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