LETTER FROM PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
25 March 2011
Paul Evans-McLeod
17 Minnie Place
Pukete
HAMILTON 3200
Dear Mr Evans-McLeod
Privacy Act Complaint: Paul Evans-McLeod and Telecom New Zealand Limited (Our Ref: Cr22243)
I refer to previous correspondence concerning your Privacy Act complaint about the actions of Telecom New Zealand Limited (“Telecom”).
in particular refer to your email of 24 March 2011. In you email your have advised that you have received further information from Telecom in relation to your request of 26 May 2010. You have asked for a response regarding information which you are still seeking, including details of a written complaint and details regarding access to your email accounts~
You have advised that you require this information urgently as it is required for ERA proceedings.
As set out in my letter of 12 November 2010 Telecom had provided us with a copy of all of the information it was seeking to withhold from you, along with its submissions regarding why it believed it was entitled to withhold this information under the Privacy Act.
I advised that I was satisfied that Telecom was entitled to withhold the majority of the personal information it was withholding under sections 29(1)(a), 29(lXf) and 29(2)(b), However, I also noted that there were several documents which I was not satisfied that Telecom could withhold.
Telecom has now provided me with further submissions regarding these outstanding documents. Based on these submissions it is my preliminary view that Telecom is entitled to withhold the majority of this information under section 29(1)(f) on the basis that disclosing this information would breach legal privilege.
It is also my view that there is a small amount of information Telecom can withhold under section ~t48(1) of the Employment Relations Act, which requires parties to an ERA mediation to maintain the confidentiality of document~ created in relation to the mediation. Under section 7 of the Privacy Act if another piece of law requires information be treated in a specific way (for instance, that the information be kept secret) this overrides the general provisions of the Privacy Act.
There was only one email which I did not consider that Telecom was entitled to withhold in its entirety. However, I am satisfied that there is a small section of the email which Telecom is entitled to withhold under section 29(1)(a). This is on the basis that the section contains mixed information about you and another person and releasing that information would involve the unwarranted disclosure of the affairs of the other person.
Telecom has accepted my view and has confirmed that it has now provided you with a copy of the email, with the information it is withholding under section 29(lXa) blanked out.
For the reasons set out above, along with the reasons set out in my letter of 12 November 2010, it is my view that Telecom is entitled to withhold the rest of the information it is withholding from you.
On this basis it is my preliminary view that Telecom has now provided you with all of the information you are entitled to under the Privacy Act
However~ before we form our final view regarding your complaint. I would like to give a chance to comment on the information which Telecom has withheld. If you would like to comment please do so by 15 April 2011. If we do not hear from you by this date we will finalise our view on your complaint.
Yours sincerely
MY REPLY
From: Paul Mcleod [mailto:paul.evans-mcleod@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Friday, 25 March 2011 9:01 p.m.
To: Sarah Thompson
Subject: urgent questions
Hi Sarah
First thank you very much for your prompt reply, it is appreciated
You have indicated Telecom are entitled to withhold information under Clauses 29(1)(a)29(1)(b) 29 (2) (b) of the Privacy act
Can we please provide further details specific to the questions asked, as to which clause of the privacy act referred to which question asked
These answers need to be precise in their detail as I cannot base any answers in rebuttal unless I know the specific clause each specific exemption was based on
Unfortunately an answer of both or all clauses fails to provide the necessary clarity I require
Also as 29 (2) (b) gives two specific reasons please clarify which of the two applies
Specifically I require their response to the request regarding the written complaint supposedly written by the handicapped girl where it was alleged I was ‘condescending and rude ‘ Where is the complaint letter .Under which clause did they gain exemption under which reason applies
I also require the specific person who gave the authority for telecom to access and read my emails required under Telecoms own guidelines
1 Who is the body
2 Who authorized
3 Who directed the inspection
Under which clause did they gain exemption under which reason applies
Again some urgency is required as I have until as noted previously until the 31th march
warm regards
Paul
17 Minnie Place
Pukete
Te Rapa
Hamilton
New Zealand
Phone 0064 7 8494584
Mobile 0272423017
Paul.evans-mcleod@xtra.co.nz
NEXT REPLY FROM PRIVACY COMMSIONER
From: Sarah Thompson [mailto:Sarah.Thompson@privacy.org.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 29 March 2011 4:10 p.m.
To: Paul Mcleod
Subject: RE: urgent questions
Dear Paul
Thank you for your email.
You have asked for comments regarding the withholding grounds which Telecom has relied on in relation to two specific pieces of information that you have requested.
The first request was for a written complaint. As set out in my letter of 12 November 2010, Telecom advised that, in terms of your request for details of two customer complaints which had been made about you, the information was contained in emails which were included in the documents previously provided to you. Any additional information is therefore withheld under section 29(2)(b) on the basis that it does not exist.
The second request was for information regarding details of the body that authorised Telecom to access and read your emails. As set out in my letter of 30 June 2010, Telecom denied accessing your emails in the way you alleged. For the reasons set out in that letter we were also satisfied that there was no evidence to demonstrate that Telecom had accessed your emails. I am therefore satisfied that the information you have requested does not exist and so Telecom is able to rely on section 29(2)(b) on this basis.
If you would like to provide any further comments regarding my view that Telecom is entitled to withhold information from you under sections 29(1)(a), 29(1)(f) and 29(2)(b) please do so by 15 April 2011. After this time we will be forming our final view regarding your complaint.
Regards
Sarah Thompson
Investigating Officer
Office of the Privacy Commissioner
PO Box 466
Auckland 1140
Ph: 09 302 8680
Fax: 09 302 2305
www.privacy.org.nz
MY REPLY BACK TO COMMISSIONER
Sarah,
Thank you for your prompt response, I am unsure from your reply, if you have had further discussions with Telecom, as a result of the last letter.
I have assumed that you have, if not my apologies.
With a skillful selection of words Telecom has provided a disingenuous response in an attempt to deceive you and to obscure the truth
Completely correct the first request was for a written complaint they say
“Details of two customer complaints which had been made about you, the information was contained in emails which were included in the documents previously provided to you.”
Details may have been provided, the original letter has not...Thus information has been provided, the specific letter has not.
A written complaint was the basis of the disciplinary action, yet there is no actual letter able to be provided, it calls into question its existence. Its specific existence is important as it was one of the major points used in my dismissal it shows their duplicity right from the start of their dealings with me
Thus they are playing with words
Yes there was information containing in emails referring to “two” customer complaints.
