Two questions arise, unbidden in my perusal of this.
Has the lawyer asked for the complaint letter?
Has Wayne Peat asked for the complaint letter?
if it is unable to be produced ...
What is the response that displays integrity?
What is the response that will address the cost implications of being embroiled in vexatious litigation, that they are seriously concerned about...
with reference to the quote below, the task remains arduous, the endeavors yet to achieve the desired result..I am without a job, (not through lack of trying )finances and personal circumstances diminished, I still have resolve, support and growing interest in this battle.
Regard your good name as the richest jewel you can possibly be possessed of - for credit is like fire; when once you have kindled it you may easily preserve it, but if you once extinguish it, you will find it an arduous task to rekindle it again. The way to gain a good reputation is to endeavor to be what you desire to appear.
Socrates
Greek philosopher in Athens (469 BC - 399 BC)
ohh have posted same to wayne peat head of hr it good that me and him are on the same page about being open and honest in our dealings with our people
Current Telecom participants
Bridgette Dalzell :current head of outsourced customer care at telecom New Zealand whom is Michelle Young's direct report at time of incident
Michelle Young :call centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
John Rooney - Auckland
Employment Relations Authority Direct DIal’ +64-9-977 5070
P0 Box 105 117 Fax +64-9-977 5083
AUCKLAND 1010
For. Boon Lee
File Number 5315212: Paul Evans-McLeod and Telecom New Zealand Umited
1. We refer to your letter of 12 January 2011 and the documents enclosed with your letter.
2. We note in Mr. Evans-McLeod’s email to the Authority of 9 January 2011 he states “I know wish for file number 5315212 to be reopened and I ask for a ruling on all concerns. I believe I now have relevant documents in hand to surmount the ERA concerns with regard to surmounting the jurisdictional barrier mentioned~ The email refers to “relevant documents” which we take to be the ERA submission and accompanying documents.
3. In the ERA submission, Mr. Evans-McLeod alleges that the respondent acted illegally in relation to its management of him. He requests that the statement of problem under reference 5315212 be reopened, alleging that “This illegal act negates the effect of both the mediation and any matters relevant to jurisdiction as its premeditated occurrence prejudice and predetermined the outcome of the mediation process”.
4. Mr. Evans-McLeod goes on to submit at page four of his submissions that because of Telecom’s actions “it also allows me now to ask the ERA to pursue the original personal grievance for unjustifiable dismissal”. The whole focus of the submissions and attached documents is on matters leading up to the cessation of Mr Evans-McLeod’ employment with Telecom. Those matters have previously been the subject matter of a personal grievance which the respondent successfully defended.
some of the matters where addressed but not the illegal acts mentioned in my latest submission
5. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the submissions is that Mr. Evans-McLeod is effectively seeking to challenge the Determination of the Authority on Preliminary Matters dated 26 April 2010, If Mr. Evans-McLeod is dissatisfied with that determination, section 179 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 sets out the process for challenging a determination which requires an election to have the matter heard by the Employment Court. oooooh does that mean we can get ALL RELEVANT PARTICPANTS, ON STAND, IN COURT, UNDER OATH HOW WIDE CAN THIS NET BE CAST BY MYSELF AND MORE IMPORTANTLY THE AUTHORITY
6. Further, the applicant’s submissions do not have any bearing on the claim in these proceedings that the applicant was deliberately blacklisted by the respondent. The respondent therefore does not consider there to be any justification for the Authority to reopen the proceeding. The submissions do not address the matters raised in the statement in reply and referred to in the Authority’s email to the applicant of 13 September 2010. It would appear that the applicant has chosen to ignore the Authority’s advice that “Perhaps he may wish to seek professional advice about the merits of his application (and possible costs implications) before proceeding further within the Authority.”
7. The respondent remains of the view that the applicants claim under file number
5315212 is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. It is seriously concerned about the costs implications of being embroiled in vexatious litigation, particularly when the applicant openly boasts that he does not have the means to meet an award of costs against him.
wtf piss off all i am doing is agreeing with his own comments im not boasting just stating fact
8. The respondent reiterates its position that the Authority does not have jurisdiction to grant the remedies sought by the applicant in his statement of claim, file number 5315212. Accordingly, the proceedings should go no further.
Yours faithfully
SIMPSON GRIERSON
John Rooney Partner
My previous submission was dismissed with the decision being "statue based"
This is the same approach being taken here.
There is reference to following the correct process, and addressing the matter via the employment court.
A view could be taken, that should the employment matter that gave rise to this dispute , be based on possible criminal acts of fraud and deception, that those matters should first be addressed in a criminal court, as that judgment, would determine any following course of action.
There is an irony in all this, there was a failure of process and procedure in their dealings with myself, their defense is to claim lack of correct process by myself.
As stated in my submission,
"The approach appears to be, micro management, designed to stress the individual to the extreme, wait until the individual is exhausted mentally and physically offer mediation and then close all proceedings and legal liabilities with a mediation settlement."
At least in that I was accurate..it is also a timely warning for any of you involved in any disciplinary proceeding with Telecom.
Two questions arise, unbidden in my perusal of this.
Has the lawyer asked for the complaint letter?
Has Wayne Peat asked for the complaint letter?
if it is unable to be produced ...
What is the response that displays integrity?
What is the response that will address the cost implications of being embroiled in vexatious litigation, that they are seriously concerned about...
with reference to the quote below, the task remains arduous, the endeavors yet to achieve the desired result..I am without a job, (not through lack of trying )finances and personal circumstances diminished, I still have resolve, support and growing interest in this battle.
Regard your good name as the richest jewel you can possibly be possessed of - for credit is like fire; when once you have kindled it you may easily preserve it, but if you once extinguish it, you will find it an arduous task to rekindle it again. The way to gain a good reputation is to endeavor to be what you desire to appear.
Socrates
Greek philosopher in Athens (469 BC - 399 BC)
ohh have posted same to wayne peat head of hr it good that me and him are on the same page about being open and honest in our dealings with our people
Current Telecom participants
Bridgette Dalzell :current head of outsourced customer care at telecom New Zealand whom is Michelle Young's direct report at time of incident
Michelle Young :call centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
Monday, January 24, 2011
lawyers are back and so is the era
yippee the lawyers are back and so is the era so thing should start moving along at a good clip from now on
mean will comments are still being pasted to me in many and various forms
such as
its about time these corperate shenaiginns where exposed well im doing my best against a foe with alot of power
are you the same paul evans-mcleod that writes letters to the paper yes afraid so
perhaps we all should request our files via the privacy commission over to you you are legally entitled to
are you not afraid of what telecom will do no they have done everything they have stripped me bare my house has been sold to my brother my contents to a friend proceeds are gone whats left will be held in trust for my kids
why are you doing this well someone has to i was unjustly dismissed by people that had the power to do so but lacked the integrity to do it honestly i was brought up with a different code of behaviour and no matter what it costs i am honour bound to uphold it to not do so would dishonour my family and the manner of my up bringing its in my dna its that simple
mean will comments are still being pasted to me in many and various forms
such as
its about time these corperate shenaiginns where exposed well im doing my best against a foe with alot of power
are you the same paul evans-mcleod that writes letters to the paper yes afraid so
perhaps we all should request our files via the privacy commission over to you you are legally entitled to
are you not afraid of what telecom will do no they have done everything they have stripped me bare my house has been sold to my brother my contents to a friend proceeds are gone whats left will be held in trust for my kids
why are you doing this well someone has to i was unjustly dismissed by people that had the power to do so but lacked the integrity to do it honestly i was brought up with a different code of behaviour and no matter what it costs i am honour bound to uphold it to not do so would dishonour my family and the manner of my up bringing its in my dna its that simple
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
more comments
more comments and my response in red
do you think you will wins this paul fucken going to give it my best shot these pricks do it to everybody someone has to fight back
who checks the checkers no fucken idea its a mad house but who ever checked and veted the 2500 pages or documents fucked up big time
are the correct process,es in telecom just lips service
no mate i believe in them wayne peat is on my side he had a leaders conference where the topic was being open and honest with our people once the lawyer or someone alerts him it didnt get to the front line to this he will move quickly to resolved all
do the really think they are going to get away with all this paul no not if i can help it i this blog the strong consideration and interest has been shown in making a book about it
paul you have a battle on your hands yep its a biggie a bit david and goilith but i have a lot of stones in my sling shot a sharp mind and strong resolve i didnt do 39 years 3 months to put with shit like this they are a bunch of wankers i told them it was a jack up and an ambush they denied it they just think im a dumb old barstard that should have been sent to the knackers yard the idiots havent realised whats instore for them
what the hell has this bull shit done to the evans-mcleod good name have you acted dishonsetly paul you better not have. if not definitely take action nail the barstards
no havent done anything dishonest what the fuck do you think im doing with this blog so get off my case they started this crap they fucken brought the fight to me and doing my best all right tell the rest to back off allright
are you not afraid of what telecom will do fuck off they done it all read the blog even thier lawyer has indicated i have no money to cover costs if any are held against me
this is just the start once we see what the era can resolved we will resolve outstanding issues in the other relevant courts
Current Telecom participants
Bridgette Dalzell :current head of outsourced customer care at telecom New Zealand whom is Michelle Young's direct report at time of incident
Michelle Young :call centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
do you think you will wins this paul fucken going to give it my best shot these pricks do it to everybody someone has to fight back
who checks the checkers no fucken idea its a mad house but who ever checked and veted the 2500 pages or documents fucked up big time
are the correct process,es in telecom just lips service
no mate i believe in them wayne peat is on my side he had a leaders conference where the topic was being open and honest with our people once the lawyer or someone alerts him it didnt get to the front line to this he will move quickly to resolved all
do the really think they are going to get away with all this paul no not if i can help it i this blog the strong consideration and interest has been shown in making a book about it
paul you have a battle on your hands yep its a biggie a bit david and goilith but i have a lot of stones in my sling shot a sharp mind and strong resolve i didnt do 39 years 3 months to put with shit like this they are a bunch of wankers i told them it was a jack up and an ambush they denied it they just think im a dumb old barstard that should have been sent to the knackers yard the idiots havent realised whats instore for them
what the hell has this bull shit done to the evans-mcleod good name have you acted dishonsetly paul you better not have. if not definitely take action nail the barstards
no havent done anything dishonest what the fuck do you think im doing with this blog so get off my case they started this crap they fucken brought the fight to me and doing my best all right tell the rest to back off allright
are you not afraid of what telecom will do fuck off they done it all read the blog even thier lawyer has indicated i have no money to cover costs if any are held against me
this is just the start once we see what the era can resolved we will resolve outstanding issues in the other relevant courts
Current Telecom participants
Bridgette Dalzell :current head of outsourced customer care at telecom New Zealand whom is Michelle Young's direct report at time of incident
Michelle Young :call centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
Saturday, January 15, 2011
comments
more comments made in regard to my blog my replies in read
these people live and work among us afraid so and most are in management
is thier code of ethics just for show it would appear so
you start with a lie it builds to this do all corperates manage in this style
well some in telecom do as dicussed in blog they been getting away with it for years because it was to expensive to challenge them
there is an oppurtunity here for the right thing to done and to be seen to be done
you think
do you think you will win this paul
dunno but i dont quit /wont quit untill my good name is restored
these people live and work among us afraid so and most are in management
is thier code of ethics just for show it would appear so
you start with a lie it builds to this do all corperates manage in this style
well some in telecom do as dicussed in blog they been getting away with it for years because it was to expensive to challenge them
there is an oppurtunity here for the right thing to done and to be seen to be done
you think
do you think you will win this paul
dunno but i dont quit /wont quit untill my good name is restored
employement relations have served documents
Employment Relations Authority
File Number: 5315212
Te Ratonga Ahumana Taimahi
12 January 2011
Paul Evans-McLeod
17 Minnie Place
Pukete, Te Rapa
Hamilton
Dear Sir
Paul Evans-McLeod and Telecom New Zealand Ltd
(Employment Relationship Problem)
This is to confirm receipt of the further documents filed by you on 9 January 2011 including email with attachments 31”-33 filed on 10 January 2011.
A copy of the documents has been served to the Respondent’s agent and the Authority member, Ken Anderson.
The Authority will contact you in due course once the matter is ready for investigation.
Yours sincerely
Boon lee
Support Officer
Current Telecom participants
Bridgette Dalzell :current head of outsourced customer care at telecom New Zealand whom is Michelle Young's direct report at time of incident
Michelle Young :call centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
File Number: 5315212
Te Ratonga Ahumana Taimahi
12 January 2011
Paul Evans-McLeod
17 Minnie Place
Pukete, Te Rapa
Hamilton
Dear Sir
Paul Evans-McLeod and Telecom New Zealand Ltd
(Employment Relationship Problem)
This is to confirm receipt of the further documents filed by you on 9 January 2011 including email with attachments 31”-33 filed on 10 January 2011.
A copy of the documents has been served to the Respondent’s agent and the Authority member, Ken Anderson.
The Authority will contact you in due course once the matter is ready for investigation.
Yours sincerely
Boon lee
Support Officer
Current Telecom participants
Bridgette Dalzell :current head of outsourced customer care at telecom New Zealand whom is Michelle Young's direct report at time of incident
Michelle Young :call centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
add more to submission
Please add to submission ref 5315212
To the ERA
At various points in my submission I have raised for your attention that I felt my forced resignation was prejudiced and the out come predetermined
Highlighted that they failed in process duty of care and complete disregard of their ethical and statutory requirements
“And lack of compliance with process by failing in incremental steps to fully complete meeting notes etc”
“As indicated previously I refused to sign documents with regard to meeting notes as I noted failures by the note takers to fully and completely document what had transpired “
“The failures became more blatant as the process progressed, as all where aware that the conclusion was going to be the mediation and in their mind that would be the end of it so they got lazy very lazy “
“It is also blatantly obvious that any request I made was ignored”
“Another failure under the employment act with regards to acting with an open mind”
“Another reason to gain all transcripts of all meetings I struggle to recall even one request I made being honoured. “
“Yet another indication of the premeditated nature of the process they where putting me thru “
“I realised immediately raising these concerns in the current forum they would fall on deaf ears so resolved to have it raised at a more appropriate venue”.
