era refering it back to the authority member

To the parties

The Authority member, Vicki Campbell, asked for a telephone conference to be arranged for this matter.
I asked Genna Saifiti, the Administration Officer, to contact the parties to arrange a conference call.
Mr Evans-McLeod’s emails in response to the request for a telephone conference are attached.
I am referring the file back to Vicki Campbell for her consideration.

Stephen Berry
Support Officer

era reply and my response no 2

Genna

Please give my apologies, as i will only make myself available once the assurances requested are in place

Again with the utmost respect to both Vicky and the Authority i see no positive outcome it is a frivolous waste of the authorities time and have no wish to be a party to it



warm regards
Paul
17 Minnie Place
Pukete
Te Rapa
Hamilton
New Zealand

Phone 0064 7 8494584
Mobile 0272423017
Paul.evans-mcleod@xtra.co.nz


From: Genna Saifiti [mailto:Genna.Saifiti@dol.govt.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 21 July 2010 9:53 a.m.
To: Paul Mcleod
Subject: RE: subject 5311630 Telecom New Zealand

Morning Paul,

Thank you for your email, I will pass on your concerns to the Authority Member Vicki Campbell.

Can you please advised whether or not you will be available for the conference call on Tuesday 27th July 2010 @ 11.30am?

Kind regards

era reply and my response

Afternoon Genna


I am anxious given the current state of my finances; to mitigate future needless increment of costs.

As a person of integrity and honour have advised that I will pay the costs awarded in the last ERA judgment.

I have volunteered my budget freely to the authority and telecom.

The success of my employment endeavours will see this paid off earlier , once I have a regular income.

I will participate in a conference call but desire an assurance ,that its cost will not be awarded against me.

I find telecoms actions both mean spirited and vexatious, they are fully aware of my financial position.

I view this as just a continuation of the work place bullying ,they inflicted on me, to effect my dismissal, after a very long career.

With the utmost respect to Vicki and her position as an authority member; I can see no positive outcome, except to verbally re-establish my position and circumstances.



Nothing can or will change my current circumstances unless I gain employment and I have no wish to waste the authority's time.


warm regards
Paul
17 Minnie Place
Pukete
Te Rapa
Hamilton
New Zealand



From: Genna Saifiti [mailto:Genna.Saifiti@dol.govt.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 20 July 2010 10:19 a.m.
To: Paul Mcleod
Subject: RE: subject 5311630 Telecom New Zealand

Morning Paul,

Further to your email, the Authority Member Vicki Campbell has asked for a conference call, so if you can please advise your availability for the 27th July 2010 either morning or afternoon, if this is not suitable please provide me some possible dates and times that you would be available.

Kind regards

Genna Saifiti
Administration Officer
0-9 970 1576

response to a request by era for a conference call

Dear Genna

I have indicated previously to both Telecom and the Authority that I find myself on the dole and completely bereft of funds, I have provided my budget, my options, coupled with my assurances it will be paid and that the payments will be increased as circumstances permit

I can do no more

Participation in a conference call will only give Telecom cause to add more costs , which would only serve to exacerbate, the very problem they are trying to resolve .

my reply to statement of problem re payment of costs awarded against me

Response to statement in reply
File no 5311630


I view this as just a pointless waste of time, and I have no inclination to pay for cost related to this application in what I deem as a vexatious and mean spirited application.
It is a further attempt to bully me into submission, as I’m also involved with the participants in this action around some serious breaches of the privacy act.


The facts are these and have been highlighted previously to the applicant; they a fully aware of my circumstances.


Since I “resigned” I have been unable to find any alternative employment, as telecommunications is the only craft I know ,this is the unintended consequence of the applicants client actions ,this in spite of the fact that I have applied for numerous jobs within the Telecom structure completely separate to the area I “resigned” from and continue to do so .
The fact that I “resigned” and given my vast knowledge and experience, success in these endeavours should have been an almost forgone conclusion.

I suspect I have been black listed but consul for the applicant insists empathetically this is not the case.

I’m am left bereft of any idea as to what is holding me back perhaps if the applicants client is in such urgent need of the funds, they could advise me of whatever shortcomings I have that don’t warrant my re- employment after his empathic denial that I am not black listed; I am extremely hesitant to present the possibly of age discrimination.


I agree that I initially was paying $1 an day and offered to increase payment to $10 a week; this has been done which leaves the applicant in error in his statement of problem, Para 2 (f) where he states I continue to make payments of $1 per week day .