However only one of them was real; the other was never there. It doesn’t exist.
Please refer to attachment 18 and page 15 of the submission to the era I forwarded to you earlier in the year to hold for your own information. (This can be resent if you require)
It contains proof that on Monday June 15th 2010; Shaun Hoult, my team manager admitted no letter existed.
Therefore it is not: “Any additional information is therefore withheld under section 29(2) (b) on the basis that it does not exist.” It is not additional information, it is one half of the two customer complaints they alleged “the information was contained in emails which were included in the documents previously provided to you”.
So I request that your legal people on both my behalf and on behalf of the privacy commission ask why Telecom believes they have the audacity to lie to both of us, and hold them to account for this behaviour; as it surely it must be illegal.
As to the second they have blatantly lied again (unbelievably so)
Why is telecom so arrogant that it thinks it can disrespect you and the office you work for?
“As set out in my letter of 30 June 2010, Telecom denied accessing your emails in the way you alleged. For the reasons set out in that letter we were also satisfied that there was no evidence to demonstrate that Telecom had accessed your emails”
While I am not privy to telecoms response which lead you to the above conclusion, in regard to your letter of 30 June 2010
I can only assume that Telecom has skilfully worded it to direct you to make the conclusion you made
THE PRIVACY COMMISSION MUST HOLD THEM TO ACCOUNT AND PUBLICLY
Please refer attachments, proof that they have accessed my emails.
Take the necessary time you need to garnish the truth; but please do not alert Telecom of their existence.
As I will be forwarding this letter along with attachments to the ERA. On 31th of March 2011 .
To clarify the emails for you
The request where made of Richard Lowe who is obviously an IT specialist to extract copies from the system
The request to do it was made by Hannah Sullivan who is an HR manager
Question whom authorised this action; Hannah Sullivan on her own authority, does she have the authority. Whom does?
Hannah Sullivan or someone else requested she do it
These e-mails were to Nigel Dick who was, they believed to be, my lawyer (plus I emailed them home). With that belief Telecom e-mailed him directly.
The intention of the e-mails was to prove my suspicion, that my e-mails were being accessed...
The email guidelines are posted on Telecoms intranet
So now we have proof in the attachment that the “emails where accessed” they lied
The additional question remains now that the Privacy Commission has possession of their email guidelines
Where are copies of the paper trail to indicate they have indeed followed their own guidelines as required,. please ask
If they have refused to release them to you .please advise and I will immediately fax same
Sarah, I acknowledge that my approach is becoming somewhat pedantic and appreciate your patience thus far. The 'devil" as they say is in the detail. If the detail requested exists, it is a relatively simple matter to provide it, to the privacy commission.
We have instead, obstrufication, and a less than straight answer from Telecom....why the need???
My pockets are not as deep as Telecom's, I have only research and intellect and patience and eventually the necessary documentation.
Again my thanks
Warm regards
Paul
Sarah Thompson
Investigating Officer (Auckland)
Copies of emails
Hannah Sullivan
From: Richard Lowe
Sent: Wednesday, 26 August 2009 8:00 a.m.
To: Hannah Sullivan
Subject: FW: now here is a classic
From: Paul Evans-McLeod
Sent: Saturday, 14 March 2009 3:08 pm.
To: Nigel Dick (nigel.diCk©Xtra.CO.nz)
Subject: now here is a classic
Nigel this one is for your file
Last week I got admonished for the supposed disturbance I caused in a training session
This week I find out her complaints where aired in a managers meeting but she had no support so this little cow Tern Wilson is effectively covertly practising work place bullying by blotting my copy book
To my manager and he talked me out of taking a personal grievance
I checked her comments with 4 other people in the meeting for their view and they where shocked that this had happened the all where in agreement about one point made and I accept that but the rest was just plain bu Ilocks
More than one advised me they found her rude and unpleasant in her dealings with me
Cheers Paul
Hannah Sullivan
From: Richard Lowe
Sent: Wednesday, 26 August 2009 7:48 a.m.
To: Hannah Suflivan
Subject: FW: from paul
From: Paul Mcleod [mailto:pauLevans-mcleod©xtra .co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 24 August 2009 4:57 p.m.
To: Sandra-Le McKay
Subject: RE: from paul
Nope plaster it back on thanks wiring maintence I mean just do it as you can Have they remove concessions already the buggers
Thanks heaps didn’t feel like talking to anyone there
Also could you please give me a tina Baldwin home contact numbers or mobile she left me an email and I don’t know her she is a rep
Have applied for centerpalce job heard nothing
And a web designer is talking to me about my idea for consumer advocate for frustrated teleocm customers
How was meeting if you know what I mean
Cheers Paul
From: Sandra-Le Mckay [mailto: Sandra-Le.Mckay©telecom.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 24 August 2009 4:48 p.m.
To: Paul Mcleod
Subject: RE: from paul
oops - removed Talk it Up - added Total Home - have to wait for that to post to remove services - ok?
You don’t have wiring maintenance - you Ok with that?
From: Paul Mcleod [mailto:paul.evans-mcleod©xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 24 August 2009 16:04
To: Sandra-Le McKay
Subject: from paul
Sandra could you check my account on 07 8494584 it has been taken off concessions could you kindly
Hannah Sullivan
From: Richard Lowe
Sent: Wednesday, 26 August 2009 7:59 a.m.
To: Hannah Sullivan
Subject: FW: well well well
From: Paul Evans-Mcleod
Sent: Wednesday, 11 March 2009 3:29 p.m.