I bring to your attention attachment 34 which shows clearly what I was up against
Michelle Young
From: Paul Evans-Mcleod
Sent: Friday, 24 July 2009 17:48
To: Michelle Young
Subject: RE: P Evans-McLeod Interview 140709.docx
Michelle I will not be signing off on the notes of the meeting as they are completely one sided and suitably abbreviated to reflect the companies view
They are most certainly not a full and accurate view
The reason there is no agreed note is that Iain failed to include it
Perhaps you peter and Iain should compare notes to give a greater understanding of what occurred warm regards Paul
So I politely advised her of why I was not signing off the meeting notes and the reason why
Iain Galloway for HR I believe, was the note taker he was failing miserably in his role.
The agreement note was not even included, by Iain Galloway.
His notes were incomplete
This failure caused me injury.
Is it another case of fraud deception defamation?
Is it a failure of process, lying by admission?
Duty of care
Certainly the framing of the notes put me in a position of” unfair disadvantage”
I noticed it and brought it to Michelle’s attention
What is very telling is her response to these concerns around process
To my knowledge I never got one
This shows her complete disregard for my concerns
There was no acknowledgement of the failure of process
There is was no addressing of the issue.
Another instance of “willful blindness”?
All concerns were completely and utterly ignored.
This substantiates part of my claims and assertions.
Both her and Iain show consistent failure to meet the defined performance standards required of the roles as set down in both their own code of ethics and employment law /it is a complete failure to meet the agreed expectations and actions of them when they took their roles
I will be asking the ERA to seek an explanation of these events
I am unsure as to whether a crime has been committed or not
All they want to do is “progress these matters’ to the predetermined outcome all had in store for me the date is the 24 th of july 2009 I was constructively dismissed on the 20 august 2009
Are you surprised?
I consider this matter to be very serious this behavior has the potential to bring the company into disrepute certainly a completed audit of their disciplinary process to ensure no illegality has occurred
Unfortunately it will reflect badly on both their image and their ability to meet business objectives
Indeed it will be seriously impact the company especially if telecom is found to be wanting in processes that require openness and honesty
It will bring into doubt the necessary relationship of trust and confidence between telecom and the public they conduct business with
Thru out the entire disciplinary action I found that the performance of Michelle, Iain and Shaun completely inconsistent and often damaging to myself by their willful neglect in adhering to correct process really they need to lift their own game
Failure in myself not meeting business requirements could possibly impact the company their failure to meet their statutory legal requirements of acting in “good faith” showing “good process” adhering to the “employment law” the “crimes act” the “privacy act” is a crime
And they need to be held accountable
Current Telecom participants
Bridgette Dalzell :current head of outsourced customer care at telecom New Zealand whom is Michelle Young's direct report at time of incident
Michelle Young :call centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
To the ERA
At various points in my submission I have raised for your attention that I felt my forced resignation was prejudiced and the out come predetermined
Highlighted that they failed in process duty of care and complete disregard of their ethical and statutory requirements
“And lack of compliance with process by failing in incremental steps to fully complete meeting notes etc”
“As indicated previously I refused to sign documents with regard to meeting notes as I noted failures by the note takers to fully and completely document what had transpired “
“The failures became more blatant as the process progressed, as all where aware that the conclusion was going to be the mediation and in their mind that would be the end of it so they got lazy very lazy “
“It is also blatantly obvious that any request I made was ignored”
“Another failure under the employment act with regards to acting with an open mind”
“Another reason to gain all transcripts of all meetings I struggle to recall even one request I made being honoured. “
“Yet another indication of the premeditated nature of the process they where putting me thru “
“I realised immediately raising these concerns in the current forum they would fall on deaf ears so resolved to have it raised at a more appropriate venue”.
I bring to your attention attachment 34 which shows clearly what I was up against
Michelle Young
From: Paul Evans-Mcleod
Sent: Friday, 24 July 2009 17:48
To: Michelle Young
Subject: RE: P Evans-McLeod Interview 140709.docx
Michelle I will not be signing off on the notes of the meeting as they are completely one sided and suitably abbreviated to reflect the companies view
They are most certainly not a full and accurate view
The reason there is no agreed note is that Iain failed to include it
Perhaps you peter and Iain should compare notes to give a greater understanding of what occurred warm regards Paul
So I politely advised her of why I was not signing off the meeting notes and the reason why
Iain Galloway for HR I believe, was the note taker he was failing miserably in his role.
The agreement note was not even included, by Iain Galloway.
His notes were incomplete
This failure caused me injury.
Is it another case of fraud deception defamation?
Is it a failure of process, lying by admission?
Duty of care
Certainly the framing of the notes put me in a position of” unfair disadvantage”
I noticed it and brought it to Michelle’s attention
What is very telling is her response to these concerns around process
To my knowledge I never got one
This shows her complete disregard for my concerns
There was no acknowledgement of the failure of process
There is was no addressing of the issue.
Another instance of “willful blindness”?
All concerns were completely and utterly ignored.
This substantiates part of my claims and assertions.
Both her and Iain show consistent failure to meet the defined performance standards required of the roles as set down in both their own code of ethics and employment law /it is a complete failure to meet the agreed expectations and actions of them when they took their roles
I will be asking the ERA to seek an explanation of these events
I am unsure as to whether a crime has been committed or not
All they want to do is “progress these matters’ to the predetermined outcome all had in store for me the date is the 24 th of july 2009 I was constructively dismissed on the 20 august 2009
Are you surprised?
I consider this matter to be very serious this behavior has the potential to bring the company into disrepute certainly a completed audit of their disciplinary process to ensure no illegality has occurred
Unfortunately it will reflect badly on both their image and their ability to meet business objectives
Indeed it will be seriously impact the company especially if telecom is found to be wanting in processes that require openness and honesty
It will bring into doubt the necessary relationship of trust and confidence between telecom and the public they conduct business with
Thru out the entire disciplinary action I found that the performance of Michelle, Iain and Shaun completely inconsistent and often damaging to myself by their willful neglect in adhering to correct process really they need to lift their own game
Failure in myself not meeting business requirements could possibly impact the company their failure to meet their statutory legal requirements of acting in “good faith” showing “good process” adhering to the “employment law” the “crimes act” the “privacy act” is a crime
And they need to be held accountable
Current Telecom participants
Bridgette Dalzell :current head of outsourced customer care at telecom New Zealand whom is Michelle Young's direct report at time of incident
Michelle Young :call centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
Thursday, January 13, 2011
my blog
Pageviews by Countries 130111
New Zealand 4,037
United States 673
Netherlands 158
United Kingdom 128
New Zealand 4,037
United States 673
Netherlands 158
United Kingdom 128
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
comments and things
well no big noises from telecom about my submission yet however many comments of support
contact has been made with two reporters one form dominion one from the local rag has gone a wee bit viral recieved support from ex- employee in hong kong telecom give that person a very nasty time
very surprised who poping up
comments made so there some amazed poeple out there my replies in red
what the hell is going on
its called micro-managing done by vindictive nasty women
where do these people get thier arrogance from
comes easliy when you power dress and your head is stuck up your arse
heres a good one
process and policy doesnt abidcate morality and ethics do these poeple not realize tat
they will take the Nuremberg defence my boss made me do it
i wonder where the buck is going to stop on this
ceo? or head of hr, national manager, site manager , team manager who know
some may well be charge with a crime who knows it for era to decide
contact has been made with two reporters one form dominion one from the local rag has gone a wee bit viral recieved support from ex- employee in hong kong telecom give that person a very nasty time
very surprised who poping up
comments made so there some amazed poeple out there my replies in red
what the hell is going on
its called micro-managing done by vindictive nasty women
where do these people get thier arrogance from
comes easliy when you power dress and your head is stuck up your arse
heres a good one
process and policy doesnt abidcate morality and ethics do these poeple not realize tat
they will take the Nuremberg defence my boss made me do it
i wonder where the buck is going to stop on this
ceo? or head of hr, national manager, site manager , team manager who know
some may well be charge with a crime who knows it for era to decide
sent an email off to wayne peat head of HR
its been recieved
Just a small question Wayne
Did you really mean what you said at your speech on Puketutu Island
I hope so then all my problems are over
why because he needs to know
What really makes all this dumb foundingly unbelievable is that Wayne Peat Telecoms Head of HR held a group leaders day on Puketutu Island .
The theme was something to do with CARE ALOT
It centred on responsibility for our people and acting with openness and integrity
So I’m asking the ERA to approach Wayne Peat and asked where accountability for this entire nonsense stops.
With him or the CEO
Because his/ the message obviously failed to impact on front line management
Current Telecom participants
Bridgette Dalzell :current head of outsourced customer care at telecom New Zealand whom is Michelle Young's direct report at time of incident
Michelle Young :call centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
Just a small question Wayne
Did you really mean what you said at your speech on Puketutu Island
I hope so then all my problems are over
why because he needs to know
What really makes all this dumb foundingly unbelievable is that Wayne Peat Telecoms Head of HR held a group leaders day on Puketutu Island .
The theme was something to do with CARE ALOT
It centred on responsibility for our people and acting with openness and integrity
So I’m asking the ERA to approach Wayne Peat and asked where accountability for this entire nonsense stops.
With him or the CEO
Because his/ the message obviously failed to impact on front line management
Current Telecom participants
Bridgette Dalzell :current head of outsourced customer care at telecom New Zealand whom is Michelle Young's direct report at time of incident
Michelle Young :call centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
Sunday, January 9, 2011
In defense of my good name against impossible odds
Mary
I thank the era for its patience
I now wish for file number 5315212 to be reopened and I ask for a ruling on all concerns
I believe I now have relevant documents in hand to surmount the ERA concerns with regard to surmounting the jurisdictional barrier mentioned
I thank authority member Ken Anderson for his wise counsel
Please forward all relevant documents to the relevant parties
You should receive a document of 28 pages( era final copy 1.13 )
plus some 33 attachments
I will send the attachments in blocks of 5 so as not to overload your system plus take note of two anomalies there is an additional attachment with no 17 called 17a also there is no actual attachment 24 as I am unable to scan it but will have a copy on hand at meeting
Please can your ensure that each pdf opens if you have any issues please do not hesitate to call me
Warm, regards
Paul
Paul Evans-McLeod
17 Minnie Place
Pukete
Te Rapa
Hamilton
New Zealand
Phone 0064 7 8494584
Fax 0064 7 9894684
Mobile 0064 272423017
Paul.evans-mcleod@xtra.co.nz
COPY OF SUBMISSION SENT TO ERA
ERA submission
It has come to light via personal knowledge that telecom has acted illegally in the disciplinary process performed against me.
I request that the statement of problem under ref 5315212 be reopened and proceed to a ruling on all matters raised
This illegal act negates the effect of both the mediation and any matters relevant to jurisdiction as its premeditated occurrence prejudiced and predetermined the outcome of the mediation process.
“A simple lie destroys the whole reputation for integrity”
“Integrity is what we do what we say and what we say we do”
The glue that holds all relationships together-including the relationship between the leader and the led is trust and trust is based on integrity
Integrity is doing the right thing, even if nobody is watching
True motivations where hidden behind a mask of polite language, genial behaviour and modified declarations; suitable for public consumption of those not directly involved shrouding their gross misconduct
The illegal act was as testified in Telecoms own numerous meeting notes, centred on the purported existence of a written complaint from a customer that indicated I was “condescending and rude” it is /was non existent
Proof.
Refer attachments when referenced
The originals held in telecoms possession were written by the various participants acting as note takers and signed off by various participants as a true and correct.
All have reference to this non existent letter.
In fact various meeting notes such as the following attachments
Attach. 1
Meeting questions 24 April 2009 9am page 5 Para 3
Attach. 2
Likely outcome meeting level 5 meeting room 7 May 2009 page 3 Para 2
Attach.3
Likely outcome meeting level 5 meeting room 1pm 25 May 2009 page 3 Para 2
Attach .4
Written warning 30 May 2009 page 2 consideration of expectations Para 3 highlighted
Indeed as late, as Nov 2010 they were still blindly presenting the lie as fact.
That both complaints were real.
Attach 5
Copy from privacy commissioner letter received 12 November 2010
Please pay close attention to dates
I refer you to page 2 para 2 point 1
1. Two customer complaints — Telecom has advised that as far as it was aware details of both complaints were contained in emails which were included in the documents which were provided to you.
This is in a response to a question put to the privacy commissioner.
Not only are they prepared to lie to me, they appear more than happy to lie to the privacy commissioner.
This really exemplifies everything about the whole process and what a farce the whole thing was.
Admission was gained that very thing was false on15 June 2009
Proof,
A copy of the written complaint via the privacy commission was requested.
As yet it has failed to materialise
It is my contention that this letter from the intellectually handicapped girl does not exit.
It is a deception
It is a subterfuge
It is a stalking horse stratagem
It is a catalyst for consequent events
I submit to the ERA that, plainly, 'letters ' do not write or un-write themselves, install or uninstall themselves them selves into the process, or disappear by themselves.
This complaint letter was constantly referred to on many occasions during my disciplinary process which makes its absence now concerning.
Especially when Telecom has a very robust complaint process encompassing both written and emailed complaints.
