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
No comments:
Post a Comment