To: paul.evans~mCleOd@Xtra.c0.nz
Subject: FW: well well well
From: Paul Evans-Mcleod
Sent: Mon 3/9/ 2009 7:35 AM
To: Nigel Dick (nigehdick@Xtra.CO.nZ)
Subject: well well well
Hi nigel
I had a sleep on the events of yesterday an have decided that at the first hint of a disciplinary I’m going to hit
them between their eyes with a few home truths from around here
Such as
1 managers turning up drunk two other managers had to leave the floor an escort her home
2 under the influence of p
3 shagging their team members to the point where one had to seek counselling
4 a ccm and a team leader observed shagging each in 6th floor meeting room the male actually took a photo of the act and showed to other ff1 on floor and nothing was done
5 staff stoned
6 in all people have to be consistent in their discipline for like offences with yesterdays incident which was factually incorrect in the most part It was addressed in a performance feed back session a work mate who was penalised for same thing it was a disciplinary letter makes you think doesn’t it
7 and I will involved the unions lawyers so all gets addressed
8 you might have guessed I through playing games
Add to file please
Cheers paul
Now if i win the next round and telecom appeals it will go to the employemnt court i will be calling all these people as witness allong with many many others there is going to an uproar
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, March 31, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
lairs poker
calling thier bluff
letter to privacy commissoner
Hi Sarah
Hoping this finds you well
I have just received a response from Telecom made in reply to a request dated 260510 I am assuming you have received same
I have sent a submission referred to in previous correspondence into the ERA this has been accepted refer attachment
My need for the information requested is now extremely urgent as the authority member requires a simultaneous filling as of 31 March 2011
Specifically I require their response to the request regarding the written complaint supposedly written by the handicapped girl where it was alleged I was ‘condescending and rude ‘
Where is the complaint letter
I also require the specific person who gave the authority for telecom to access and read my emails required under Telecoms own
Refer attachment 15
The employee will be notified by EDS Administration staff if and when this has occurred, and by whom it was authorized
EDS Administration staff will notify the employee if and when this has occurred, and by whom it was authorized
Telecom may
• Monitor traffic volumes; and
Monitor and inspect individual staff email activity under the direction of a body that has the necessary legal authority
1 Who is the body
2 Who authorized
3 Who directed the inspection
I was not notified it had occurred when it had occurred or by whom it was authorized
Where is the required paper work
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
letter to privacy commissoner
Hi Sarah
Hoping this finds you well
I have just received a response from Telecom made in reply to a request dated 260510 I am assuming you have received same
I have sent a submission referred to in previous correspondence into the ERA this has been accepted refer attachment
My need for the information requested is now extremely urgent as the authority member requires a simultaneous filling as of 31 March 2011
Specifically I require their response to the request regarding the written complaint supposedly written by the handicapped girl where it was alleged I was ‘condescending and rude ‘
Where is the complaint letter
I also require the specific person who gave the authority for telecom to access and read my emails required under Telecoms own
Refer attachment 15
The employee will be notified by EDS Administration staff if and when this has occurred, and by whom it was authorized
EDS Administration staff will notify the employee if and when this has occurred, and by whom it was authorized
Telecom may
• Monitor traffic volumes; and
Monitor and inspect individual staff email activity under the direction of a body that has the necessary legal authority
1 Who is the body
2 Who authorized
3 Who directed the inspection
I was not notified it had occurred when it had occurred or by whom it was authorized
Where is the required paper work
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, March 17, 2011
reverse monoploy
this is a new baord game in town it called reverse monoploy
rules
1 you must be a telecom employee
2 you must be one of the named particpants in the action paul evans-mcloed vs telecom new zealand very elite group
3 it called a baord game cause win lose or draw the baord will be present with it at some piont in the future
4 shake dice to see who goes first
5 if you are able to associate yourself with any of the acts breachs pargraphs that follow you get
and go to jail card and telecom will assit you to go there to be free of your lack of intregrity and dishonesty that has brought the company into disrepute
they wont care if you have young children mortages to pay that a carear has been ruined all they will care is you broke the law
ohh the person who gets furtherest down the page before the can rightfully tick the box is the winner
Jurisdiction of the Court
Employment Court - jurisdiction of the court
The Employment Relations Act 2000 section 187 gives jurisdiction to hear all matters relating to employment disputes, either direct (in the case of strikes or lockouts) or after the parties have been to the Employment Relations Authority. The Employment Court is constituted as a court of record and has standing equal to the High Court of New Zealand.
________________________________________
Jurisdiction covers the following areas:
• Challenges from the Employment Relations Authority either a de novo hearing when the election relates to the whole of the determination or, a challenge of the part of the determination when a hearing is sought only in relation to certain issues involved in the matter.
• Parties seek damages, an injunction, or compliance orders relating to actual or proposed industrial action - unlawful strike, lockout, or related picketing for example
• To review how various persons have exercised, or refused, or proposed, or purported to exercise, any of their powers under the Employment Relations Act 2000
• Where proceedings are referred or removed to the Court by the Employment Relations Authority
• When an individual seeks a declaration of whether or not he / she is an employee
• When people are alleged to have committed offences under the Employment Relations Act 2000
Jurisdiction of the Court
Employment Court - jurisdiction of the court
The Employment Relations Act 2000 section 187 gives jurisdiction to hear all matters relating to employment disputes, either direct (in the case of strikes or lockouts) or after the parties have been to the Employment Relations Authority. The Employment Court is constituted as a court of record and has standing equal to the High Court of New Zealand.
________________________________________
Jurisdiction covers the following areas:
• Challenges from the Employment Relations Authority either a de novo hearing when the election relates to the whole of the determination or, a challenge of the part of the determination when a hearing is sought only in relation to certain issues involved in the matter.
• Parties seek damages, an injunction, or compliance orders relating to actual or proposed industrial action - unlawful strike, lockout, or related picketing for example
• To review how various persons have exercised, or refused, or proposed, or purported to exercise, any of their powers under the Employment Relations Act 2000
• Where proceedings are referred or removed to the Court by the Employment Relations Authority
• When an individual seeks a declaration of whether or not he / she is an employee
• When people are alleged to have committed offences under the Employment Relations Act 2000
Referral of question of law
• (1) The Authority may, where a question of law arises during an investigation,—
o (a) refer that question of law to the court for its opinion; and
o (b) delay the investigation until it receives the court's opinion on that question.
(2) Every reference under subsection (1) must be made in the prescribed manner.
(3) The court must provide the Authority with its opinion on the question of law and the Authority must then continue its investigation in accordance with that opinion.
(4) Subsection (1) does not apply—
o (a) to a question about the procedure that the Authority has followed, is following, or is intending to follow; and
o (b) without limiting paragraph (a), to a question about whether the Authority may follow or adopt a particular procedure.
Compare: 1991 No 22 s 93
Section 177(4): added, on 1 December 2004, by section 57 of the Employment Relations Amendment Act (No 2) 2004 (2004 No 86).
Removal to court
• (1) Where a matter comes before the Authority, any party may apply to the Authority to have the matter, or part of it, removed to the court for the court to hear and determine it without the Authority investigating the matter.