Each is assigned a number or code to enable both tabulation and tracking, as this forms part of the CEO’s responsibilities to the Board.
"Therefore it was human act or omission that resulted in the inclusion or non inclusion of this false customer complaint and I request that the authority/commission identify the particular human acts or omissions involved.
And the people involved with said acts and omissions on each occasion it was referenced
It is a criminal act such as “deception”, under the crimes act, false representation by documentary evidence (as evidenced in the meeting minutes), where both Shaun and Michelle have conspired by both, in their oral utterances and their conduct in making a representation with the intent of deceiving me.
OR
Is it an act of Fraud under the Crimes act?
“Fraud is commonly understood to be dishonesty calculated for advantage i.e. a false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations or by concealment of what should have been disclosed –that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act on it to his legal injury”
This appears to describe the alleged misdemeanour exactly.
It is a false statement of a material fact.
Telecom at least had knowledge from the outset that the statement was untrue.
The intent on Telecoms part was to deceive me.
I assumed that it was presented with Telecom acting “in good faith”.
I therefore could rely on the statement and thus its false inclusion caused injury to me.
The loss of my job
The three parties present at the mediation, therefore would have had full knowledge of the perceived illegality of the act committed yet they failed in their duty of care to raise any concerns what so ever, allowing the unjustness of the act to unfold achieving the result they patently required.
These actions now uncovered preceded the mediation so negates the effect of rules 149 1 /149 (3) of the employment relations act
It now seriously brings into question the veracity of the statement referenced in the statement of reply file number 5294885 page 3 Para, f where there was denial of any breach of the confidentiality agreed, as one of the participants was the instigator of the purported false letter namely Shaun Hoult.
The other Michelle Young failed in her duty of care and fair process to properly perform her duty, both according to law and Telecoms own requirement in verifying statements presented to her were true and correct in all aspects.
Refer Attach 6 statement of reply file no 5294885 page 3 para.3 190210
It now makes/leave settlement sum received relevant to the breach open to renegotiation.
It also allows me now to ask the ERA to pursue the original personal grievance for unjustifiable dismissal.
Refer attach 7 statement of reply file number 5294885 19210page 4 Para d
Therefore as in statement of reply file number 5294885
Their actions completely contradict statement contained in the statement of reply Para 4 (d) file number 5294885 by their counsel
‘The second third and forth respondents were at all times acting in the proper performance of their duties with the first respondent”
Note respondents are
Second respondent Bridgette Dalzell
Third respondent Michelle Young
Fourth respondent Shaun Hoult
They did not; as they are required to act legally.
In failing to bring attention to the falseness of the statement they are “lying by omission”
It is my contention that they cannot oppose the remedies sort as declared in the
Refer attach 8 statement of reply file number 5294885 19210 page 4 Para f
Refer attach 9 statement of reply file 5315212 27Aug 2010 page 1
Furthermore it is my belief that in relation to statement of reply files 5315212 page 1 para 2 (d)
That the illegality of the act now gives the authority the jurisdiction to hear and re -consider my all my claims
Para 2 (e) of same documents state my actions claim is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.
I contend that it is none of the above and that the only abuse of process has been done by Telecom.
However John Rooney counsel for Telecom can only present his view with the facts presented to him.
The lassitude of his instruction agent and the agents failure to apply common sense and logic to the problem, and the agents failure to ask the right questions, have allowed, some if not all, of the participants to present a abridged view of the complaint against me allowing patent falsehoods to contaminate the process.
I do however fully support the view contained in the second half of the Para that I have no means to meet an award of costs against me I haven’t
However this does not dissuade me from attempting resolution to the injustice perpetrated upon me and the restoration of my good name
A common tactic of Telecom is to bury the applicant in continuous litigation until he submits and relents to the bottomless pockets of the corporation.
Indeed this action has caused me considerable financial distress and I would implore the authority, that if your preliminary immediate finding, is that it negates all matters and requires rehearing and readdressing that an order is made immediately against Telecom for back pay (based on and average of my gross earnings including all commissions deemed to have achieved 100% .allowances and bonus’s ) and reinstatement into the Hamilton office of 123, both to occur within 7 days from date of meeting.
As such is my distress, I am asking the ERA to rule urgently on the accusation regarding the falseness of the letter, it is my feeling ,it can be done on the papers, a request for the said document or a signed affidavit from each of the parties admitting its non existence.
My understanding: is this illegal acts means circumstances should be restored to that enjoyed prior to the commencement of subsequent events on which it impacted.
When process reconvenes and re-continues I am therefore requesting all other concerns that are perhaps nefarious, dishonest or illegal be investigated to their fullest extent.
I fully appreciate the concerns raised may well take some time to be resolved. That it may well be a long and lengthy process
However if the law has been broken I can see no clear reason why I should be financially disadvantaged while Telecom and the ERA progress thru my complaint.
If my return to the work place occurs, I am indicating I will not be gagged by conditions of confidentially. The mere fact that I am returning would be sufficient to indicate breeches have been made and possible laws broken and my name impugned thus I reserve the right to maintain my honesty and integrity.
It was not I that has been dishonest and committed illegal acts
These actions shows Telecoms complete contempt for the employment relations authority by knowingly completely hoodwinking them
For example
Upon receipt of the authority determination 26 April by Vicki Campbell, telecoms consul and their instructions agents and participants would have all read the document
Refer attachment 10 determination of authority on preliminary matters
All failed to step forward to contradict Vikki’s statement in parg 25
“that she could find no evidence that Mr. Evans-Mcleod resignation resulted from any inappropriate and unlawful action on Telecoms part or by anybody else ‘
There was knowledge among the participants of an unlawful action, all failed to act as the law requires, the knowledge was with held from all including their consul John Rooney
Does not this illegality also remove the statue bar 149 .3 preventing me form pursuing a personal grievance refer parg 26 same document
It would be abhorrent to consider that any could make a claim denying it all, considering the robust nature of the selection process to attain their positions within management; becoming more robust the higher the level sort.
For any to claim ignorance would bring derision and disbelief as their positions with in the managements structure require at least a modicum of intelligence and common sense, thus to claim ignorance would not only bring the process into question but also their suitability to hold their current positions within telecom.
In fact I would find such claims to be unbelievable and completely unpersuasive thus their complicity was achieved both individually and collectively by a pervasive dose of “wilful blindness” all happy to maintain the status quo by effectively toeing the party line
This coupled with the fact, that all management on site were gleefully passing on any small infraction of mine to confirm my sudden slide into apparent failure to up hold company standards, would support my claim.
This went as far as the reporting of overheard conversations.
Refer attachment 11 Michelle Young subject Paul E strange conversation
Refer attachment 12 PEM latest
Being dobbed in by hearsay evidence ( I believe I know the author as I recognise the prose and style or writing )
This tactic failed to surprise me as I had seen it all used before in the ousting of a committed sales coach .Done at the request of senior management after passing on instruction at a meeting of all team leaders.
If fact I am asking the ERA to request attendance of all team leaders, so as each can be individually questioned, under oath, to ascertain whether instructions where given out in a meeting ; as every infringement I made was reported.
It had the feel of a concerted effort which contravenes good faith and fair process under the employment act
Confirmation would have to found whether Telecom agent Michelle Young was under oath during the hearing taken by Vicki Campbell and whether “perjury’ was committed by “lying by omission” by the failure on her part in bringing this misdeamour to the authorities attention (wilful blindness). Thus denying me the full advantage of my rights under the law.
As all participants, were in left in no doubt to the seriousness of the proceedings and the consequences of deceiving the authority. In fact Michelle Young was constantly taking notes during the procedure .No doubt the authority could request copies of same to assist in their ruling
I now hold evidence to completely refute the view held by Ms Campbell, fully acknowledging that it was presented in the absence of the full facts of the matter, this perpetrated by all Telecoms participants’ gross incompetence and gross misconduct and gross contempt for the process.
It was only on reflection that I concluded it had to be untrue, but lacked a venue where my accusation of its falsehood could be taken seriously or indeed acted upon as it was patently obvious that justice would not be achieved by asking Telecom to address it.
Yet all culpable parties knowing that it was false in a material matter they preceded in this stratagem in a successful attempt to deceive me.
Those culpable in my view are any person who was in a position to know and failed to act with integrity, who by any reasonable test failed to act
Indeed any person or persons whom the participants confided in and who failed to acts as the law require.
Thus this would include Bridgette Dalzell who sanctioned this course of action Michelle Young; Iain Galloway, Hannah Sullivan and Shaun Hoult. ALL in the management structure failed to do “due diligence” in the appropriate meticulous manner it deserved and required. It was their duty of care
All, by the very nature of their jobs and responsibilities inherent with in their job description, should or would have been across the disciplinary action taken against me
This consistent failure to meet the defined performance standards required of their roles as set down and agreed upon both in law and their own contracts with Telecom must be considered to be very serious.
Questions that arise and failures perceived to have a occurred
Disciplinary rules require the issue of a second and final letter of warning
Where is this letter?
I only posses a final written warning, written, in haste to exit me after I alerted them to the fact that the possibility arose of them breeching the health and safety amendment act
The decision of possible termination must be approved by the business unit general manager and the Head of HR I see no such note provided to me by my request via the privacy commission
Why would they with hold that.
I had already left
Prior to termination, all preceding documentation must be reviewed by the business unit HR Manager to ensure procedural integrity.
Where is the check list and the sign off sheet?
Why are they not with the notes I requested via the privacy commissioner
Did they not follow process required, there for there are no notes to give? Surely not
Why didn’t this HR Manager ask for the letter?
Are they all stupid or are all wilfully blind and working in collusion with each other
Can telecom therefore provide an explanation why the purported letter claiming me to be condescending and rude that I was disciplined on, has failed to be produced?
Can an explanation be provided by Telecom to the authority why the Business Unit General Manager, the Head of HR and the Business Unit Manager failed to perceive the obvious disconnect of an IHC girl writing a letter containing those statements
Was it “wilful neglect” or “wilful blindness” wilful or not this incompetence lead to my “injury” and I seek redress
This behaviour is shocking and outrageous it has the potential to bring the company into disrepute and highlights the inability of these managers to meet their legal and business requirements.
Why are they still in their jobs?
To quote telecoms own documents used to set expectations
See attachment 13 misuses of company resources
This was sent to all contact centre staff which would in compass all participants my self included
Page 2 parg 1
“You must always be responsible and accountable for your actions from an audit perspective .you need to eliminate any questions regarding the validity of any actions you have taken “
Documents such as these were presented time after time
I suggest again that the ERA does a full audit of all dismissals with in this groups sphere of influence to ensure compliance as it is my personal belief judged on the behaviour presented to me you will find numerous dismissals wanting in both process and compliance to statue law and their own codes of ethics and policies
Or is all this just lip service only fit for the consumption of front line staff and managers are exempt for the process
See attachment 14 written warning 300509 expectations Page 3 Para: 4
I am admonished soundly and instructed of expectations to be met; yet all managers failed to obey the same rules
• It is your responsibility to ensure that you are aware of, and comply with, any and all of Telecom’s Policies and Guidelines. These are all available on the Exchange intranet site. You are to review these on a regular basis.
. It is your responsibility not to take actions which would bring the company into disrepute. You are accountable for your actions both with your customers and colleagues in whatever capacity in which you are representing Telecom.
All managers and HR personal across this disciplinary action as well as the CEO and board of directors by failing in the due diligence required , effectively allowed an action to take place which will most certainly bring the company into disrepute
The irony is they failed in the very same expectation they set for me the very same standard to get it right the first time or 100% right 100% of the time
It is not only a failure of process and their duty of care, it is an indication of their prejudiced and predetermined demeanour in their dealings with me .They acted in complete disregard of their statutory requirements.
Safe in their perceived position of power and comfortable with the knowledge that it was highly unlikely they would be challenged and held to account
Their arrogance is further exemplified by accessing my work emails.
They may well have that right, but safe guards are in place requiring proper authority to prevent abuse.
It is my contention that they have abused their right
Refer attach. 15 Their own Email guidelines page 2 of 11 privacy and monitoring
As I’m yet to receive via the privacy commissioner request of the required authorization process complied with re the accessing,
What was the specific reason for the accessing relevant to the specified guidelines?
Did I get the required notification it was to occur from EDS
Why not
Was the EDS IT technician Richard Lowe acting without authority
Who instigated access?
Where did they get the authority from
Can they just act carte blanche ignoring their own guidelines and rules surely not?
However, as all seem to have contempt and believe they are above law as shown by their approach to external legal requirement.
Why would they not completely ignore their internal polices.
They are a law unto them selves.
What really makes all this dumb foundingly unbelievable is that Wayne Peat Telecoms Head of HR held a group leaders day on Puketutu Island .
The theme was something to do with CARE ALOT
It centred on responsibility for our people and acting with openness and integrity
So I’m asking the ERA to approach Wayne Peat and asked where accountability for this entire nonsense stops.
With him or the CEO
Because his/ the message obviously failed to impact on front line management.
These are my rights under law, these are laws management should have been aware of as they are required to be as referenced previously, so yet again breeches and abuses of process have occurred to my “injury”
Conscious that my relationship with telecom was becoming more and more difficult and that hope of an ongoing constructive relationship was patently not going to be achieved, at each and every meeting I patiently bided my time, keeping my own consul, waiting for a least one of management to step forward act on their own conscience with honesty and integrity. None did.
Each had their own agenda but both were working in concert
Which raises the concern as to objectivity as required (The ERA (sec103a) states that whether a dismissal is justifiable “Must be determined on an objective basis.), by all individuals specifically and collectively
All this because I had the audacity to challenge them, that I didn’t think it was fair to be chastised three times for the same misdemeanours’ that had already been acknowledged and resolved.