I request the applicant seeks an audit of his own accounting process to clarify that I indeed have been making payments at $2 per week day since according to my own bank statements from 170610

I advised them again by email 170610 of my circumstances and supplied a budget (please see attached)

I indicated that once my circumstances improved I would increase payment


I simply can’t give what I haven’t got, however feel completely free to refine my budget and I will endeavour to comply

, I have even canvassed my friends and acquaintances on face book and my followers on my blog for donations to this account, a humbling but necessary requirement as the dole provides enough to survive on but leaves very little room for extras

Full permission is given to your office to seek clarification as to my income and any other details from Winz my client number is 404 734 594


I take exception to statements made in Parg (8) that the applicant has little confidence that I will observe any agreement entered into at mediation, he has no cause or right to make such a slanderous groundless accusation, he impugns my honesty and integrity the very thing i am seeking to restore. I seek an apology.

To date I have complied with all that has been asked of me.

It is in fact the applicant’s client that failed to observe agreements reached in mediation.

Suffice it to say that a breech occurred and occurrences around that issue where resolved however I was concerned on being informed from another legal source that regardless of the circumstances around said breech it should have been an automatic fine in the vicinity of $3000 perhaps we could revisit this concern.

Telecom has made the grievous error of destroying my health, my life and seriously impacted my marriage.

I simply have nothing left to lose they are however seriously frustrated that I continue in my efforts to clear my name, as that is the only thing I have left of value to me apart from my family.


Yours faithfully

Paul Evans- McLeod

you work for them most of your life and telecom just cant resist putting the boot in

UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ACT 2000


BEFORE THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY AT AUCKLAND
File No.
BETWEEN TELECOM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Telecom House, 8
Hereford Street, Auckland
Applicant
AND PAUL EVANS-MCLEOD, 17 Minnie Place, Pukete, Te
Rapa, Hamilton
Respondent
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM


~ Simpson Grierson
Barristers & Solicitors

To: The Employment Relations Authority
And to: The respondent


The problem that the applicant wishes the Authority to resolve is:


(a) The applicant seeks a compliance order pursuant to ss137(2) and 138 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 requiring the respondent to comply with the costs determination of the Authority in Paul Evans-McLeod v Telecom New Zealand Limited, Bridgette Daizell, Michelle Young, Shaun Hoult AA187AIIO

. The facts that have given rise to the problem are:


(a) The applicant has been awarded costs in the sum of $1500 and disbursements of $401.48 by Determination of the Authority dated 1 June 2010.


(b) By letter dated 9 June 2010 the applicant sought payment in full by 18 June 2010.


(C) Up to and including 25 June 2010, the respondent had made payment to the applicant’s solicitor’s trust account in the sum of $19.00 by way of 19 instalments of $1.00.


(d) The applicant rejected payment at this rate and again requested payment in full by letter dated 14 June 2010.


(e) By email dated 17 June 2010 the respondent offered to increase payment to $10 per week. Under this proposal, the applicant would not receive full payment of the sums it has been awarded for over three and half years.


(f) To date, the respondent has refused to make payment in full and continues to make payment at the rate of $1.00 per week day. At this rate, the respondent’s debt to the applicant would not be satisfied until 2017.
3. The applicant would like the problem to be resolved in the following way:


(a) The applicant seeks a compliance order pursuant to ss137(2) and 138 of the ERA requiring the respondent to comply with the costs determination of the Authority in Paul Evans-McLeod

v Telecom New Zealand Limited, Bridgette Daize!!, Michelle Young, Shaun HouItAAI87AJIO being:


(i) the respondent is to pay the applicant the sum of $1,481.00 as costs; and


(ii) the respondent is to pay the applicant the sum of $401 for disbursements.


(b) The applicant seeks that the costs and disbursements be paid in their entirety no later than 30 July 2010.


(C) The applicant further seeks the costs of, and incidental to, this application.


4. The applicant attaches copies of the following documents relevant to the problem:


(a) Costs Determination of the Authority dated 1 June 2010

(b) Correspondence with the respondent dated 9 June 2010 and 14 June 2010.

(C) Email from the respondent dated 17 June 2010


Mediation


5. Have you, the applicant, tried to resolve this matter using mediation services provided by the Department of Labour?
Yes No~

6. Have you, the applicant, tried to resolve this problem using mediation provided by someone other than the Department of Labour? Yes El No ~


7. Have you, the applicant, taken any other steps of any kind to resolve the matter? Yes ~ No ~


The Applicant has requested payment by letters dated 9 and 14 June

2010.


8. If you, the applicant, have answered “No” to both the question in paragraph 5 and the question in paragraph 6, please indicate why you have not used mediation to try to resolve the matter.