(2) The Authority may order the removal of the matter, or any part of it, to the court if—
o (a) an important question of law is likely to arise in the matter other than incidentally; or
o (b) the case is of such a nature and of such urgency that it is in the public interest that it be removed immediately to the court; or
o (c) the court already has before it proceedings which are between the same parties and which involve the same or similar or related issues; or
o (d) the Authority is of the opinion that in all the circumstances the court should determine the matter.
(3) Where the Authority declines to remove any matter, or a part of it, to the court, the party applying for the removal may seek the special leave of the court for an order of the court that the matter or part be removed to the court, and in any such case the court must apply the criteria set out in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (2).
(4) An order for removal to the court under this section may be made subject to such conditions as the Authority or the court, as the case may be, thinks fit.
(5) Where the Authority, acting under subsection (2), orders the removal of any matter, or a part of it, to the court, the court may, if it considers that the matter or part was not properly so removed, order that the Authority investigate the matter.
(6) This section does not apply—
o (a) to a matter, or part of a matter, about the procedure that the Authority has followed, is following, or is intending to follow; and
o (b) without limiting paragraph (a), to a matter, or part of a matter, about whether the Authority may follow or adopt a particular procedure.
Compare: 1991 No 22 s 94
Section 178(6): added, on 1 December 2004, by section 58 of the Employment Relations Amendment Act (No 2) 2004 (2004 No 86).
Meaning of employee
• (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, employee—
o (a) means any person of any age employed by an employer to do any work for hire or reward under a contract of service; and
o (b) includes—
(i) a homeworker; or
(ii) a person intending to work; but
o (c) excludes a volunteer who—
(i) does not expect to be rewarded for work to be performed as a volunteer; and
(ii) receives no reward for work performed as a volunteer; and
o (d) excludes, in relation to a film production, any of the following persons:
(i) a person engaged in film production work as an actor, voice-over actor, stand-in, body double, stunt performer, extra, singer, musician, dancer, or entertainer:
(ii) a person engaged in film production work in any other capacity.
(1A) However, subsection (1)(d) does not apply if the person is a party to, or covered by, a written employment agreement that provides that the person is an employee.
(2) In deciding for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) whether a person is employed by another person under a contract of service, the court or the Authority (as the case may be) must determine the real nature of the relationship between them.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the court or the Authority—
o (a) must consider all relevant matters, including any matters that indicate the intention of the persons; and
o (b) is not to treat as a determining matter any statement by the persons that describes the nature of their relationship.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not limit or affect the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 or the Sharemilking Agreements Act 1937.
(5) The court may, on the application of a union, a Labour Inspector, or 1 or more other persons, by order declare whether the person or persons named in the application are—
o (a) employees under this Act; or
o (b) employees or workers within the meaning of any of the Acts specified in section 223(1).
(6) The court must not make an order under subsection (5) in relation to a person unless—
o (a) the person—
(i) is the applicant; or
(ii) has consented in writing to another person applying for the order; and
o (b) the other person who is alleged to be the employer of the person is a party to the application or has an opportunity to be heard on the application.
(7) In this section,—
film means a cinematograph film, a video recording, and any other material record of visual moving images that is capable of being used for the subsequent display of those images; and includes any part of any film, and any copy or part of a copy of the whole or any part of a film
film production means the production of a film or video game
film production work—
o (a) means the following work performed, or services provided, in relation to a film production:
(i) work performed, or services provided, by an actor, voice-over actor, stand-in, body double, stunt performer, extra, singer, musician, dancer, or entertainer (whether as an individual or not):
(ii) pre-production work or services (whether on the set or off the set):
(iii) production work or services (whether on the set or off the set):
(iv) post-production work or services (whether on the set or off the set):
(v) promotional or advertising work or services (whether on the set or off the set) by a person referred to in subparagraphs (i) to (iv); but
o (b) excludes work performed, or services provided, in respect of the production of any programme intended initially for broadcast on television
video game means any video recording that is designed for use wholly or principally as a game
video recording means any disc, magnetic tape, or solid state recording device containing information by the use of which 1 or more series of visual images may be produced electronically and shown as a moving picture.
Section 6(1)(d): added, on 30 October 2010, by section 4(1) of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Act 2010 (2010 No 120).
Section 6(1A): inserted, on 30 October 2010, by section 4(2) of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Act 2010 (2010 No 120).
Section 6(4): amended, on 16 November 2009, by section 173 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 (2008 No 66).
Section 6(7): added, on 30 October 2010, by section 4(3) of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Act 2010 (2010 No 120).
Power of court to order compliance
• (1) This section applies where any person has not observed or complied with—
o (a) any provision of Part 8; or
o (b) any order, determination, direction, or requirement made or given under this Act by the court.
(2) Where this section applies, the court may, in addition to any other power it may exercise, by order require, in or in conjunction with any proceedings under this Act to which that person is a party or in respect of which that person is a witness, that person to do any specified thing or to cease any specified activity, for the purpose of preventing further non-observance of or non-compliance with that provision, order, determination, direction, or requirement.
(3) The court must specify a time within which the order is to be obeyed.
(4) Where any person (being an employee, employer, union, or employer organisation) alleges that that person has been affected by a non-observance or non-compliance of the kind described in subsection (1), that person may commence proceedings against any other person in respect of the non-observance or non-compliance by applying to the court for an order of the kind described in subsection (2).
Compare: 1991 No 22 s 56(1), (2)
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
rules
1 you must be a telecom employee
2 you must be one of the named particpants in the action paul evans-mcloed vs telecom new zealand very elite group
3 it called a baord game cause win lose or draw the baord will be present with it at some piont in the future
4 shake dice to see who goes first
5 if you are able to associate yourself with any of the acts breachs pargraphs that follow you get
and go to jail card and telecom will assit you to go there to be free of your lack of intregrity and dishonesty that has brought the company into disrepute
they wont care if you have young children mortages to pay that a carear has been ruined all they will care is you broke the law
ohh the person who gets furtherest down the page before the can rightfully tick the box is the winner
Jurisdiction of the Court
Employment Court - jurisdiction of the court
The Employment Relations Act 2000 section 187 gives jurisdiction to hear all matters relating to employment disputes, either direct (in the case of strikes or lockouts) or after the parties have been to the Employment Relations Authority. The Employment Court is constituted as a court of record and has standing equal to the High Court of New Zealand.
________________________________________
Jurisdiction covers the following areas:
• Challenges from the Employment Relations Authority either a de novo hearing when the election relates to the whole of the determination or, a challenge of the part of the determination when a hearing is sought only in relation to certain issues involved in the matter.