Employment law requires viewing every thing with an open mind. Yeah right
A concern arises re this Corporation’s use to the mediation process.
The approach appears to be, micro management, designed to stress the individual to the extreme, wait until the individual is exhausted mentally and physically offer mediation and then close all proceedings and legal liabilities with a mediation settlement.
It is a practice that yields telecom the result it requires shrouded from the staff by the enforced confidentiality clauses
Management had knowledge that I am a diagnosed manic depressive (bipolar) which adds more odium and repugnance to the actions
It is corporate bullying where the employer abuses employees with impunity knowing that the law is weak, dismissing anyone who looks like having a stress breakdown via a constructive dismissal as it cheaper than having a ruling to pay costs for unfair dismissal at the ERA.
It is also regulation bullying, this is where telecom forced me to comply with rules, regulations, procedures or laws regardless of their appropriateness, applicability or necessity
Regardless of the fact that the same level of compliance is/was not required by other employees.
Then I am left unable to substantiate this, as they are cleverly using one act “the privacy act” to subjugate and diminish the effects and requirements of another act “the ERA”
If the era doesn’t intercede and stop this patent abuse of process all is lost
This is explained more fully later in my submission
Their prejudice and predetermined conduct can be characterized by their body language, demeanour. And lack of compliance with process by failing in incremental steps to fully complete meeting notes etc
Plus off the cuff comment such as ‘ this will all end in mediation’; uttered by inadvertently by one of the participants, show, they where involved in the process but not engaged in the process in a fair and reasonable way as the law requires
Michelle Young expressly gave this away by her questioning techniques by just following a pre-structured format giving no intelligent thought to the questions or answers that preceded it
Refer attachment 16 page 5 of meeting questions 24 April 20090 9 am
After being told that I had received a letter complaint from an intellectually handicapped girl that I was “condescending and rude “
Michelle asked “Paul how could these comments have been construed by the customer “
The question is out of context with the statement that proceeded it just doesn’t make sense
The comments can’t be construed by the customer she didn’t make them nor were they uttered to her. This shows clearly Michelle’s inadequacy in her role she is definitely not engaged in the process.
Thus my managers just kept lying to me, they where so complacent that they could not keep track of them
as the following examples clearly shows.
Another example of both a national manager lying Bridgette Dalzell and an HR representative Hannah Sullivan not properly engaging in the process
Refer attach 17 Bridgette Dalzell caught in a lie in letter from privacy commissioner
Refer attachment 17 A Bridgette Dalzell caught in a lie
And the words highlighted
he told me nigel was his lawyer
its irrelevant
Well Hannah it is relevant. The fact are that I deliberately portrayed “Nigel” as my lawyer, was a trap to catch who might be reading my emails and Bridgette is lying .
As I would be the dumbest hunter in the world, if I set a trap and then told the prey exactly what and where the trap was .
So over time I have caught my immediate manager Shaun Hoult lying to me, his manager Michelle Young lying to me, and her manager a national manager Bridgette Dalzell lying to me
Bridgette is also lying to the privacy commissioner see attach 17
Close examination of all process, procedures and the associated documentation by the relevant authorities will no doubt provide further examples
Indeed it is required to ensure that their legal and statutory requirements met the proper standards as at times the whole process was farcical and the employment relations authority should demand it as I am/was deeply concerned at the gaps in Telecoms process as applied in this case
Telecom should be able, at short notice to provide documentation that each step of the required process was timely, fair and adhered to and each step was completed to the fullest extent required by law
As indicated previously I refused to sign documents with regard to meeting notes as I noted failures by the note takers to fully and completely document what had transpired
The failures became more blatant as the process progressed, as all where aware that the conclusion was going to be the mediation and in their mind that would be the end of it so they got lazy very lazy
It is also blatantly obvious that any request I made was ignored
Another failure under the employment act with regards to acting with an open mind
Another reason to gain all transcripts of all meetings I struggle to recall even one request I made being honoured.
Yet another indication of the premeditated nature of the process they where putting me thru
I realised immediately raising these concerns in the current forum they would fall on deaf ears so resolved to have it raised at a more appropriate venue.
It completely brought into question, the necessary relationship of trust between me and Telecom and its agents. It destroyed all confidence I had with my employers
There is no such thing as a minor lapse of integrity you are either honest or you are not
Adolf Hitler quotes
Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it
What really sickened me was almost everybody did
No one thought for a moment to question it except a few loyal friends who were dumbfounded at the tactics used.
This realization brought home to me the complete lack of integrity of all participants and I had to consul my self to gaining written tangible proof of their misdeeds and would have to hold them to an account in a venue where their actions could be considered by an authority higher than theirs
I decided to leave it for a while as it was painfully obvious what the agenda was and no honest resolution was going to forth coming
It has taken some time but I believe I have achieved it with the documents before you
A slow man with integrity will ultimately catch a swift one with none
The sad bit is if the ERA reads the whole file you will find I repeatedly asked to be treated with honesty integrity and transparently and to be judged fairly against my peers.
What a sad indictment of a once proud corporation
The truth finally
On Monday 15 June at 4.15pm I was engaged in a conversation with Shaun Hoult re work performance we had a talk regarding how long this performance management was going to continue his answer was “I had to be 100% on all calls 100% of the time”
I told him I considered it to be bullying using performance management and micro management
It was at this point with regard to the complaint re the intellectually handicapped girl; where previously they had said it was a letter complaint he now he admitted it was an observation.
This is why the written complaint letter is unavailable
I let it pass, immediately he left my presence I made a diary note
Attachment 18 dairy note Shaun admits it was an observation
So there we have it
The written complaint was false Shaun admitted it
The existence of the falsehood taints the whole the process request that the ERA acts as required to resolve all issues this falsehood has presented
It was obviously formatted after Shaun had listened to a recording of the call
All that were across my disciplinary from
Trish Keith
Bridget Dalzell
Hannah Sullivan
Iain Galloway
Shaun Hoult
and Michelle Young
Were so focused on exiting me from the organisation, they failed across the board to apply due diligence to the process I was going thru.
This makes them all culpable and complicit in the action
I ask once again the authority to hold them all accountable under the law
I have aired my concerns to all manner of people from the CEO, as well as The Board in an effort to to have my issues addressed. Only to have them passed to various identities within in HR;
Jan O’Neil,
Iain Galloway
Who took it upon themselves to divert or dismiss the concerns rather than address them.
Refer attachments Jan O’Neil and Iain Galloway whom I’m assuming wrote the memorandum to the board unclear as it has been censored
Attachments 19 Jan O’Neil’s letter
Attachments 20 Iain Galloway’s letter to the board
Attachment 21 my letter to CEO
The fact that they had some part in instigating the issues might have had a bearing on their behaviour, but their action doesn’t remove culpability of both the Ceo and The Boards actions /inactions
By failing to act on what with reflection, is a glaring accusation and patently false, now find them ALL complicit in the illegal act as their abysmal non action gave credence to the lie. I would fail to be convinced that people at this level lacked the intelligence to spot the disconnect of a girl suffering from being intellectually handicapped would write a letter using words such as condescending
Again people being lazy following process failing to properly engage in what was actually being claimed
Why were they so lazy?
It is obvious the decision regarding my departure had already been made because I was fighting them at every turn and causing them extra work.
They were becoming bored and were resenting the higher work load needed to keep the process going.
They knew the out come; it could not come quick enough for them, as keeping up the pretence was getting too demanding so they started slipping back and then slipping up
I urge the era to find them ALL accountable by requiring Telecom to provide records of all who had knowledge of the action taken against me either in written and or email form
All telecom participants further compounded the lie by allowing it to be repeated
As each time it was mentioned in any meeting notes, performance appraisals, and emails. The fact remains, every time they uttered words, either written or oral that had any relationship to this letter they repeated the crime.
EACH ACT is a crime in it self just as EACH CRIME is an act in itself
I have been defamed jointly and collectively and individually on each occasion this false hood was used to accuse me,
Thus all are libel for multiple acts of, Defamation, Deception, Fraud and an abuse of my Human Rights collectively and individually in each separate instance.
And on any and all days they failed to act according to their legal requirements having knowledge of the illegality
It needs to be noted that this disciplinary process continued over approximately 8 months appox.240days
Therefore there was ample time for all management and HR participants to reflect on their actions and the unsavoury and unlawful process they where putting me thru so each failure to act but each participant both collectively and individually is another breech causing me “injury”
They were aware but each of their own volition failed or deliberately choose not to act another indication of their predetermined and premeditated intent
Only cross examination under oath would gather which option they placed their reputations and integrity on
I urge you once more to consider the contents of
Attach. 1
Meeting questions 24 April 2009 9am page 5 Para 3
Attach. 2
Likely outcome meeting level 5 meeting room 7 May 2009 page 3 para 2
Attach.3
Likely outcome meeting level 5 meeting room 1pm 25 May 2009 page 3 Para 2
Attach .4
Written warning 30 May 2009 page 2 consideration of expectations parag 3 highlighted
Attach 5
Copy from privacy commissioner letter received 12 November 2010
1. Two customer complaints — Telecom has advised that as far as it was aware details of both complaints were contained in emails which were included in the documents which were provided to you.
I will note yes details have been contained in emails however I have yet to have presented to me for examination the original complaint letter
Please not the disingenuous phrasing of the statement appearing to answer the question while covering the lie
Telecom has advised who exactly advised the lawyer in this regard?
Can we find out?
Are they culpable?
As we now know that it was false telecom is required to satisfy the ERA that it is across each and every email and every person that said email was discussed with, as each discussion again whether in written or oral form is a a separate and individual case of fraud deception defamation and my human rights
In fact various meeting notes such as the attachments 1to 5 above
Contains commentary that indicates both in the singular and plural sense Iain Galloway Shaun Hoult and Michelle Young were across the notes (some if not all) and should have taken action to address this particular misdemeanour.
Acknowledging that Michelle Young would be across the same document as her role would require it and it was been done at her behest she is therefore culpable and complicit in the action they are both guilty of the offence/s I ,m charging the authority to address ,as are many others
Not only did they FAIL in their legal requirements they failed to adhere to their own company requirements.
Refer Attachment 22 telecoms own code of ethics Para 5
“Behaviours, require that the “conduct themselves in a way that demonstrates their honesty is beyond question and will not commit behaviour that has the potential to bring telecoms behaviour in to disrepute”
Thus it is their responsibility both individually and collectively not to take actions which would bring the company into disrepute so they are accountable both individually and collectively
They must deal honestly with Telecoms people
They can lay no claim to innocence as their own responsibilities within their job description requires them in some instances, if not all, to have a duty of care to ensure all legal obligations are meet .They are in fact required to understand their obligations under applicable legislation and ensure compliance
Refer attachment 23 telecoms own code of ethics Para. 7
“Abide by the laws, rules and regulations of the country in which they are operating”
A diligent inquiry is necessary
Indeed an audit should be conducted to ensure compliance with correct practices in previous dismissals as current participants are found wanting
In fact does the law require it? That is something only the ERA can answer?
Only then will the truth be laid bare."
What ever way you look at it - any infraction would be considered "unfair disadvantage" leading to all manner of issues
Essentially telecom has breeched one of the basic tenets of our labour laws they have failed to act in “good faith”
Good faith applies to all parties in an employment relationship .the employment relationship act has “good faith” as its central principle
“Employer’s employees and unions must deal with each other openly and honestly specifically, the act promotes good employment relations and good faith behaviour which includes mutual obligations of trust and confidence between employers and employees the correspondence alluded to shows failure on all counts”
As at its most basic level good faith is about telling the truth it means that employer’s employees and unions are not allowed to do anything that deceives or misleads one another
They failed to act honestly, openly, and without hidden or ulterior motives
They blatantly failed YET again to act in good faith during the mediation by failing to indicate that I would be blacklisted by having my file stamped do not re-employ within days of the mediation
Refer Attachment 24 mark file do not re-employ
Hannah Sullivan failed me, she is the instigator of the email, she was present at the mediation; she failed to act as the law requires.
Full knowledge of this would have had a great bearing on my decisions during the mediation.
I request that the ERA requires all participants that are culpable to attend the meeting where each can be place under oath, with the hope that the threat of being caught making statements that could lead to a charge of perjury will finally bring some integrity to their utterances so as to obtain the truth
Consideration must also be given to, individually interviewing under oath the entire management team individually, i.e. all team leaders on site to ascertain who had knowledge and who did not and who failed as the law requires
Again no other conclusion can be drawn other then the fact that these people and their subsequent actions show that they had a clear mindset from the start that my dismissal was the only possible out come and this mindset infected the whole of the disciplinary process
This is shown in another blatant act (the third) completely contrary to employment law and acting in good faith the performance review was done in retrospect going back several months
The performance review was presented on the date 05042009
The performances reviewed show dates from 061208 being the earliest forward to 30030
This report went thru every facet of my performance in minute details
Making the assumption that it involved 4 x 10 hrs days a week at 100 calls a day equal 400 calls a week times 16 weeks equals approx 6400 calls they trawled thru in retrospect to bag me and this wasn’t an ambush yeah right
A quick read of the employment act would have saved them a lot of wasted time
Such is the miniature of detail that it is impossible to scan however I will have a copy at the hearing if required for clarity’s sake we refer to this document as
Attachment 25 weekly performance review and coaching to be presented at hearing
It is the most in depth profound weekly review I have had in 12 years of working in this area.