The Applicant has not requested mediation for the following reasons:


(a) The cost involved in attending mediation would potentially be greater than the amount the Applicant is seeking to recover pursuant to this application; and

(b) The Cost Determination this application relates to follows the Authority’s finding that it had no jurisdiction to investigate a personal grievance raised by the Respondent in light of a Record of Settlement

the parties entered into pursuant to section 149 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. In the circumstances, the Applicant has little confidence that the Respondent would observe any agreement entered into at mediation.


Fee


9. The application is accompanied by the prescribed fee.
Notice to the respondent

1. If you intend to respond to this application, you must, within 14 days after the date of the service of this application on you, lodge 2 copies of a statement in reply with an officer of the Employment Relations Authority at Auckland.


2. The term days (in paragraph I of this notice) does not include any day in the period beginning with 25 December in any year and ending with 5 January in the following year.


3. You will be notified of the place, date and time at which the Authority will conduct any investigation meeting in respect of this application.



Officer of the Employment Relations Authority:


Date:



This application is lodged by JOHN DOMINIC ROONEY, on behalf of the abovenamed applicant, whose address for service is at the offices of Simpson Grierson, Level 27, 88 Shortland Street, Auckland and whose telephone number Is 09-977-5070 and whose fax number for service is 09-977-5083 and whose document exchange number for service is DX CXI 0092 and whose e-mail address for service is john.rooney~5imPSongrierS0n.c0m.

Bridgette Dalzell lies yet again in correspondence to privacy commissioner

This blog has been in play for some months. To gain the full story, go to left hand side "blog archive" go to bottom post of January with same title as this Blog and read upwards

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 center manager Hamilton call center, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative spends a lot of time in Hamilton
Hannah Sullivan HR Telecom instruction person to lawyer John Rooney
John Rooney Telecoms legal representative partner in Simpson Grierson


there is no such thing as a minor breach of ethics you are either honest or you are not

Bridgette Dalzell current head of outsourced customer care at telecom New Zealand

has done it again read further



30 June 2010


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: C122243)

I refer to previous correspondence concerning the Privacy Act (“the Act”) complaint you have made about the actions of Telecom New Zealand Limited (“Telecom”).

We have now received a response from Telecom regarding your complaint. Having reviewed the information provided by Telecom, it is my preliminary view that Telecom has not interfered with your privacy in this case. The reasons for my view are set out below. As this is my preliminary view, I am happy to take into consideration any comments you may wish to make.

Background

During the course of an ongoing employment dispute between you and your former employer, Telecom, you formed the view that Telecom had been reading personal emails which you had sent to your friends and family from work. You based this view on the fact that Telecom had sent an email to you and had copied in an acquaintance of yours, Nigel Dick, and asked him to confirm that he was acting as your lawyer.

You also advised that you had made a request for information from Telecom which was originally sent to Trish Keith, Bridget Dalzell, Michelle Young and Shaun Hault. It is not clear from the information you provided to us when this request was initially sent.

You advised that as you did not receive a response to this initial request, you then sent a copy to Tanya Bowers on 6 March 2010. I understand that following this, you then contacted Ms Bowers directly for an update and were advised that the matter was being dealt with by someone in the HR department. You advised that as of 16 April 2010 you had not received a response to your request.

You then made a subsequent request to Telecom on 26 May 2010, for a copy of all the personal information it holds about you.

The Privacy Act

There are two main privacy issues raised by your complaint. The first issue is in relation to your request for information from Telecom. The second issue is in relation to your concerns that Telecom accessed your personal emails while you were at work. I will deal with these in turn below.


C1222431A22 9089
2



Issue One — Telecom’s Response to Your Request for Information

This aspect of your complaint raises issues in terms of principle 6 of the Act. Principle 6 sets out that an individual is entitled to request that an agency which holds personal information about them provides them with a copy of that information. However that this is not an absolute right as the agency may be entitled to withhold information on the basis of the withholding grounds set out in sections 27-29 of the Act.

In this case, as noted above you made a request to Telecom for access to your information on several occasions without receiving a response. We notified Telecom of this aspect of your complaint. Telecom has advised that it did not receive your initial request for information. This is on the basis that Telecom had placed a block on your email address due to the content of previous emails which you had sent to Telecom.

Telecom has further advised that on 25 February 2010, it wrote to you requesting that all future correspondence be directed to Simpson Grierson directly. Telecom has advised that the block was put in place on 23 December 2009, although it may not have been fully actioned until the beginning of 2010. Telecom further advises that on 20 April 2010, the block was removed on a very limited basis so that your emails could be received by five HR email addresses.