• Parties seek damages, an injunction, or compliance orders relating to actual or proposed industrial action - unlawful strike, lockout, or related picketing for example
• To review how various persons have exercised, or refused, or proposed, or purported to exercise, any of their powers under the Employment Relations Act 2000
• Where proceedings are referred or removed to the Court by the Employment Relations Authority
• When an individual seeks a declaration of whether or not he / she is an employee
• When people are alleged to have committed offences under the Employment Relations Act 2000
Jurisdiction of the Court
Employment Court - jurisdiction of the court
The Employment Relations Act 2000 section 187 gives jurisdiction to hear all matters relating to employment disputes, either direct (in the case of strikes or lockouts) or after the parties have been to the Employment Relations Authority. The Employment Court is constituted as a court of record and has standing equal to the High Court of New Zealand.
________________________________________
Jurisdiction covers the following areas:
• Challenges from the Employment Relations Authority either a de novo hearing when the election relates to the whole of the determination or, a challenge of the part of the determination when a hearing is sought only in relation to certain issues involved in the matter.
• Parties seek damages, an injunction, or compliance orders relating to actual or proposed industrial action - unlawful strike, lockout, or related picketing for example
• To review how various persons have exercised, or refused, or proposed, or purported to exercise, any of their powers under the Employment Relations Act 2000
• Where proceedings are referred or removed to the Court by the Employment Relations Authority
• When an individual seeks a declaration of whether or not he / she is an employee
• When people are alleged to have committed offences under the Employment Relations Act 2000
Referral of question of law
• (1) The Authority may, where a question of law arises during an investigation,—
o (a) refer that question of law to the court for its opinion; and
o (b) delay the investigation until it receives the court's opinion on that question.
(2) Every reference under subsection (1) must be made in the prescribed manner.
(3) The court must provide the Authority with its opinion on the question of law and the Authority must then continue its investigation in accordance with that opinion.
(4) Subsection (1) does not apply—
o (a) to a question about the procedure that the Authority has followed, is following, or is intending to follow; and
o (b) without limiting paragraph (a), to a question about whether the Authority may follow or adopt a particular procedure.
Compare: 1991 No 22 s 93
Section 177(4): added, on 1 December 2004, by section 57 of the Employment Relations Amendment Act (No 2) 2004 (2004 No 86).
Removal to court
• (1) Where a matter comes before the Authority, any party may apply to the Authority to have the matter, or part of it, removed to the court for the court to hear and determine it without the Authority investigating the matter.
(2) The Authority may order the removal of the matter, or any part of it, to the court if—
o (a) an important question of law is likely to arise in the matter other than incidentally; or
o (b) the case is of such a nature and of such urgency that it is in the public interest that it be removed immediately to the court; or
o (c) the court already has before it proceedings which are between the same parties and which involve the same or similar or related issues; or
o (d) the Authority is of the opinion that in all the circumstances the court should determine the matter.
(3) Where the Authority declines to remove any matter, or a part of it, to the court, the party applying for the removal may seek the special leave of the court for an order of the court that the matter or part be removed to the court, and in any such case the court must apply the criteria set out in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (2).
(4) An order for removal to the court under this section may be made subject to such conditions as the Authority or the court, as the case may be, thinks fit.
(5) Where the Authority, acting under subsection (2), orders the removal of any matter, or a part of it, to the court, the court may, if it considers that the matter or part was not properly so removed, order that the Authority investigate the matter.
(6) This section does not apply—
o (a) to a matter, or part of a matter, about the procedure that the Authority has followed, is following, or is intending to follow; and
o (b) without limiting paragraph (a), to a matter, or part of a matter, about whether the Authority may follow or adopt a particular procedure.
Compare: 1991 No 22 s 94
Section 178(6): added, on 1 December 2004, by section 58 of the Employment Relations Amendment Act (No 2) 2004 (2004 No 86).
Meaning of employee
• (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, employee—
o (a) means any person of any age employed by an employer to do any work for hire or reward under a contract of service; and
o (b) includes—
(i) a homeworker; or
(ii) a person intending to work; but
o (c) excludes a volunteer who—
(i) does not expect to be rewarded for work to be performed as a volunteer; and
(ii) receives no reward for work performed as a volunteer; and
o (d) excludes, in relation to a film production, any of the following persons:
(i) a person engaged in film production work as an actor, voice-over actor, stand-in, body double, stunt performer, extra, singer, musician, dancer, or entertainer:
(ii) a person engaged in film production work in any other capacity.
(1A) However, subsection (1)(d) does not apply if the person is a party to, or covered by, a written employment agreement that provides that the person is an employee.
(2) In deciding for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) whether a person is employed by another person under a contract of service, the court or the Authority (as the case may be) must determine the real nature of the relationship between them.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the court or the Authority—
o (a) must consider all relevant matters, including any matters that indicate the intention of the persons; and
o (b) is not to treat as a determining matter any statement by the persons that describes the nature of their relationship.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not limit or affect the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 or the Sharemilking Agreements Act 1937.
(5) The court may, on the application of a union, a Labour Inspector, or 1 or more other persons, by order declare whether the person or persons named in the application are—
o (a) employees under this Act; or
o (b) employees or workers within the meaning of any of the Acts specified in section 223(1).
(6) The court must not make an order under subsection (5) in relation to a person unless—
o (a) the person—
(i) is the applicant; or
(ii) has consented in writing to another person applying for the order; and
o (b) the other person who is alleged to be the employer of the person is a party to the application or has an opportunity to be heard on the application.
(7) In this section,—
film means a cinematograph film, a video recording, and any other material record of visual moving images that is capable of being used for the subsequent display of those images; and includes any part of any film, and any copy or part of a copy of the whole or any part of a film
film production means the production of a film or video game
film production work—
o (a) means the following work performed, or services provided, in relation to a film production:
(i) work performed, or services provided, by an actor, voice-over actor, stand-in, body double, stunt performer, extra, singer, musician, dancer, or entertainer (whether as an individual or not):
(ii) pre-production work or services (whether on the set or off the set):
(iii) production work or services (whether on the set or off the set):
(iv) post-production work or services (whether on the set or off the set):
(v) promotional or advertising work or services (whether on the set or off the set) by a person referred to in subparagraphs (i) to (iv); but
o (b) excludes work performed, or services provided, in respect of the production of any programme intended initially for broadcast on television
video game means any video recording that is designed for use wholly or principally as a game
video recording means any disc, magnetic tape, or solid state recording device containing information by the use of which 1 or more series of visual images may be produced electronically and shown as a moving picture.
