telecom and me its a long post but well worth the read
it has always been a basic right under law that you have the right to meet your own accusers
that is why i continue in my quest to challenge telecom regarding the fraud commited against me namely a false customer complaint that never in fact actuality existed
this admitted by telecom own legal consul namely john Rooney of Simpson Greirson
after a protract discourse with the privacy commission lasting months as they duck and dived around the truth
All participants in this protracted fraud are in my view culpable under the law. As it is part of their job requirements to make themselves fully cognisant with all the laws of the land it is an integral part of their job descriptions
Bridgette Dalzell: National Manager Telecom: who had oversight of the process as her role dictates?
Michelle Young Site manager 123 Call Centre Hamilton (Bridgette Dalzell is Michelle's manager)
Shaun Hoult my Team Leader (Michelle Young is his manager)
Iain Galloway Site Human Resource Manager
Hannah Sullivan head office Human Resource
i sent a letter( printed )to the board asking why when the fraud has be acknowledged by their lawyer that an illegal act exists a why they have failed to remove the participants and why they still hold their positions while i remain on the dole
read this
"Privacy commissioner acknowledges
Telecom’s responses in terms of why it considers it have already provided you with these documents, to the extent that they exist. As previously advised Telecom is entitled to refuse a request for information which does not exist under section 29(2)(b).
“this portion refers to the letter that was supposedly written customer complaint by the handicap girl who said I was “condescending patronising and rude” they are therefore admitting fraud in the disciplinary process” end "
i got the standard reply that telecom will not enter into any further communication with me
but in reality that was not the intent the intent was to create a paper trail showing that i had contacted the right people and made every effort in house to resolve the issue
Telecoms code of ethics are supported and approved by the board, whom required to facilitate decisions that are consistent with telecoms legal obligations.
Staff behaviours require they conduct themselves in a way that demonstrates that their honesty is beyond question and will behaviours that have the potential to bring telecoms image into disrepute
thus this has been demonstrated to have failed on all counts
but i gave them a chance i have moved on by passing my problem to perhaps a higher power to investigate perhaps its the media perhaps not
if the named participants suddenly exit the company for "personal reasons " perhaps my actions may have a bearing on it
for while the directors have failed to act they now have the knowledge because it exists signed of a true and correct record by the participants own hand
read telecom code of ethics
especially the bit about bringing telecom into disrepute
that their careers may well have stalled it is perhaps the unfortunate consequence of their own actions it is their failure to act with honesty and integrity that brought them to this point
two weeks after i "resigned" they stamped my file do not re-employ
bit unfair really actually down right nasty which is why i vented my spleen on my blog
fell free to read it and follow it just google the names including mine of any of the participants
its all there signed off as a true and correct record by all involved
my next move will be posted after it occurs for obvious reasons
I gave 39 and 1/4 years to the company this was not the way I anticipated leaving
I was more than happy to be judged among my peers asking for no special favours neither expecting them
However my own personal codes of ethics deems that I will not allow my personal reputation for honesty and integrity to be sullied by the actions of those whose concept of same bear no reality to their actions
so when you find yourself in front of your manager for a disciplinary action ask for the ultimate proof of each allegation against you
and if you need a support person im here to help
before you go take the time to read this the law is actually on your side
Employment Law Update May 2012
Wednesday, 9 May, 2012
Author: Simon Menzies
J’ accuse
An employer is faced with an accusation against an employee alleging misconduct. In an investigation into the accusation, what are the obligations of the employer in relation to the accuser?
It is well established that the employer must undertake an investigation to be satisfied that the allegations warrant further steps and if so, that the person accused is entitled to details of the allegations. A recent Employment Relations Authority decision suggests that an employer’s obligations go beyond that process to provide the employee being investigated (or that employee’s representative) with the opportunity to question the accuser.
A decision released in March 2012 (Kolo’ofai v Invercargill Passenger Transport Limited) involved a case in which the employee was a bus driver accused by a member of the public of failing to account for a bus fare received from another patron. The allegation did not suggest that the driver pocketed the fare. However, the allegation suggested the driver did not follow normal practices with the implication that the fare was misappropriated.
The complaint was provided by the passenger by way of a reasonably detailed email but the employer did not otherwise speak to the complainant.
The Authority determined that the employer had undertaken an appropriate process apart from not arranging for the driver (or her representative) to question the passenger who made the initial complaint. In the Authority’s view:
“… a failure to allow or arrange questioning by or on behalf of an employee accused of serious misconduct of the person who has made the allegations and who is a direct witness of the alleged misconduct is not the action that a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances at the time the dismissal occurred. This failure, which I regard as a fundamental one, therefore, renders the decision to dismiss unjustified”.
Although the Authority took the view that such action (or more correctly omission) was a fundamental failure, it is not an action that was specifically required by the recent amendments to the Employment Relations Act that were effective from 1 April 2011.
Decisions of the Authority are not binding on other Authority members in later cases. They are, however, influential or persuasive. Therefore, any employer undertaking an enquiry into alleged serious misconduct based upon allegations from a third party would need to consider carefully whether to ensure access to the complainant on behalf of the accused or the accused’s advisor.
This case dealt with circumstances of serious misconduct where the complainant was a member of the public. Logically, however, there is no reason in principle why it would not extend to circumstances of any misconduct whether the complainant is inside or outside the workplace. The implications where the complainant is a co-employee are obvious. There may be circumstances where such a step is not appropriate – for example, where the issue is particularly sensitive, such as a complaint of sexual harassment. Nonetheless, any employer would need to think carefully about this issue as part of any future investigation process.