Why I haven’t been greeted with this high standard before befuddles me. Not an ambush??? Yeah right
9
The act states
“Both employers and employees are required under the act to raise concerns when they arise an employer will find it difficult to address an employees concerns if he or she does not know about them or if they are raised months after the event, if an employer has concerns about something an employee has done he or she needs he or she needs to tell the employee as above in a timely manner “
Thus they broke another tenant of good faith by failing to raise issues in a fair and timely way. it is a failure of :”fair process “as an employer should provide an employee with information and an opportunity to comment as soon as practicable after the event
So intent on exiting me that they acted with haste and stupefying ignorance of the requirements of employment law a quick perusal of employment law would dictate critiquing my performance in this manner would lead to condemnation
If fact within seconds of being presented with it by my team manager I loudly remonstrated with him that is was a patent setup with the immediate dawning of what my future was going to be I felt myself becoming very angry .I informed Shaun of my concerns and stormed out of the building as I was not in any frame of mind to be dealing with customers
For Shaun to even contemplate putting this nonsense in front of me was valid indication that he was on the side of management which didn’t bode well for my future
Furthermore this mindset is exemplified by the process twice admitted to, (on 23 June 2009 by Shaun Hoult and Michelle Young .on June 30th 2009 by both Michelle Young and Iain Galloway) of micro-management which I found it impossible to mount a defence against
In point of fact I lodged complaints with the department of labour as I considered micro-management to be a hazard under the 2002 health and safety amendment act however this was successfully managed (attach 28) by Telecom and was unsuccessful however I do contend the contents of this email show Telecom was aware that the possibility existed they where on shaky ground and required the matter shut down as soon as possible
Refer attachments 26 micro-management admission 230609
Refer attachments 27 micro-management admission 300609
Refer attachment 28 Tuesday 26 Jan subject dol update
I take heed and note that Clive McGregor who holds a senior position within the DOL was concerned enough with both cases to indicate he wished to peruse the matter
Refer attachment 28 Tuesday 26 Jan subject dol update
And would ask the ERA to find out why he was dissuaded for this option
Michele’s comments at the bottom indicate a wiliness to practice a disingenuous approach to gain the outcomes required and a wiliness of HR and Senior Management to encourage and engage in same.
Now you have become aware of some of the duplicity that was occurring consideration should be given to investigate the matter again
It has long been acknowledged that micro-management is a well known and very effective form of work place bullying.
Re-cap statement made on page 12
“It is also regulation bullying this is where telecom forced me to comply with rules, regulations, procedures or laws regardless of their appropriateness .applicability or necessity
Regardless of the fact that the same level of compliance is not required by other employees”
This was achieved by overt behaviours such as constant criticism of my work place performance at the meetings, public humiliation as it was done in front of my union delegate and HR personnel their subsequent actions showed it to be a professional ambush although this was denied by Bridgette Dalzell when I confronted her with that allegation
See attachment 29 re claim of ambush email April 09042009 9;42am
See attachment 30 reply ambush denial email 14april 2009 4.04pm
See attachment 31 re feedback of work related stress doc Sheryl North 29 sept 2009
‘It is evident from Paul’s emails and correspondence that he perceived the PIP process to be ‘an ambush” and “with a hidden agenda” and a ‘first step to harassment and to have me out in 90 days”. Assurance was provided on several occasions by the Team Leader, Centre Manager, HR advisor, and Head of Customer Care that this is not the case, and the process reiterated for clarity.
I will reiterate my above statement for clarity and request all attend the hearing as some obvious questions need to be addressed as the actions belie the comments
Please take a step back and consider all points raised and stated on proceeding pages in relation to
“This is shown in another blatant act (the third) completely contrary to employment law and acting in good faith the performance review was done in retrospect going back several months “
If it is not an ambush, then it gross incompetence, this again illustrates that they where engaged in the process of my exit and not acting in my best interests do none of these people know or understand employment law
For clarity I will restate
So intent on exiting me that they acted with haste and stupefying ignorance of the requirements of employment law.
A quick perusal of employment law would dictate critiquing my performance in this manner would lead to condemnation
Indeed telecom needs to ask itself that it would not be appropriate to ignore these gaps in these managers performance to do so would be inconsistent with other staff delivering similar poor standards of performance.
Not only would it have a detrimental effect on the staff under their control
(Again I urge a full audit of previous dismissals to ensure correct process)
It has the potential to detrimentally affect both telecoms business and its image.
Indeed management of these performance issues would be commercially essential, all managers are aware of the process and the requirements to follow the law
Not only has this now escalated to become an internal disciplinary matter it now has the potential to become a legal disciplinary matter
These issues are something that needs to considered by all parties
See attachment
“It is your personal opinion only that this meeting is prelude to an ambush I hold Michelle’s and Shaun ethics in high regard and I am fully confident the correct process has been followed “
Well as noted in this document both your judgement and confidence has been found to be misplaced as I have easily managed to find fault with both.
In fact both failed abysmally at the very first hurdle
Surely the fact that Shaun Hoult broke the confidentiality of the mediation process inside 24 hours of its initial conclusion, would have given Bridgette some insight.
Note:ERA, this breach of the law, was addressed in house by Telecom. Was that appropriate?.
It actually smacks of collusion as of all the documents (some 2500) Michelle’s notes to Hannah Sullivan were the only ones to be heavily censored.
I can fathom no other reason as all participants’ and the process are known to me than that the censor found the contents injurious to telecoms position.
,..Is this another abuse of process?
Who appoints the censor?
What are the rules around this.... hence the need for an objective assessment by a third party...The ERA
Refer attachment 32 series of events censored document
Of note is the comment they usually do 2 days after the meeting as it gives Paul a change to calm down
I believe they mean chance but the two people discussing this are out side of the disciplinary meetings this brings into question the confidentiality of the process participants with in the process are discussing my self to other outside of the process so much so they are aware that the process is having a stressful effect
Yet is anybody leaping to my aid they are all maintaining status quo playing the company line
Whoever instructed Shaun Hoult my team leader is thus guilty of failing to act “in good faith and fair process
The ERA needs to ascertain under oath, where the instruction to act contrary to employment law came from, the participants would be all or some of the following names Bridgette Dalzell Iain Galloway Michelle Young.
Their covert behaviours are exemplified by the setting of impossible standards ie 100% right 100% of the time nobody on site is achieving these standards
However telecom has succeeded to date in preventing me access to the documents
This breeches yet another tenet of good faith or fair process as an employer I am entitled to even -handed treatment the employer is required to generally treat similar situations in the same way (e.g. if two employee engage in the same misconduct they should receive the same treatment) unless there is good reason to treat them differently
All parties were aware of my concerns, as I was that annoyed after alerting the CEO Paul Reynolds after I had resigned and been given the what I perceived as a brush of by a Jan ONeill in HR that I penned the following note on a blog I had set up this engendered the following response, the three people mentioned are all my senior managers yet still nothing was achieved
See attachment 33 re this is on a blog site
Jan ONeill states the belief that telecom has dealt with me in good faith I contend they have not .Yet another person who failed due diligence and common logic and thus allowed a blatant lie to slip thru
Telecom is also showing a disingenuous approach to their responsibilities under the law by circumventing and attempting to pervert my right to natural justice under the human rights act
To clarify
The ERA (sec103a) states that whether a dismissal is justifiable
“Must be determined on an objective basis. By considering whether the employer’s actions and how the employer acted were what a fair and reasonable employer would have done in all the circumstances at the time a dismissal occurred
This is the exact reason Telecom are attempting to hide behind the privacy act as a clear look at all other reps records would show that as stated already that I was not the only one failing but, that I was one of very few that were so aggressively managed by the use of micro-management
We need notes that match the volumes of effort put into managing me out that match all other in the site that fell below my standard
I would like all the site managers put under oath and asked questions as there will be no notes of the others that match the detail of mine ie four months in retrospect etc etc
This will prove that they did not act as required to in “what a fair and reasonable employer would have done in all the circumstances at the time a dismissal occurred”
The effects of section 29(1)(A) of the privacy act can easily be overcome by requesting the same information, but allowing them the same courtesy as given with the first lot of information received, allowing them to censor all names out except mine .
Again the solution was obvious as they have participated in this censoring process before but their refusal to contemplate in this instance ILLUSTRATES a disingenuous and devious approach they are using secrecy to conceal unjust behavior
Refusal to allow this gives credence to my assertions as that bringing it to your attention is the only avenue to determine that my dismissal was done on an objective basis as required under the ERA act
I am more than happy to be judged amongst /against my peers however
Telecom has acted possibly illegally here and are using the power of their position and section 29(1) (A) of the privacy act to very effectively prevent the clear light of day to reflect on their actions especially in relation to specific requirement of the ERA (sec103)
The privacy commission and or the ERA need to gain access to these records and the actions that flowed from them to validate my assertions as to what transpired.
Telecom is doing all it can by being deliberately obtuse in their dealings with the commission to prevent this happening,. Unfortunately thus far they appear to have succeeded
This is no reflection on the work of the privacy commission as Telecom is extremely well practiced as they have used this method time and time again.
They are cleverly using one act “the privacy act” to subjugate and diminish the effects of another act “the ERA”
That the law and the system allows this to happen impinges on my basic human rights to fairly treated fairly heard with all relevant facts available to me
This manipulation of the law and the system using one law to counter the requirements of another law is a gross abuse of my personal rights. As they have possibly committed breaches under the OSH act –breach of duty of care and the human rights act –discrimination
The courts must be required to find a way around this it is an anomaly that requires to be fixed
To recap they appear to have breached laws
Under the crimes act in relation to deception
And fraud
And appeared to have defamed (defamation act 1992 as it is a malicious falsehood) me in the process
As well abusing my human rights as referred to above coupled with abuse around my employment rights (section22 of human right act 1993)
Plus their stamping of my file “do not re-employ” has the de-facto effect of “a restraint of trade” in the only industry I know as it has the effect of a denial of access to the telecom infrastructure which is the perceived backbone of the nation’s telecommunications industry
When the rights of anyone are violated we are all at risk until the injustice is redressed
Corporations by their very nature hold all of the power but none of the accountability because the cost of their misdeeds is paid by the shareholders not the perpetrators.
It has transpired via the power of the corporation and its deep pockets they have treated a close to forty year veteran, with disinterest, distain, disregard and contempt. In doing so allowed the same attitude to permeate to their dealings with those legal authorities called to hold them to account in short they have been lying from the outset
Where and at what level does the corporate accountability finally rest, individually and collectively?
A forensic audit may be required to ascertain who had knowledge and when and who failed to act as the law required AND ensure accuracy with regard to timings , production of documents and emails.
All I required was to be treated fairly with honesty integrity and transparency their actions show all participants had a patent disregard for the concept
I request that the employment relations authority give full and complete consideration to each of the above perceived offences
And apply whatever penalties the law deems appropriate to the circumstances to each of the participants they deem as liable in breaches of the above offences
As the public may attend any investigation unless excluded by order of the authority I am advising the authority that I will be inviting members of the media who have expressed their interest to attend in addition to my supporters
I further seek costs relevant to this matter and all other matters pursuant to same incurred from the date of resignation under duress to the current day
And further remedies to alleviate my concerns around defamation and the impugning of my good name. Failure to address may well lead the issue to address via other avenues available to me
‘ We don't go running away from our values. We go drifting away, and one day wake up in a place we never meant to be, drifting in a direction we would have never chosen.’
There is no well-defined boundary between honesty and dishonesty. The frontiers of one blend with the outside limits of the other, and he who attempts to tread this dangerous ground may be sometimes in one domain and sometimes in the other
I never chose this path, that I now must follow to clear my name, others by their actions choose it for me.
Witness Required
Bridgette Dalzell
Shaun Hoult,
Michelle Young
Iain Galloway
Wayne Peat
Peter Cooper-Davies
Phil Buchan
Richard Lowe
Current Telecom participants
Bridgette Dalzell :current head of outsourced customer care at telecom New Zealand whom is Michelle Young's direct report at time of incident
Michelle Young :call centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
I thank the era for its patience
I now wish for file number 5315212 to be reopened and I ask for a ruling on all concerns
I believe I now have relevant documents in hand to surmount the ERA concerns with regard to surmounting the jurisdictional barrier mentioned
I thank authority member Ken Anderson for his wise counsel
Please forward all relevant documents to the relevant parties
You should receive a document of 28 pages( era final copy 1.13 )
plus some 33 attachments
I will send the attachments in blocks of 5 so as not to overload your system plus take note of two anomalies there is an additional attachment with no 17 called 17a also there is no actual attachment 24 as I am unable to scan it but will have a copy on hand at meeting
Please can your ensure that each pdf opens if you have any issues please do not hesitate to call me
Warm, regards
Paul
Paul Evans-McLeod
17 Minnie Place
Pukete
Te Rapa
Hamilton
New Zealand
Phone 0064 7 8494584
Fax 0064 7 9894684
Mobile 0064 272423017
Paul.evans-mcleod@xtra.co.nz
COPY OF SUBMISSION SENT TO ERA
ERA submission
It has come to light via personal knowledge that telecom has acted illegally in the disciplinary process performed against me.
I request that the statement of problem under ref 5315212 be reopened and proceed to a ruling on all matters raised
This illegal act negates the effect of both the mediation and any matters relevant to jurisdiction as its premeditated occurrence prejudiced and predetermined the outcome of the mediation process.
“A simple lie destroys the whole reputation for integrity”
“Integrity is what we do what we say and what we say we do”
The glue that holds all relationships together-including the relationship between the leader and the led is trust and trust is based on integrity
Integrity is doing the right thing, even if nobody is watching
True motivations where hidden behind a mask of polite language, genial behaviour and modified declarations; suitable for public consumption of those not directly involved shrouding their gross misconduct
The illegal act was as testified in Telecoms own numerous meeting notes, centred on the purported existence of a written complaint from a customer that indicated I was “condescending and rude” it is /was non existent
Proof.