Section 6(1)(d): added, on 30 October 2010, by section 4(1) of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Act 2010 (2010 No 120).
Section 6(1A): inserted, on 30 October 2010, by section 4(2) of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Act 2010 (2010 No 120).
Section 6(4): amended, on 16 November 2009, by section 173 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 (2008 No 66).
Section 6(7): added, on 30 October 2010, by section 4(3) of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Act 2010 (2010 No 120).
Power of court to order compliance
• (1) This section applies where any person has not observed or complied with—
o (a) any provision of Part 8; or
o (b) any order, determination, direction, or requirement made or given under this Act by the court.
(2) Where this section applies, the court may, in addition to any other power it may exercise, by order require, in or in conjunction with any proceedings under this Act to which that person is a party or in respect of which that person is a witness, that person to do any specified thing or to cease any specified activity, for the purpose of preventing further non-observance of or non-compliance with that provision, order, determination, direction, or requirement.
(3) The court must specify a time within which the order is to be obeyed.
(4) Where any person (being an employee, employer, union, or employer organisation) alleges that that person has been affected by a non-observance or non-compliance of the kind described in subsection (1), that person may commence proceedings against any other person in respect of the non-observance or non-compliance by applying to the court for an order of the kind described in subsection (2).
Compare: 1991 No 22 s 56(1), (2)
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
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
my future lies in anothers hands
The future of my fight with telecom lies at this point with the employment relations authority member this will bring it is rightful conclusion or if not, more challenges to be over come
Part of me will thankful that it may be concluded however I am unsure as to how much the employment authority can do for me
Yes they can address the employment issues ,who addresses and gets the participants charged for misdemeanours under the crimes act, the fraud and the deception ,the defamation and the breach of my human rights .
I have concluded I will just take it one step at a time and see what unfolds .and deal with that ,left unattended ,to as the need arises
The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousand fold. ~Aristotle
A lie may take care of the present, but it has no future. ~Author Unknown
Truth fears no questions. ~Unknown
When truth is divided, errors multiply. ~Eli Siegel,
Always tell the truth. If you can't always tell the truth, don't lie. ~Author Unknown
Part of me will thankful that it may be concluded however I am unsure as to how much the employment authority can do for me
Yes they can address the employment issues ,who addresses and gets the participants charged for misdemeanours under the crimes act, the fraud and the deception ,the defamation and the breach of my human rights .
I have concluded I will just take it one step at a time and see what unfolds .and deal with that ,left unattended ,to as the need arises
The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousand fold. ~Aristotle
A lie may take care of the present, but it has no future. ~Author Unknown
Truth fears no questions. ~Unknown
When truth is divided, errors multiply. ~Eli Siegel,
Always tell the truth. If you can't always tell the truth, don't lie. ~Author Unknown
Monday, March 14, 2011
comments from a loyal and astute follower
Well, well, well a very intriguing turn of events I must say. It perplexes many to see the consistent departure of experienced staff, it perplexes me not.
comments of an astute follower who is not perplexed by the consistent departure of experienced staff
a follower whose support and friendship is both welcomed and valued who reads me very clearly and whos ethos morals ethics mirror mine .no words have to be spoken as we regonised our shared outlook from our first contact
I am not perplexed either as i have watch this game played more than a number of time in the pasts
ask youself are they forwarned or forearmed or do they just intolerent of the change of culture and sickened by the weakness of their managers and the lack of overall support or may just leaving early before they get stabbed in the back
they will not be perplexed but they maybe astonished when if matters proceed according to employment law, they may well see the reappearance of my good self within their work environment . questions will be asked of me , answered as always truthfully by me as, I will not be gagged .
The supporting evidence will as always be noted copied to my blog , the dishonesty revealed and the reason for the departure of a number of the management structure become apparent
A national manager in an email, recovered under the auspices of the privacy act, (find the censor of the documents they covered themselves but hung the rest of you out to dry big time) was delighted that I lost in my last appeal re my dismissal an communicated same to all, far and wide committing defamation, in writing with some of the emails written as did more than a number of others
they will not be delighted when all become aware of the latest turn of events and their numb brains start to deal with the ramifications of their earlier actions if I am successful
the issues under scrutiny have already been listed fraud deception defamation and breach of my human rights plus numerous breaches of employment law
what will be interesting is if once some or all a sacked .whether they will have the support of telecoms legal team or any of the hr team on who’s guidance they relied and who seriously let them down
or will telecom abandoned them which means they have to fund thier own defence from which failure will bring about further costs
will they last the distance the stress will impact on their relationships, their finances , their emotions their mental health thier confidence almost everything up to and including the loss of asserts
re read some of the last couple of blogs or pass them to a lawyer if things turn against you all . you are in for a couple of very bad years
for using micro-management on me I’m returning the favour remember the mantra GRITFT . YOU SHOULD HAVE ,YOU DIDNT AND WITH FAILURE THERE IS A COST
comments of an astute follower who is not perplexed by the consistent departure of experienced staff
a follower whose support and friendship is both welcomed and valued who reads me very clearly and whos ethos morals ethics mirror mine .no words have to be spoken as we regonised our shared outlook from our first contact
I am not perplexed either as i have watch this game played more than a number of time in the pasts
ask youself are they forwarned or forearmed or do they just intolerent of the change of culture and sickened by the weakness of their managers and the lack of overall support or may just leaving early before they get stabbed in the back
they will not be perplexed but they maybe astonished when if matters proceed according to employment law, they may well see the reappearance of my good self within their work environment . questions will be asked of me , answered as always truthfully by me as, I will not be gagged .
