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
No comments:
Post a Comment