Refer attachments when referenced
The originals held in telecoms possession were written by the various participants acting as note takers and signed off by various participants as a true and correct.
All have reference to this non existent letter.
In fact various meeting notes such as the following attachments
Attach. 1
Meeting questions 24 April 2009 9am page 5 Para 3
Attach. 2
Likely outcome meeting level 5 meeting room 7 May 2009 page 3 Para 2
Attach.3
Likely outcome meeting level 5 meeting room 1pm 25 May 2009 page 3 Para 2
Attach .4
Written warning 30 May 2009 page 2 consideration of expectations Para 3 highlighted
Indeed as late, as Nov 2010 they were still blindly presenting the lie as fact.
That both complaints were real.
Attach 5
Copy from privacy commissioner letter received 12 November 2010
Please pay close attention to dates
I refer you to page 2 para 2 point 1
1. Two customer complaints — Telecom has advised that as far as it was aware details of both complaints were contained in emails which were included in the documents which were provided to you.
This is in a response to a question put to the privacy commissioner.
Not only are they prepared to lie to me, they appear more than happy to lie to the privacy commissioner.
This really exemplifies everything about the whole process and what a farce the whole thing was.
Admission was gained that very thing was false on15 June 2009
Proof,
A copy of the written complaint via the privacy commission was requested.
As yet it has failed to materialise
It is my contention that this letter from the intellectually handicapped girl does not exit.
It is a deception
It is a subterfuge
It is a stalking horse stratagem
It is a catalyst for consequent events
I submit to the ERA that, plainly, 'letters ' do not write or un-write themselves, install or uninstall themselves them selves into the process, or disappear by themselves.
This complaint letter was constantly referred to on many occasions during my disciplinary process which makes its absence now concerning.
Especially when Telecom has a very robust complaint process encompassing both written and emailed complaints.
Each is assigned a number or code to enable both tabulation and tracking, as this forms part of the CEO’s responsibilities to the Board.
"Therefore it was human act or omission that resulted in the inclusion or non inclusion of this false customer complaint and I request that the authority/commission identify the particular human acts or omissions involved.
And the people involved with said acts and omissions on each occasion it was referenced
It is a criminal act such as “deception”, under the crimes act, false representation by documentary evidence (as evidenced in the meeting minutes), where both Shaun and Michelle have conspired by both, in their oral utterances and their conduct in making a representation with the intent of deceiving me.
OR
Is it an act of Fraud under the Crimes act?
“Fraud is commonly understood to be dishonesty calculated for advantage i.e. a false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations or by concealment of what should have been disclosed –that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act on it to his legal injury”
This appears to describe the alleged misdemeanour exactly.
It is a false statement of a material fact.
Telecom at least had knowledge from the outset that the statement was untrue.
The intent on Telecoms part was to deceive me.
I assumed that it was presented with Telecom acting “in good faith”.
I therefore could rely on the statement and thus its false inclusion caused injury to me.
The loss of my job
The three parties present at the mediation, therefore would have had full knowledge of the perceived illegality of the act committed yet they failed in their duty of care to raise any concerns what so ever, allowing the unjustness of the act to unfold achieving the result they patently required.
These actions now uncovered preceded the mediation so negates the effect of rules 149 1 /149 (3) of the employment relations act
It now seriously brings into question the veracity of the statement referenced in the statement of reply file number 5294885 page 3 Para, f where there was denial of any breach of the confidentiality agreed, as one of the participants was the instigator of the purported false letter namely Shaun Hoult.
The other Michelle Young failed in her duty of care and fair process to properly perform her duty, both according to law and Telecoms own requirement in verifying statements presented to her were true and correct in all aspects.
Refer Attach 6 statement of reply file no 5294885 page 3 para.3 190210
It now makes/leave settlement sum received relevant to the breach open to renegotiation.
It also allows me now to ask the ERA to pursue the original personal grievance for unjustifiable dismissal.
Refer attach 7 statement of reply file number 5294885 19210page 4 Para d
Therefore as in statement of reply file number 5294885
Their actions completely contradict statement contained in the statement of reply Para 4 (d) file number 5294885 by their counsel
‘The second third and forth respondents were at all times acting in the proper performance of their duties with the first respondent”
Note respondents are
Second respondent Bridgette Dalzell
Third respondent Michelle Young
Fourth respondent Shaun Hoult
They did not; as they are required to act legally.
In failing to bring attention to the falseness of the statement they are “lying by omission”
It is my contention that they cannot oppose the remedies sort as declared in the
Refer attach 8 statement of reply file number 5294885 19210 page 4 Para f
Refer attach 9 statement of reply file 5315212 27Aug 2010 page 1
Furthermore it is my belief that in relation to statement of reply files 5315212 page 1 para 2 (d)
That the illegality of the act now gives the authority the jurisdiction to hear and re -consider my all my claims
Para 2 (e) of same documents state my actions claim is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.
I contend that it is none of the above and that the only abuse of process has been done by Telecom.
However John Rooney counsel for Telecom can only present his view with the facts presented to him.
The lassitude of his instruction agent and the agents failure to apply common sense and logic to the problem, and the agents failure to ask the right questions, have allowed, some if not all, of the participants to present a abridged view of the complaint against me allowing patent falsehoods to contaminate the process.
I do however fully support the view contained in the second half of the Para that I have no means to meet an award of costs against me I haven’t
However this does not dissuade me from attempting resolution to the injustice perpetrated upon me and the restoration of my good name
A common tactic of Telecom is to bury the applicant in continuous litigation until he submits and relents to the bottomless pockets of the corporation.
Indeed this action has caused me considerable financial distress and I would implore the authority, that if your preliminary immediate finding, is that it negates all matters and requires rehearing and readdressing that an order is made immediately against Telecom for back pay (based on and average of my gross earnings including all commissions deemed to have achieved 100% .allowances and bonus’s ) and reinstatement into the Hamilton office of 123, both to occur within 7 days from date of meeting.
As such is my distress, I am asking the ERA to rule urgently on the accusation regarding the falseness of the letter, it is my feeling ,it can be done on the papers, a request for the said document or a signed affidavit from each of the parties admitting its non existence.
My understanding: is this illegal acts means circumstances should be restored to that enjoyed prior to the commencement of subsequent events on which it impacted.
When process reconvenes and re-continues I am therefore requesting all other concerns that are perhaps nefarious, dishonest or illegal be investigated to their fullest extent.
I fully appreciate the concerns raised may well take some time to be resolved. That it may well be a long and lengthy process
However if the law has been broken I can see no clear reason why I should be financially disadvantaged while Telecom and the ERA progress thru my complaint.
If my return to the work place occurs, I am indicating I will not be gagged by conditions of confidentially. The mere fact that I am returning would be sufficient to indicate breeches have been made and possible laws broken and my name impugned thus I reserve the right to maintain my honesty and integrity.
It was not I that has been dishonest and committed illegal acts
These actions shows Telecoms complete contempt for the employment relations authority by knowingly completely hoodwinking them
For example
Upon receipt of the authority determination 26 April by Vicki Campbell, telecoms consul and their instructions agents and participants would have all read the document
Refer attachment 10 determination of authority on preliminary matters
All failed to step forward to contradict Vikki’s statement in parg 25
“that she could find no evidence that Mr. Evans-Mcleod resignation resulted from any inappropriate and unlawful action on Telecoms part or by anybody else ‘
There was knowledge among the participants of an unlawful action, all failed to act as the law requires, the knowledge was with held from all including their consul John Rooney
Does not this illegality also remove the statue bar 149 .3 preventing me form pursuing a personal grievance refer parg 26 same document
It would be abhorrent to consider that any could make a claim denying it all, considering the robust nature of the selection process to attain their positions within management; becoming more robust the higher the level sort.
For any to claim ignorance would bring derision and disbelief as their positions with in the managements structure require at least a modicum of intelligence and common sense, thus to claim ignorance would not only bring the process into question but also their suitability to hold their current positions within telecom.
In fact I would find such claims to be unbelievable and completely unpersuasive thus their complicity was achieved both individually and collectively by a pervasive dose of “wilful blindness” all happy to maintain the status quo by effectively toeing the party line
This coupled with the fact, that all management on site were gleefully passing on any small infraction of mine to confirm my sudden slide into apparent failure to up hold company standards, would support my claim.
This went as far as the reporting of overheard conversations.
Refer attachment 11 Michelle Young subject Paul E strange conversation
Refer attachment 12 PEM latest
Being dobbed in by hearsay evidence ( I believe I know the author as I recognise the prose and style or writing )
This tactic failed to surprise me as I had seen it all used before in the ousting of a committed sales coach .Done at the request of senior management after passing on instruction at a meeting of all team leaders.
If fact I am asking the ERA to request attendance of all team leaders, so as each can be individually questioned, under oath, to ascertain whether instructions where given out in a meeting ; as every infringement I made was reported.
It had the feel of a concerted effort which contravenes good faith and fair process under the employment act
Confirmation would have to found whether Telecom agent Michelle Young was under oath during the hearing taken by Vicki Campbell and whether “perjury’ was committed by “lying by omission” by the failure on her part in bringing this misdeamour to the authorities attention (wilful blindness). Thus denying me the full advantage of my rights under the law.
As all participants, were in left in no doubt to the seriousness of the proceedings and the consequences of deceiving the authority. In fact Michelle Young was constantly taking notes during the procedure .No doubt the authority could request copies of same to assist in their ruling
I now hold evidence to completely refute the view held by Ms Campbell, fully acknowledging that it was presented in the absence of the full facts of the matter, this perpetrated by all Telecoms participants’ gross incompetence and gross misconduct and gross contempt for the process.
It was only on reflection that I concluded it had to be untrue, but lacked a venue where my accusation of its falsehood could be taken seriously or indeed acted upon as it was patently obvious that justice would not be achieved by asking Telecom to address it.
Yet all culpable parties knowing that it was false in a material matter they preceded in this stratagem in a successful attempt to deceive me.
Those culpable in my view are any person who was in a position to know and failed to act with integrity, who by any reasonable test failed to act
Indeed any person or persons whom the participants confided in and who failed to acts as the law require.
Thus this would include Bridgette Dalzell who sanctioned this course of action Michelle Young; Iain Galloway, Hannah Sullivan and Shaun Hoult. ALL in the management structure failed to do “due diligence” in the appropriate meticulous manner it deserved and required. It was their duty of care
All, by the very nature of their jobs and responsibilities inherent with in their job description, should or would have been across the disciplinary action taken against me
This consistent failure to meet the defined performance standards required of their roles as set down and agreed upon both in law and their own contracts with Telecom must be considered to be very serious.
Questions that arise and failures perceived to have a occurred
Disciplinary rules require the issue of a second and final letter of warning
Where is this letter?
I only posses a final written warning, written, in haste to exit me after I alerted them to the fact that the possibility arose of them breeching the health and safety amendment act
The decision of possible termination must be approved by the business unit general manager and the Head of HR I see no such note provided to me by my request via the privacy commission
Why would they with hold that.
I had already left
Prior to termination, all preceding documentation must be reviewed by the business unit HR Manager to ensure procedural integrity.
Where is the check list and the sign off sheet?
Why are they not with the notes I requested via the privacy commissioner
Did they not follow process required, there for there are no notes to give? Surely not
Why didn’t this HR Manager ask for the letter?
Are they all stupid or are all wilfully blind and working in collusion with each other
Can telecom therefore provide an explanation why the purported letter claiming me to be condescending and rude that I was disciplined on, has failed to be produced?
Can an explanation be provided by Telecom to the authority why the Business Unit General Manager, the Head of HR and the Business Unit Manager failed to perceive the obvious disconnect of an IHC girl writing a letter containing those statements
Was it “wilful neglect” or “wilful blindness” wilful or not this incompetence lead to my “injury” and I seek redress
This behaviour is shocking and outrageous it has the potential to bring the company into disrepute and highlights the inability of these managers to meet their legal and business requirements.
Why are they still in their jobs?
To quote telecoms own documents used to set expectations
See attachment 13 misuses of company resources
This was sent to all contact centre staff which would in compass all participants my self included
Page 2 parg 1
“You must always be responsible and accountable for your actions from an audit perspective .you need to eliminate any questions regarding the validity of any actions you have taken “
Documents such as these were presented time after time
I suggest again that the ERA does a full audit of all dismissals with in this groups sphere of influence to ensure compliance as it is my personal belief judged on the behaviour presented to me you will find numerous dismissals wanting in both process and compliance to statue law and their own codes of ethics and policies
Or is all this just lip service only fit for the consumption of front line staff and managers are exempt for the process
See attachment 14 written warning 300509 expectations Page 3 Para: 4
I am admonished soundly and instructed of expectations to be met; yet all managers failed to obey the same rules
• It is your responsibility to ensure that you are aware of, and comply with, any and all of Telecom’s Policies and Guidelines. These are all available on the Exchange intranet site. You are to review these on a regular basis.
. It is your responsibility not to take actions which would bring the company into disrepute. You are accountable for your actions both with your customers and colleagues in whatever capacity in which you are representing Telecom.
All managers and HR personal across this disciplinary action as well as the CEO and board of directors by failing in the due diligence required , effectively allowed an action to take place which will most certainly bring the company into disrepute
The irony is they failed in the very same expectation they set for me the very same standard to get it right the first time or 100% right 100% of the time
It is not only a failure of process and their duty of care, it is an indication of their prejudiced and predetermined demeanour in their dealings with me .They acted in complete disregard of their statutory requirements.
Safe in their perceived position of power and comfortable with the knowledge that it was highly unlikely they would be challenged and held to account
Their arrogance is further exemplified by accessing my work emails.
