correspondance

However in this case, Telecom has advised that it did not collect any information from your work email in the way in which you have alleged. Rather, Telecom has stated that Ms Dalzell’s comments regarding your confirmation as to whether Mr Dick was acting as your lawyer were:


based on a discussion she had had with you previously; where you had advised her that Mr. Dick was acting for you.



Telecom has further advised that Ms Dalzell copied Mr. Dick into her response on the basis that she was responding to an earlier email which you had sent to her that day at 9.l3am, which she had also copied Mr. Dick into.”

agreed with regard to to part Nigel address was copied in to a note sent to Ms Dalzel


As stated in previous correspondence Ms Dalzell is being disingenuous here, in fact she is being dishonest and unethical, I at no point discussed with Ms Dalzell that Mr. Dick was acting for me ( as my lawyer)



The correspondence with Mr. Dick in which the phrasing and content was deliberate so as to give the impression he was in fact my lawyer. was effectively me setting a trap to catch all of management out.




ms Dalzell fell blindly into it , so why would I tell her/telecom about the very thing I was trying to trap her/telecom with.



This gives the lie to her statement that her comments were based on a discussion with me” , it would destroy the efficacy of my approach.





You state “that legal professional privilege only applies in situations where there is communication between a lawyer and a client “



Ms Dalzells seeking of confirmation that Mr. Dick was acting for me thus gives full acknowledgment that at the time of that specific correspondence that in her own mind he was my lawyer; this she confirms again with her dishonest statement that I had advised her Mr Dick was acting for me

“

so at that specific time until telecom and ms Dalzell became aware he was a “friend “rather than a “lawyer;” anybody that accessed those specific emails where acting in breach of legal professional privilege and thus I need them to be held accountable.
If for nothing else but to have this “specific legal professional privilege” clarified under law specific to the accessing of emails ,so I respectfully repeat my request that a forensic audit be done specific to all emails to Mr. Dick
Telecom own guidelines do acknowledge, they are entitled to access emails, however they have clear specific guidelines with reference, specific to the accessing of said emails
the right is reserved to monitor and inspect for very specific reasons (as noted on page 2 )of their own email guidelines
it applies to individual staff email activity but not to the specific reading of each individual email so under their own guidelines I seek clarity as to their reason for monitoring as I do not accept they have adhered to their own specific rules indeed they are in breach of them
and I will not and do not accept it was “done to ensure compliance with these email guidelines”
Their reason, in my belief, was to gain an unfair advantage over me; which taints the whole process they used to effectively micro manage me out
i.e. they acted unlawfully and outside their own agreed process in their efforts to successfully achieve the termination of my employment
“telecom may monitor and inspect individual staff email activity under the direction of a body that has the necessary legal authority”
I enquire whom is that specific body that they sort direction from, and request all copies of any correspondence between telecom and that body with reference to myself

Their own rules state they cannot intercept or access other peoples mail box without proper authorization.
They have no right to act without it ; unfortunately many perceive they do ..
Did various staff act without the express written authority of that body, please clarify.
Telecom should produce the document which provides the authority specific to myself. As they are required under their own rules;

to keep all copies that “exercise telecoms authority for certain actions” as all staff are required to be fully cognizant with all rules and procedures so there should be no issues around the finding of these documents.


Failure to produce would give credence to my above statement they have acted unlawfully as they are required to keep all material to meet telecoms legal obligations ,so I require clear unequivocal evidence of my concerns and a clear understanding that their breeches at the onset of my dispute taint the whole process and negates any and all actions agreements and settlements post said breeches



Thus I require from telecom legal precedence’s as to why they should not be required to put aside my perhaps unfair termination of my employment in view of a process perhaps tainted by illegal acts at its onset

BUT HEY READERS YOU MAKE UP YOUR OWN MINDS


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