Telecom has advised that as such, it did not receive your request for information until 26 May 2010. I understand that Telecom has responded to your request and advised that it is seeking an extension of an additional 20 working days in which to respond to your request for information.

I note that you had advised that you had spoke with Ms Bowers regarding your complaint and she had noted that your concerns were being dealt with by the HR department. Telecom has advised that this comment was made in relation to a online complaint which you had made on 4 March 2010 through Telecom’s customer help website, rather than being in relation to your information request.

As Telecom did not receive your initial requests made earlier this year for access to the personal information it holds about you, I am satisfied it has not breached the Act by not responding to these requests.

I am also satisfied that Telecom has a proper basis under section 41 of the Act to seek an extension on responding to the information request which it received on 26 May 2010.

As such, I am satisfied that Telecom has not interfered with your privacy in relation to your request for information. However, please note that if Telecom does not provide you with a response within the extended timeframe, by 22 July 2010, or if you are dissatisfied with the response which Telecom provides, you may bring this matter to our attention.

Issue Two - Access to Your Personal Emails

The second aspect of your complaint relates to your concerns that Telecom had collected information from personal emails which you had sent from your work email address. You advised that you believed that Telecom had accessed your emails based on the fact that it had sent an email to you dated 6 April 2009 which asked for you to confirm that Mr Dick was acting for you. Mr Dick was also copied into this email.



C1222431A229089
3


This aspect of your complaint raised possible issues in terms of principles 1-4 of the Act. These principles set out the obligations on agencies when they are collecting personal information, including what information they are allowed to collect, who they can collect personal information from, what they should tell people when they are collecting personal information, and the manner in which they can collect this personal information.

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.

having mr dick pretend to be my lawyer was a deliberate trap to find out who was accessing my emails here is where she is lying if im setting a trap the very last thing i am going to do is tell the person about the trap it just wouldnt make sense

by her accessing the email she with the understanding at that piont in her own mind that nigel was my lawyer and by her own statement has breeched a principle in law called "legal professional privilege" this is the forth time in correspondance she has lied

i have highlighted this fact among other to the directors has they are respondible for the code of ethis with bridget has breach to have her adnmonished but they have neither replied or acknowledge so im in the process of taking the next step




Given the information provided by Telecom, I am not satisfied that you have provided us with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Telecom did in fact collect information from personal emails which you had sent from your work email. As there is no evidence that your information was collected by Telecom in this way, I am satisfied that it has not interfered with your privacy in this case.

Additionally, I note that even if it was the case that Telecom had collected information from your work emails, this would be unlikely to raise issues in terms of principles 1-4 of the Act. This is on the basis that Telecom has clear guidelines in place regarding the use of its work emails. Telecom has provided us with a copy of these guidelines which clearly set out that while personal use of Telecom email systems is permitted, this system is subject to monitoring and inspection at any time to ensure compliance with the email guidelines. The guidelines clearly state that Telecom provides no guarantees to ensure email privacy and that all messages should be considered to be viewable by a third party. The guidelines go on to set out that Telecom reserves the right to monitor and inspect individual staff email activity for a number of reasons, including to ensure compliance with the email guidelines.

Finally, I note that you have raised concerns regarding a potential violation of trust between communications between a lawyer and client. This is something which is referred to as legal professional privilege, and is relevant to the Privacy Act as, for example, an agency may be entitled to withhold documents that involve correspondence between them and their lawyer on the basis that it would breach legal professional privilege if it was forced to disclose this information.

However, legal professional privilege only applies in situations where there is a communication between a lawyer and a client, or in limited situations another third party, and that communication has been made in confidence. I note that in this case, the communications which you have raised concerns about were not between you and your lawyer, rather it was a friend who does not actually appear to be a lawyer. Additionally, based on the clear guidelines set out by Telecom, it is clear that any communication made through the work email system was not confidential, due to the fact that Telecom reserve to the right to monitor work emails.

As I am not satisfied that Telecom did in fact collect information about you from your work emails, and given that it is likely they would have been entitled to under the Act due to their clear guidelines, I am satisfied that Telecom has not interfered with your privacy in relation to this aspect of your complaint.


Conclusion

For the reasons set out above, it is my preliminary view that Telecom has not interfered with your privacy. As this is a preliminary view, I am happy to consider any further comments you may wish to make. If you wish to comment please do so by 26 July 2010. If I do not hear from you by then we may proceed to form his final opinion regarding these aspects of your corn plaint.


Yours sincerely

Investigating Officer (Auckland)


C1222431A229089