They may well have that right, but safe guards are in place requiring proper authority to prevent abuse.
It is my contention that they have abused their right
Refer attach. 15 Their own Email guidelines page 2 of 11 privacy and monitoring
As I’m yet to receive via the privacy commissioner request of the required authorization process complied with re the accessing,
What was the specific reason for the accessing relevant to the specified guidelines?
Did I get the required notification it was to occur from EDS
Why not
Was the EDS IT technician Richard Lowe acting without authority
Who instigated access?
Where did they get the authority from
Can they just act carte blanche ignoring their own guidelines and rules surely not?
However, as all seem to have contempt and believe they are above law as shown by their approach to external legal requirement.
Why would they not completely ignore their internal polices.
They are a law unto them selves.
What really makes all this dumb foundingly unbelievable is that Wayne Peat Telecoms Head of HR held a group leaders day on Puketutu Island .
The theme was something to do with CARE ALOT
It centred on responsibility for our people and acting with openness and integrity
So I’m asking the ERA to approach Wayne Peat and asked where accountability for this entire nonsense stops.
With him or the CEO
Because his/ the message obviously failed to impact on front line management.
These are my rights under law, these are laws management should have been aware of as they are required to be as referenced previously, so yet again breeches and abuses of process have occurred to my “injury”
Conscious that my relationship with telecom was becoming more and more difficult and that hope of an ongoing constructive relationship was patently not going to be achieved, at each and every meeting I patiently bided my time, keeping my own consul, waiting for a least one of management to step forward act on their own conscience with honesty and integrity. None did.
Each had their own agenda but both were working in concert
Which raises the concern as to objectivity as required (The ERA (sec103a) states that whether a dismissal is justifiable “Must be determined on an objective basis.), by all individuals specifically and collectively
All this because I had the audacity to challenge them, that I didn’t think it was fair to be chastised three times for the same misdemeanours’ that had already been acknowledged and resolved.
Employment law requires viewing every thing with an open mind. Yeah right
A concern arises re this Corporation’s use to the mediation process.
The approach appears to be, micro management, designed to stress the individual to the extreme, wait until the individual is exhausted mentally and physically offer mediation and then close all proceedings and legal liabilities with a mediation settlement.
It is a practice that yields telecom the result it requires shrouded from the staff by the enforced confidentiality clauses
Management had knowledge that I am a diagnosed manic depressive (bipolar) which adds more odium and repugnance to the actions
It is corporate bullying where the employer abuses employees with impunity knowing that the law is weak, dismissing anyone who looks like having a stress breakdown via a constructive dismissal as it cheaper than having a ruling to pay costs for unfair dismissal at the ERA.
It is also regulation bullying, this is where telecom forced me to comply with rules, regulations, procedures or laws regardless of their appropriateness, applicability or necessity
Regardless of the fact that the same level of compliance is/was not required by other employees.
Then I am left unable to substantiate this, as they are cleverly using one act “the privacy act” to subjugate and diminish the effects and requirements of another act “the ERA”
If the era doesn’t intercede and stop this patent abuse of process all is lost
This is explained more fully later in my submission
Their prejudice and predetermined conduct can be characterized by their body language, demeanour. And lack of compliance with process by failing in incremental steps to fully complete meeting notes etc
Plus off the cuff comment such as ‘ this will all end in mediation’; uttered by inadvertently by one of the participants, show, they where involved in the process but not engaged in the process in a fair and reasonable way as the law requires
Michelle Young expressly gave this away by her questioning techniques by just following a pre-structured format giving no intelligent thought to the questions or answers that preceded it
Refer attachment 16 page 5 of meeting questions 24 April 20090 9 am
After being told that I had received a letter complaint from an intellectually handicapped girl that I was “condescending and rude “
Michelle asked “Paul how could these comments have been construed by the customer “
The question is out of context with the statement that proceeded it just doesn’t make sense
The comments can’t be construed by the customer she didn’t make them nor were they uttered to her. This shows clearly Michelle’s inadequacy in her role she is definitely not engaged in the process.
Thus my managers just kept lying to me, they where so complacent that they could not keep track of them
as the following examples clearly shows.
Another example of both a national manager lying Bridgette Dalzell and an HR representative Hannah Sullivan not properly engaging in the process
Refer attach 17 Bridgette Dalzell caught in a lie in letter from privacy commissioner
Refer attachment 17 A Bridgette Dalzell caught in a lie
And the words highlighted
he told me nigel was his lawyer
its irrelevant
Well Hannah it is relevant. The fact are that I deliberately portrayed “Nigel” as my lawyer, was a trap to catch who might be reading my emails and Bridgette is lying .
As I would be the dumbest hunter in the world, if I set a trap and then told the prey exactly what and where the trap was .
So over time I have caught my immediate manager Shaun Hoult lying to me, his manager Michelle Young lying to me, and her manager a national manager Bridgette Dalzell lying to me
Bridgette is also lying to the privacy commissioner see attach 17
Close examination of all process, procedures and the associated documentation by the relevant authorities will no doubt provide further examples
Indeed it is required to ensure that their legal and statutory requirements met the proper standards as at times the whole process was farcical and the employment relations authority should demand it as I am/was deeply concerned at the gaps in Telecoms process as applied in this case
Telecom should be able, at short notice to provide documentation that each step of the required process was timely, fair and adhered to and each step was completed to the fullest extent required by law
As indicated previously I refused to sign documents with regard to meeting notes as I noted failures by the note takers to fully and completely document what had transpired
The failures became more blatant as the process progressed, as all where aware that the conclusion was going to be the mediation and in their mind that would be the end of it so they got lazy very lazy
It is also blatantly obvious that any request I made was ignored
Another failure under the employment act with regards to acting with an open mind
Another reason to gain all transcripts of all meetings I struggle to recall even one request I made being honoured.
Yet another indication of the premeditated nature of the process they where putting me thru
I realised immediately raising these concerns in the current forum they would fall on deaf ears so resolved to have it raised at a more appropriate venue.
It completely brought into question, the necessary relationship of trust between me and Telecom and its agents. It destroyed all confidence I had with my employers
There is no such thing as a minor lapse of integrity you are either honest or you are not
Adolf Hitler quotes
Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it
What really sickened me was almost everybody did
No one thought for a moment to question it except a few loyal friends who were dumbfounded at the tactics used.
This realization brought home to me the complete lack of integrity of all participants and I had to consul my self to gaining written tangible proof of their misdeeds and would have to hold them to an account in a venue where their actions could be considered by an authority higher than theirs
I decided to leave it for a while as it was painfully obvious what the agenda was and no honest resolution was going to forth coming
It has taken some time but I believe I have achieved it with the documents before you
A slow man with integrity will ultimately catch a swift one with none
The sad bit is if the ERA reads the whole file you will find I repeatedly asked to be treated with honesty integrity and transparently and to be judged fairly against my peers.
What a sad indictment of a once proud corporation
The truth finally
On Monday 15 June at 4.15pm I was engaged in a conversation with Shaun Hoult re work performance we had a talk regarding how long this performance management was going to continue his answer was “I had to be 100% on all calls 100% of the time”
I told him I considered it to be bullying using performance management and micro management
It was at this point with regard to the complaint re the intellectually handicapped girl; where previously they had said it was a letter complaint he now he admitted it was an observation.
This is why the written complaint letter is unavailable
I let it pass, immediately he left my presence I made a diary note
Attachment 18 dairy note Shaun admits it was an observation
So there we have it
The written complaint was false Shaun admitted it
The existence of the falsehood taints the whole the process request that the ERA acts as required to resolve all issues this falsehood has presented
It was obviously formatted after Shaun had listened to a recording of the call
All that were across my disciplinary from
Trish Keith
Bridget Dalzell
Hannah Sullivan
Iain Galloway
Shaun Hoult
and Michelle Young
Were so focused on exiting me from the organisation, they failed across the board to apply due diligence to the process I was going thru.
This makes them all culpable and complicit in the action
I ask once again the authority to hold them all accountable under the law
I have aired my concerns to all manner of people from the CEO, as well as The Board in an effort to to have my issues addressed. Only to have them passed to various identities within in HR;
Jan O’Neil,
Iain Galloway
Who took it upon themselves to divert or dismiss the concerns rather than address them.
Refer attachments Jan O’Neil and Iain Galloway whom I’m assuming wrote the memorandum to the board unclear as it has been censored
Attachments 19 Jan O’Neil’s letter
Attachments 20 Iain Galloway’s letter to the board
Attachment 21 my letter to CEO
The fact that they had some part in instigating the issues might have had a bearing on their behaviour, but their action doesn’t remove culpability of both the Ceo and The Boards actions /inactions
By failing to act on what with reflection, is a glaring accusation and patently false, now find them ALL complicit in the illegal act as their abysmal non action gave credence to the lie. I would fail to be convinced that people at this level lacked the intelligence to spot the disconnect of a girl suffering from being intellectually handicapped would write a letter using words such as condescending
Again people being lazy following process failing to properly engage in what was actually being claimed
Why were they so lazy?
It is obvious the decision regarding my departure had already been made because I was fighting them at every turn and causing them extra work.
They were becoming bored and were resenting the higher work load needed to keep the process going.
They knew the out come; it could not come quick enough for them, as keeping up the pretence was getting too demanding so they started slipping back and then slipping up
I urge the era to find them ALL accountable by requiring Telecom to provide records of all who had knowledge of the action taken against me either in written and or email form
All telecom participants further compounded the lie by allowing it to be repeated
As each time it was mentioned in any meeting notes, performance appraisals, and emails. The fact remains, every time they uttered words, either written or oral that had any relationship to this letter they repeated the crime.
EACH ACT is a crime in it self just as EACH CRIME is an act in itself
I have been defamed jointly and collectively and individually on each occasion this false hood was used to accuse me,
Thus all are libel for multiple acts of, Defamation, Deception, Fraud and an abuse of my Human Rights collectively and individually in each separate instance.
And on any and all days they failed to act according to their legal requirements having knowledge of the illegality
It needs to be noted that this disciplinary process continued over approximately 8 months appox.240days
Therefore there was ample time for all management and HR participants to reflect on their actions and the unsavoury and unlawful process they where putting me thru so each failure to act but each participant both collectively and individually is another breech causing me “injury”
They were aware but each of their own volition failed or deliberately choose not to act another indication of their predetermined and premeditated intent
Only cross examination under oath would gather which option they placed their reputations and integrity on
I urge you once more to consider the contents of
Attach. 1
Meeting questions 24 April 2009 9am page 5 Para 3
Attach. 2
Likely outcome meeting level 5 meeting room 7 May 2009 page 3 para 2
Attach.3
Likely outcome meeting level 5 meeting room 1pm 25 May 2009 page 3 Para 2
Attach .4
Written warning 30 May 2009 page 2 consideration of expectations parag 3 highlighted
Attach 5
Copy from privacy commissioner letter received 12 November 2010
1. Two customer complaints — Telecom has advised that as far as it was aware details of both complaints were contained in emails which were included in the documents which were provided to you.
I will note yes details have been contained in emails however I have yet to have presented to me for examination the original complaint letter
Please not the disingenuous phrasing of the statement appearing to answer the question while covering the lie
Telecom has advised who exactly advised the lawyer in this regard?
Can we find out?
Are they culpable?
As we now know that it was false telecom is required to satisfy the ERA that it is across each and every email and every person that said email was discussed with, as each discussion again whether in written or oral form is a a separate and individual case of fraud deception defamation and my human rights
In fact various meeting notes such as the attachments 1to 5 above
Contains commentary that indicates both in the singular and plural sense Iain Galloway Shaun Hoult and Michelle Young were across the notes (some if not all) and should have taken action to address this particular misdemeanour.
Acknowledging that Michelle Young would be across the same document as her role would require it and it was been done at her behest she is therefore culpable and complicit in the action they are both guilty of the offence/s I ,m charging the authority to address ,as are many others
Not only did they FAIL in their legal requirements they failed to adhere to their own company requirements.
Refer Attachment 22 telecoms own code of ethics Para 5
“Behaviours, require that the “conduct themselves in a way that demonstrates their honesty is beyond question and will not commit behaviour that has the potential to bring telecoms behaviour in to disrepute”
Thus it is their responsibility both individually and collectively not to take actions which would bring the company into disrepute so they are accountable both individually and collectively
They must deal honestly with Telecoms people
They can lay no claim to innocence as their own responsibilities within their job description requires them in some instances, if not all, to have a duty of care to ensure all legal obligations are meet .They are in fact required to understand their obligations under applicable legislation and ensure compliance
Refer attachment 23 telecoms own code of ethics Para. 7
“Abide by the laws, rules and regulations of the country in which they are operating”
A diligent inquiry is necessary
Indeed an audit should be conducted to ensure compliance with correct practices in previous dismissals as current participants are found wanting
In fact does the law require it? That is something only the ERA can answer?
Only then will the truth be laid bare."
What ever way you look at it - any infraction would be considered "unfair disadvantage" leading to all manner of issues
Essentially telecom has breeched one of the basic tenets of our labour laws they have failed to act in “good faith”
Good faith applies to all parties in an employment relationship .the employment relationship act has “good faith” as its central principle
“Employer’s employees and unions must deal with each other openly and honestly specifically, the act promotes good employment relations and good faith behaviour which includes mutual obligations of trust and confidence between employers and employees the correspondence alluded to shows failure on all counts”
As at its most basic level good faith is about telling the truth it means that employer’s employees and unions are not allowed to do anything that deceives or misleads one another
They failed to act honestly, openly, and without hidden or ulterior motives
They blatantly failed YET again to act in good faith during the mediation by failing to indicate that I would be blacklisted by having my file stamped do not re-employ within days of the mediation
Refer Attachment 24 mark file do not re-employ
Hannah Sullivan failed me, she is the instigator of the email, she was present at the mediation; she failed to act as the law requires.
