November 2012 Partner Reference
J Rooney - Auckland
TTim Maclndoe Writers Details
Direct Dial: +64-9-977 5070
mpP for 1-familton West Fax: +64-9-977 5083
Parliament Buildings Email: johnraoney~simpsongrierson.com
WELLINGTON 1610
SENT BY EMAIL
tim.macindoe~parIiamenti~ovtnz
Paul Evans-McLeod
1. We act for Telecom New Zealand Limited (Telecom) who have passed us your letter addressed to Simon Moutter of 9 October 2012. We have been advising Telecom on this issue since Mr Evans-McLeod raised his first personal grievance. Given the history of events, Telecom requires that all correspondence and dealings on the matter occur through Simpson Grierson. We have therefore been instructed to respond to your letter.
Completely correct however this an attempt to define the rule of engagement so all correspondence can be managed by the lawyer anD hr
2. The document provided by Mr Evans-McLeod and enclosed with your letter does not provide an accurate outline of the history. Telecom emphatically denies that any of its actions in relation to Mr Evans-McLeod were in any way fraudulent.
Sorry unless telecom is able to produce the original letter form the handicap girl claiming I was condescending and rude their action where fraudulent more over they knowing went into a mediation with the full knowledge that part of their case was based on a lie this is illegal
Consider this 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.
3. Mr Evans-McLeod and Telecom participated in mediation provided by the Department of Labour on 17 August 2009. The applicant was represented by the EPMU. Following mediation, Mr Evans-McLeod resigned and the parties freely entered into a record of settlement which was expressly stated to be in full and final settlement of all matters between Mr Evans-McLeod and Telecom arising out of their employment relationship and its termination. This record was signed by a Department of Labour mediator pursuant to section 149 of the Employment Relations Act 2000.
What I wish clarification on is the commencement of proceeding leading to mediation based on nonexistent documents, so how can that be freely entered into
Indicates deceit, premeditation predetermined outcome, all contrary to the law and the requirement of the legal acts surrounding the era and mediation process
Fraud is commonly understood to be dishonesty calculated for advantage i.e. a false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations or by concealment of what should have been disclosed –that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act on it to his legal injury
Represented by the epmu documents supplied by privacy commission show epmu representative was in “without prejudice communication” with national manger Bridgette Dalzell I was played and betrayed by the very people that should have had my best interest at heart
4. In signing the record of settlement, the mediator explained to Mr Evans-McLeod that the terms of settlement were final and binding on the parties and that, except for enforcement purposes, Mr Evans-McLeod could not seek to bring those terms before the Authority or the Court, whether by action, appeal, application for review, or otherwise.
Not appealing the review etc, requesting the alleged document...pursuant to other legal action.
Other comments, happy to be corrected, can Telecom please indicate which specific areas of fact are in dispute.
5. Nevertheless, approximately four months later Mr Evans-McLeod purported to raise a personal grievance for unjustifiable dismissaL He subsequently filed proceedings in the Employment Relations Authority claiming he had been unjustifiably dismissed. This claim was unsuccessful and in a determination dated 26 April 2010 the Authority determined that Mr Evans-McLeod was statute barred from pursuing a personal grievance. The Authority found that Mr Evans-McLeod freely entered into the record of settlement. The Authority also found that Mr Evans-MoLeod’s resignation had not resulted from any inappropriate or unlawful action on Telecom’s part or by anyone else.
At this point neither myself or the authority had no knowledge of any inappropriate or unlawful action however telecom did but where withholding all requests for it as they had full knowledge in didn’t in fact exist
6. Mr Evans-McLeod subsequently filed a second claim with the employment Relations Authonty in August 2010 seeking compensation for determination loss of incomeiricome of $70 000 per annum for Telecom allegedly deliberately blacklisting his name within the telecommunications industry In a determination dated 19 Jt~ly 2012 the Authority dismissed the claim for want of jurisdiction In that n the Authority referred to Mr Evans-McLeod pursuing what appears to L~ little short of a vexatious and misguided campaign of litigation against Telecom~
Please explain the request for Hannah sullicna dated Thursday 3 september 2009 12.29 pm
To frenanda schyns of ask HR
Subject paul evans-mcleod
Please mark paulS file as “do not re-employ”
As telecom controls all the communications infrastructure ie the exchange building where the phone numbers origination from this effectively bars me form the full completionsome of work hence I am effectively black listed
7 Mr Evans-McLeod~s document does not contain anything he has not repeatedly raised before and continues to recycle incorrect facts about the circumstances surrounding his resignation from Telecom. Telecom has previously given full consideration to the many claims Mr Evans-McLeod has raised and is satisfied it has acted appropriately.
7 recycled incorrect please advise line by line which facts are incorrect and I will happy refute them line by line this cooment boders on being libelous
8. In all of the circumstances Telecom does not consider there is anything to be gained by yet further investigation. As far as Telecom is concerned there is no ~dispute”. Mr Evans-McLeod was not constructively dismissed on a fraudulent act as he alleges. He freely resigned and entered into a binding record of settlement.
Rubbish there is a lot to be gained the truth
Produce the letter other wise it is fraud
Fraud is commonly understood to be dishonesty calculated for advantage i.e. a false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations or by concealment of what should have been disclosed –that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act on it to his legal injury
Yours f~~jHy
SIMP$~’GRIERSON
John Roon~
Partner