The supporting evidence will as always be noted copied to my blog , the dishonesty revealed and the reason for the departure of a number of the management structure become apparent
A national manager in an email, recovered under the auspices of the privacy act, (find the censor of the documents they covered themselves but hung the rest of you out to dry big time) was delighted that I lost in my last appeal re my dismissal an communicated same to all, far and wide committing defamation, in writing with some of the emails written as did more than a number of others
they will not be delighted when all become aware of the latest turn of events and their numb brains start to deal with the ramifications of their earlier actions if I am successful
the issues under scrutiny have already been listed fraud deception defamation and breach of my human rights plus numerous breaches of employment law
what will be interesting is if once some or all a sacked .whether they will have the support of telecoms legal team or any of the hr team on who’s guidance they relied and who seriously let them down
or will telecom abandoned them which means they have to fund thier own defence from which failure will bring about further costs
will they last the distance the stress will impact on their relationships, their finances , their emotions their mental health thier confidence almost everything up to and including the loss of asserts
re read some of the last couple of blogs or pass them to a lawyer if things turn against you all . you are in for a couple of very bad years
for using micro-management on me I’m returning the favour remember the mantra GRITFT . YOU SHOULD HAVE ,YOU DIDNT AND WITH FAILURE THERE IS A COST
Sunday, March 13, 2011
the truth will set you free but first you got to get someone to listern
With the employment relations authority now acting on the question of jurisdiction ,the events that have been part of my life for the past 18 months are now under the scrutiny of an outside agency.
I have achieved the first of the many requirements of the quest to restore my good name
My resolve to achieve my aim has not weakened, now I must wait patiently for the outcome, trusting in the law and the sound legal judgement and knowledge of the authority member who will make the ruling ,
The pendulum as moved ever so slightly in my favour .the important thing is the inertia has been broken and we have movement
We will now be set adrift in to perhaps troubled waters which will have ramifications for all participants beyond their wildest imagination
People will question their loyalty to the company and the hollowness of HR promise to protect them at all costs uttered at the boot camp those many months ago. this real life under real law with real consequences there is no get out of jail free card from HR they are no longer in control of the game
if the senario plays out in my fasvour the witness list will be long, all will be under subpoena the question deep searching and repetative the choices will be simple tell the truth or lie . lie you lose your job and your freedom for commiting perjury tell the truth you lose your job restore your soul and have a clear conscience
the truth will set you free but first you got to get someone to listern well someones is listerning and they have the power in law to hold telecom to account will keep you posted as always
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 have achieved the first of the many requirements of the quest to restore my good name
My resolve to achieve my aim has not weakened, now I must wait patiently for the outcome, trusting in the law and the sound legal judgement and knowledge of the authority member who will make the ruling ,
The pendulum as moved ever so slightly in my favour .the important thing is the inertia has been broken and we have movement
We will now be set adrift in to perhaps troubled waters which will have ramifications for all participants beyond their wildest imagination
People will question their loyalty to the company and the hollowness of HR promise to protect them at all costs uttered at the boot camp those many months ago. this real life under real law with real consequences there is no get out of jail free card from HR they are no longer in control of the game
if the senario plays out in my fasvour the witness list will be long, all will be under subpoena the question deep searching and repetative the choices will be simple tell the truth or lie . lie you lose your job and your freedom for commiting perjury tell the truth you lose your job restore your soul and have a clear conscience
the truth will set you free but first you got to get someone to listern well someones is listerning and they have the power in law to hold telecom to account will keep you posted as always
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, March 11, 2011
a comment deserving of its own post
This is all very interesting ...and should you be successful and I wish you the best of luck.
So if fraud and deception and thus subsequent defamation has occurred...which crime is then acted on by the courts, and which requires you to pursue, and which are able to be actioned and how
Is it a liability that is held jointly and severally...I think that it is...
One would need to determine whether the subsequent defamation can then be pursued on both and individual and also separately on a collective basis.
I remain watchful
thank you for the good wishes and the sage advice
mmm who watches the watchers and does ERA pursue it on my behalf
does telecom pursue them charge them and sack them as it thier employees that may have committed the illegal acts and brought the company into disrepute
not a good time for some when you are in the middle of applying for your own job back
and if the job is lost is the legal protection lost lots of ramifcations
will have to dump an A/P on them before the shredders overload
messy and complicated
So if fraud and deception and thus subsequent defamation has occurred...which crime is then acted on by the courts, and which requires you to pursue, and which are able to be actioned and how
Is it a liability that is held jointly and severally...I think that it is...
One would need to determine whether the subsequent defamation can then be pursued on both and individual and also separately on a collective basis.
I remain watchful
thank you for the good wishes and the sage advice
mmm who watches the watchers and does ERA pursue it on my behalf
does telecom pursue them charge them and sack them as it thier employees that may have committed the illegal acts and brought the company into disrepute
not a good time for some when you are in the middle of applying for your own job back
and if the job is lost is the legal protection lost lots of ramifcations
will have to dump an A/P on them before the shredders overload
messy and complicated
recieved a minute from the authority VERY GOOD NEWS
File Number 5315212
IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY
AUCKLAND
BETWEEN PAUL EVANS-MCLE0j)
Applicant
AND TELECOM NEW ZEALAND
LIMITED
Respondent
Member of Authority: K J Anderson
Date: 11 March2011
MINUTE OF THE AUThORITY
The Authority is now in possession of a considerable amount of material relating to the claims of Mr Evans-McLeod, as set out in his Statement of Problem received by the Authority on 10th August 2010.
Via an email dated13th September 2010. I recorded that as Mr Evans-McLeod was awaiting information from the office of the Privacy Commissioner, the investigation of the Authority was suspended until the situation became clearer. On 9th January 2011, Mr Evans-McLeod requested that the Authority ~"reopen” the file and he forwarded further material for consideration. This was forwarded to Mr Rooney, acting for the respondent, and he responded on 28th January 2011.
As has been discussed previously, given the history of this dispute, there remains a jurisdictional issue as to whether Mr Evans~McLeod is able to pursue his claims in the Authority. I conclude that the matter of whether or not the Authority has jurisdiction, pertaining Mr Evans-McLeod’s claims, must be treated as a preliminary issue for determination before those claims can be investigated further.
It is my intention to determine the issue of jurisdiction on the papers currently before the Authority. While it is my preliminary conclusion that no further material or submissions are required, if the parties take issue with that view, any summary of argument, regardingthe jurisdictional issue only, must be filed simultaneously, with the Authority, by 31 March 2011.