Full knowledge of this would have had a great bearing on my decisions during the mediation.
I request that the ERA requires all participants that are culpable to attend the meeting where each can be place under oath, with the hope that the threat of being caught making statements that could lead to a charge of perjury will finally bring some integrity to their utterances so as to obtain the truth
Consideration must also be given to, individually interviewing under oath the entire management team individually, i.e. all team leaders on site to ascertain who had knowledge and who did not and who failed as the law requires
Again no other conclusion can be drawn other then the fact that these people and their subsequent actions show that they had a clear mindset from the start that my dismissal was the only possible out come and this mindset infected the whole of the disciplinary process
This is shown in another blatant act (the third) completely contrary to employment law and acting in good faith the performance review was done in retrospect going back several months
The performance review was presented on the date 05042009
The performances reviewed show dates from 061208 being the earliest forward to 30030
This report went thru every facet of my performance in minute details
Making the assumption that it involved 4 x 10 hrs days a week at 100 calls a day equal 400 calls a week times 16 weeks equals approx 6400 calls they trawled thru in retrospect to bag me and this wasn’t an ambush yeah right
A quick read of the employment act would have saved them a lot of wasted time
Such is the miniature of detail that it is impossible to scan however I will have a copy at the hearing if required for clarity’s sake we refer to this document as
Attachment 25 weekly performance review and coaching to be presented at hearing
It is the most in depth profound weekly review I have had in 12 years of working in this area.
Why I haven’t been greeted with this high standard before befuddles me. Not an ambush??? Yeah right
9
The act states
“Both employers and employees are required under the act to raise concerns when they arise an employer will find it difficult to address an employees concerns if he or she does not know about them or if they are raised months after the event, if an employer has concerns about something an employee has done he or she needs he or she needs to tell the employee as above in a timely manner “
Thus they broke another tenant of good faith by failing to raise issues in a fair and timely way. it is a failure of :”fair process “as an employer should provide an employee with information and an opportunity to comment as soon as practicable after the event
So intent on exiting me that they acted with haste and stupefying ignorance of the requirements of employment law a quick perusal of employment law would dictate critiquing my performance in this manner would lead to condemnation
If fact within seconds of being presented with it by my team manager I loudly remonstrated with him that is was a patent setup with the immediate dawning of what my future was going to be I felt myself becoming very angry .I informed Shaun of my concerns and stormed out of the building as I was not in any frame of mind to be dealing with customers
For Shaun to even contemplate putting this nonsense in front of me was valid indication that he was on the side of management which didn’t bode well for my future
Furthermore this mindset is exemplified by the process twice admitted to, (on 23 June 2009 by Shaun Hoult and Michelle Young .on June 30th 2009 by both Michelle Young and Iain Galloway) of micro-management which I found it impossible to mount a defence against
In point of fact I lodged complaints with the department of labour as I considered micro-management to be a hazard under the 2002 health and safety amendment act however this was successfully managed (attach 28) by Telecom and was unsuccessful however I do contend the contents of this email show Telecom was aware that the possibility existed they where on shaky ground and required the matter shut down as soon as possible
Refer attachments 26 micro-management admission 230609
Refer attachments 27 micro-management admission 300609
Refer attachment 28 Tuesday 26 Jan subject dol update
I take heed and note that Clive McGregor who holds a senior position within the DOL was concerned enough with both cases to indicate he wished to peruse the matter
Refer attachment 28 Tuesday 26 Jan subject dol update
And would ask the ERA to find out why he was dissuaded for this option
Michele’s comments at the bottom indicate a wiliness to practice a disingenuous approach to gain the outcomes required and a wiliness of HR and Senior Management to encourage and engage in same.
Now you have become aware of some of the duplicity that was occurring consideration should be given to investigate the matter again
It has long been acknowledged that micro-management is a well known and very effective form of work place bullying.
Re-cap statement made on page 12
“It is also regulation bullying this is where telecom forced me to comply with rules, regulations, procedures or laws regardless of their appropriateness .applicability or necessity
Regardless of the fact that the same level of compliance is not required by other employees”
This was achieved by overt behaviours such as constant criticism of my work place performance at the meetings, public humiliation as it was done in front of my union delegate and HR personnel their subsequent actions showed it to be a professional ambush although this was denied by Bridgette Dalzell when I confronted her with that allegation
See attachment 29 re claim of ambush email April 09042009 9;42am
See attachment 30 reply ambush denial email 14april 2009 4.04pm
See attachment 31 re feedback of work related stress doc Sheryl North 29 sept 2009
‘It is evident from Paul’s emails and correspondence that he perceived the PIP process to be ‘an ambush” and “with a hidden agenda” and a ‘first step to harassment and to have me out in 90 days”. Assurance was provided on several occasions by the Team Leader, Centre Manager, HR advisor, and Head of Customer Care that this is not the case, and the process reiterated for clarity.
I will reiterate my above statement for clarity and request all attend the hearing as some obvious questions need to be addressed as the actions belie the comments
Please take a step back and consider all points raised and stated on proceeding pages in relation to
“This is shown in another blatant act (the third) completely contrary to employment law and acting in good faith the performance review was done in retrospect going back several months “
If it is not an ambush, then it gross incompetence, this again illustrates that they where engaged in the process of my exit and not acting in my best interests do none of these people know or understand employment law
For clarity I will restate
So intent on exiting me that they acted with haste and stupefying ignorance of the requirements of employment law.
A quick perusal of employment law would dictate critiquing my performance in this manner would lead to condemnation
Indeed telecom needs to ask itself that it would not be appropriate to ignore these gaps in these managers performance to do so would be inconsistent with other staff delivering similar poor standards of performance.
Not only would it have a detrimental effect on the staff under their control
(Again I urge a full audit of previous dismissals to ensure correct process)
It has the potential to detrimentally affect both telecoms business and its image.
Indeed management of these performance issues would be commercially essential, all managers are aware of the process and the requirements to follow the law
Not only has this now escalated to become an internal disciplinary matter it now has the potential to become a legal disciplinary matter
These issues are something that needs to considered by all parties
See attachment
“It is your personal opinion only that this meeting is prelude to an ambush I hold Michelle’s and Shaun ethics in high regard and I am fully confident the correct process has been followed “
Well as noted in this document both your judgement and confidence has been found to be misplaced as I have easily managed to find fault with both.
In fact both failed abysmally at the very first hurdle
Surely the fact that Shaun Hoult broke the confidentiality of the mediation process inside 24 hours of its initial conclusion, would have given Bridgette some insight.
Note:ERA, this breach of the law, was addressed in house by Telecom. Was that appropriate?.
It actually smacks of collusion as of all the documents (some 2500) Michelle’s notes to Hannah Sullivan were the only ones to be heavily censored.
I can fathom no other reason as all participants’ and the process are known to me than that the censor found the contents injurious to telecoms position.
,..Is this another abuse of process?
Who appoints the censor?
What are the rules around this.... hence the need for an objective assessment by a third party...The ERA
Refer attachment 32 series of events censored document
Of note is the comment they usually do 2 days after the meeting as it gives Paul a change to calm down
I believe they mean chance but the two people discussing this are out side of the disciplinary meetings this brings into question the confidentiality of the process participants with in the process are discussing my self to other outside of the process so much so they are aware that the process is having a stressful effect
Yet is anybody leaping to my aid they are all maintaining status quo playing the company line
Whoever instructed Shaun Hoult my team leader is thus guilty of failing to act “in good faith and fair process
The ERA needs to ascertain under oath, where the instruction to act contrary to employment law came from, the participants would be all or some of the following names Bridgette Dalzell Iain Galloway Michelle Young.
Their covert behaviours are exemplified by the setting of impossible standards ie 100% right 100% of the time nobody on site is achieving these standards
However telecom has succeeded to date in preventing me access to the documents
This breeches yet another tenet of good faith or fair process as an employer I am entitled to even -handed treatment the employer is required to generally treat similar situations in the same way (e.g. if two employee engage in the same misconduct they should receive the same treatment) unless there is good reason to treat them differently
All parties were aware of my concerns, as I was that annoyed after alerting the CEO Paul Reynolds after I had resigned and been given the what I perceived as a brush of by a Jan ONeill in HR that I penned the following note on a blog I had set up this engendered the following response, the three people mentioned are all my senior managers yet still nothing was achieved
See attachment 33 re this is on a blog site
Jan ONeill states the belief that telecom has dealt with me in good faith I contend they have not .Yet another person who failed due diligence and common logic and thus allowed a blatant lie to slip thru
Telecom is also showing a disingenuous approach to their responsibilities under the law by circumventing and attempting to pervert my right to natural justice under the human rights act
To clarify
The ERA (sec103a) states that whether a dismissal is justifiable
“Must be determined on an objective basis. By considering whether the employer’s actions and how the employer acted were what a fair and reasonable employer would have done in all the circumstances at the time a dismissal occurred
This is the exact reason Telecom are attempting to hide behind the privacy act as a clear look at all other reps records would show that as stated already that I was not the only one failing but, that I was one of very few that were so aggressively managed by the use of micro-management
We need notes that match the volumes of effort put into managing me out that match all other in the site that fell below my standard
I would like all the site managers put under oath and asked questions as there will be no notes of the others that match the detail of mine ie four months in retrospect etc etc
This will prove that they did not act as required to in “what a fair and reasonable employer would have done in all the circumstances at the time a dismissal occurred”
The effects of section 29(1)(A) of the privacy act can easily be overcome by requesting the same information, but allowing them the same courtesy as given with the first lot of information received, allowing them to censor all names out except mine .
Again the solution was obvious as they have participated in this censoring process before but their refusal to contemplate in this instance ILLUSTRATES a disingenuous and devious approach they are using secrecy to conceal unjust behavior
Refusal to allow this gives credence to my assertions as that bringing it to your attention is the only avenue to determine that my dismissal was done on an objective basis as required under the ERA act
I am more than happy to be judged amongst /against my peers however
Telecom has acted possibly illegally here and are using the power of their position and section 29(1) (A) of the privacy act to very effectively prevent the clear light of day to reflect on their actions especially in relation to specific requirement of the ERA (sec103)
The privacy commission and or the ERA need to gain access to these records and the actions that flowed from them to validate my assertions as to what transpired.
Telecom is doing all it can by being deliberately obtuse in their dealings with the commission to prevent this happening,. Unfortunately thus far they appear to have succeeded
This is no reflection on the work of the privacy commission as Telecom is extremely well practiced as they have used this method time and time again.
They are cleverly using one act “the privacy act” to subjugate and diminish the effects of another act “the ERA”
That the law and the system allows this to happen impinges on my basic human rights to fairly treated fairly heard with all relevant facts available to me
This manipulation of the law and the system using one law to counter the requirements of another law is a gross abuse of my personal rights. As they have possibly committed breaches under the OSH act –breach of duty of care and the human rights act –discrimination
The courts must be required to find a way around this it is an anomaly that requires to be fixed
To recap they appear to have breached laws
Under the crimes act in relation to deception
And fraud
And appeared to have defamed (defamation act 1992 as it is a malicious falsehood) me in the process
As well abusing my human rights as referred to above coupled with abuse around my employment rights (section22 of human right act 1993)
Plus their stamping of my file “do not re-employ” has the de-facto effect of “a restraint of trade” in the only industry I know as it has the effect of a denial of access to the telecom infrastructure which is the perceived backbone of the nation’s telecommunications industry
When the rights of anyone are violated we are all at risk until the injustice is redressed
Corporations by their very nature hold all of the power but none of the accountability because the cost of their misdeeds is paid by the shareholders not the perpetrators.
It has transpired via the power of the corporation and its deep pockets they have treated a close to forty year veteran, with disinterest, distain, disregard and contempt. In doing so allowed the same attitude to permeate to their dealings with those legal authorities called to hold them to account in short they have been lying from the outset
Where and at what level does the corporate accountability finally rest, individually and collectively?
A forensic audit may be required to ascertain who had knowledge and when and who failed to act as the law required AND ensure accuracy with regard to timings , production of documents and emails.
All I required was to be treated fairly with honesty integrity and transparency their actions show all participants had a patent disregard for the concept
I request that the employment relations authority give full and complete consideration to each of the above perceived offences
And apply whatever penalties the law deems appropriate to the circumstances to each of the participants they deem as liable in breaches of the above offences
As the public may attend any investigation unless excluded by order of the authority I am advising the authority that I will be inviting members of the media who have expressed their interest to attend in addition to my supporters
I further seek costs relevant to this matter and all other matters pursuant to same incurred from the date of resignation under duress to the current day
And further remedies to alleviate my concerns around defamation and the impugning of my good name. Failure to address may well lead the issue to address via other avenues available to me
‘ We don't go running away from our values. We go drifting away, and one day wake up in a place we never meant to be, drifting in a direction we would have never chosen.’
There is no well-defined boundary between honesty and dishonesty. The frontiers of one blend with the outside limits of the other, and he who attempts to tread this dangerous ground may be sometimes in one domain and sometimes in the other
I never chose this path, that I now must follow to clear my name, others by their actions choose it for me.
Witness Required
Bridgette Dalzell
Shaun Hoult,
Michelle Young
Iain Galloway
Wayne Peat
Peter Cooper-Davies
Phil Buchan
Richard Lowe
Current Telecom participants
Bridgette Dalzell :current head of outsourced customer care at telecom New Zealand whom is Michelle Young's direct report at time of incident
Michelle Young :call centre manager Hamilton call centre, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult: team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative for in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR representative head office
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)