K J Anderson
Member of the Employment Relations Authority
So what does ALL this mean
It means they are required to look into the circumstances around my dismissal
The information i sent to them and that they are referring to is on my blog its the 35 page submission with 34 attachments
The essential element is the jurisdiction issues
When they forced me to resign i signed away all my rights, the matter was finished with ,signed sealed delivered and telecom thought that was the end of it
But as you know i found out they acted dishonestly by intimating that they had a letter of complaint from a handicapped girl that said i was "condescending and rude'
it didnt exist there was no letter it was a fraud and deception
MOST IMPORTANTLY IT IS ILLEGAL
So what this letter is saying is the ERA is now required to investigate in law whether that act of dishonestly and others i highlighted negates/nullifies the original settlements i signed
My information from my learned lawyer friend says it does
So telecom now has to present their argument as to why it should not by the 31th of match
If it comes back in my favour its a whole new ball game
THE IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT THEY RECOGNISE THE VALIDITY OF MY ARGUEMENT AND THE REGONISE THEY HAVE TO MAKE A RULING .IT IS UP TO TELECOM AT NO COST TO ME (OH BUGGER) TO PERSUADE THE AUTHORITY THAT DISHONESTY IN THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS IS ALLOWABLE AND ACCEPTABLE
I DONT THINK SO
IF I AM FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO HAVE A RULING IN MY FAVOUR THERE IS GOING TO BE A HUGE UPROAR AS ALL OTHER DISCIPLINARY PROCESS PERPERTRATED BY ALL THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN MY DISMISSAL WILL HAVE TO BE RE -EVALUATED WITH A FINE TOOTH COMB TO ENSURE THAT JUSTICE WAS NOT ONLY ,DONE BUT IT WAS SEEN TO BE DONE
PLUS CONSIDERATION WILL HAVE TO BE GIVEN AS TO WHETHER A CRIME WAS COMMITTED SUCH AS FRAUD OR DECEPTION UNDER THE CRIMES ACT
CONSIDERATION MAY HAVE TO BE GIVEN AS WHO WAS CUPABLE UNDER SAME ACT
ALL PARTIES BROUGHT IT ON THEMSELVES THEY WHERE THE ONES WHO ACTED ILLEAGALLY I NOT COUNTING MY CHICKENS BEFORE THEY HAVE HATCHED
HOWEVER IT WILL BE INTERESTING PRECEDENT IN LAW IF THEY GET AWAY WITH ACTING DISHONESTLY
SOME COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN RECIEVED
Good luck mate. I hope the ruling goes in your favour and that there is some rethinking on how the whole HR community think they can bully people into submission.
Wow.
The fight is still on then.
Good one Paul.
You go Paul
IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY
AUCKLAND
BETWEEN PAUL EVANS-MCLE0j)
Applicant
AND TELECOM NEW ZEALAND
LIMITED
Respondent
Member of Authority: K J Anderson
Date: 11 March2011
MINUTE OF THE AUThORITY
The Authority is now in possession of a considerable amount of material relating to the claims of Mr Evans-McLeod, as set out in his Statement of Problem received by the Authority on 10th August 2010.
Via an email dated13th September 2010. I recorded that as Mr Evans-McLeod was awaiting information from the office of the Privacy Commissioner, the investigation of the Authority was suspended until the situation became clearer. On 9th January 2011, Mr Evans-McLeod requested that the Authority ~"reopen” the file and he forwarded further material for consideration. This was forwarded to Mr Rooney, acting for the respondent, and he responded on 28th January 2011.
As has been discussed previously, given the history of this dispute, there remains a jurisdictional issue as to whether Mr Evans~McLeod is able to pursue his claims in the Authority. I conclude that the matter of whether or not the Authority has jurisdiction, pertaining Mr Evans-McLeod’s claims, must be treated as a preliminary issue for determination before those claims can be investigated further.
It is my intention to determine the issue of jurisdiction on the papers currently before the Authority. While it is my preliminary conclusion that no further material or submissions are required, if the parties take issue with that view, any summary of argument, regardingthe jurisdictional issue only, must be filed simultaneously, with the Authority, by 31 March 2011.
K J Anderson
Member of the Employment Relations Authority
So what does ALL this mean
It means they are required to look into the circumstances around my dismissal
The information i sent to them and that they are referring to is on my blog its the 35 page submission with 34 attachments
The essential element is the jurisdiction issues
When they forced me to resign i signed away all my rights, the matter was finished with ,signed sealed delivered and telecom thought that was the end of it
But as you know i found out they acted dishonestly by intimating that they had a letter of complaint from a handicapped girl that said i was "condescending and rude'
it didnt exist there was no letter it was a fraud and deception
MOST IMPORTANTLY IT IS ILLEGAL
So what this letter is saying is the ERA is now required to investigate in law whether that act of dishonestly and others i highlighted negates/nullifies the original settlements i signed
My information from my learned lawyer friend says it does
So telecom now has to present their argument as to why it should not by the 31th of match
If it comes back in my favour its a whole new ball game
THE IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT THEY RECOGNISE THE VALIDITY OF MY ARGUEMENT AND THE REGONISE THEY HAVE TO MAKE A RULING .IT IS UP TO TELECOM AT NO COST TO ME (OH BUGGER) TO PERSUADE THE AUTHORITY THAT DISHONESTY IN THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS IS ALLOWABLE AND ACCEPTABLE
I DONT THINK SO
IF I AM FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO HAVE A RULING IN MY FAVOUR THERE IS GOING TO BE A HUGE UPROAR AS ALL OTHER DISCIPLINARY PROCESS PERPERTRATED BY ALL THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN MY DISMISSAL WILL HAVE TO BE RE -EVALUATED WITH A FINE TOOTH COMB TO ENSURE THAT JUSTICE WAS NOT ONLY ,DONE BUT IT WAS SEEN TO BE DONE
PLUS CONSIDERATION WILL HAVE TO BE GIVEN AS TO WHETHER A CRIME WAS COMMITTED SUCH AS FRAUD OR DECEPTION UNDER THE CRIMES ACT
CONSIDERATION MAY HAVE TO BE GIVEN AS WHO WAS CUPABLE UNDER SAME ACT
ALL PARTIES BROUGHT IT ON THEMSELVES THEY WHERE THE ONES WHO ACTED ILLEAGALLY I NOT COUNTING MY CHICKENS BEFORE THEY HAVE HATCHED
HOWEVER IT WILL BE INTERESTING PRECEDENT IN LAW IF THEY GET AWAY WITH ACTING DISHONESTLY
SOME COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN RECIEVED
Good luck mate. I hope the ruling goes in your favour and that there is some rethinking on how the whole HR community think they can bully people into submission.
Wow.
The fight is still on then.
Good one Paul.
You go Paul
Good luck pal, I've got my nuts crossed for ya.
when your famous for bringing down telecom can i still be your friend
Yay!!! Paul! That is awesome news mate!
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
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)