file number 5315212 - Paul Evans-McLeod and Telecom New Zealand Limited 190711

5315212 - Paul Evans-McLeod and Telecom New Zealand Limited date 190711

IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY AUCKLAND


[2011] }4ZERA Auckland 315     5315212

BETWEEN PAUL EVANS~-MCLEOD

Applicant

AND TELECOM NEW ZEALAND

LIMITED

Respondent





Member of Authority: K J Anderson



Representatives: P Evans-McLeod, In p~on

J Rooney, Counsel kr Respondent



Investigation: On the papers



Determination: 19 July 2011





DETERMINATION OF THE AUTHORITY







Employment Relationship Problem



[1] The applicant, Mr Evans-McLeod, seeks compensation “for loss of income” that he claims has been brought about because, he alleges, Telecom New Zealand Limited (Telecom) has deliberately “blacklisted” his name within the telecommunications industry:, hence Mr Evans-McLeod alleges that he has been unable to obtain employment in the industry following the termination of his employment with Telecom. But Telecom says that that the Authority does not have jurisdiction under section 161 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act), because the claim being pursued by Mr Evans-McLeod is not an employment relationship problem.

Background

[2] Mr Evans-McLcod is a former employee of Telecom. His employment terminated on or about 20th August 2009; brought about by his resignation. The parties consequently entered into a settlement agreement signed by a mediator pursuant to section 149 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act).

[3] Mr Evans-McLeod then sought to pursue a personal grievance action before the Authority. The outcome was that via a determination’ the Authority ibund that Mr Evans-McLeod was barred by s. 149 of the Act from pursuing a personal grievance. in arriving at this conclusion, the Authority also found that:



[24] 1 find that both parties freely entered into the final and binding Record of Settlement in which they agreed, among other things, that Mr Evans-McLeod would resign and Telecom would pay him a sum of money.



[25] Further there is no evidence that Mr Evans-MeLeod’s resignation resulted from any inappropriate or unlawful action on Telecom’s part or by anybody else. Mr Evans-McLeod was represented by an experienced officer of the EPMU and entered into the Record of Settlement after mediation and subsequent negotiation with the assistance of the mediator.


[4] One reasonably could have anticipated that the explicit determination of the Authority (above) should have been the end of the litigation path for Mr Evans¬McLeod However, pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1993, Mr Evans¬McLeod has since obtained information that Telecom has “marked” his personnel file “do not re-employ.” Mr Evans-McLeod alleges that he has been “blacklisted” by ~ Telecom and that he is unable to obtain re-employment in the telecommunications ~ industry, hence his claim for a remedy from the Authority in this matter.

[5] While Mr Evans-McLeod has provided the Authority with considerable material that he believes supports his attempt to re-litigate matters with Telecom, unfortunately the Authority is unable to give consideration to any of this material. This is because the Authority does not have jurisdiction to do so. Pursuant to section 161(l)oftheAct:




The Authority has exclusive jurisdiction to make determinations about employment

relationship problems generally, including — (Emphasis added)

(a)

(1,)...

Determination
[5] While Mr Evans-McLeod has provided the Authority with considerable material that he believes supports his attempt to re-litigate matters with Telecom, unfortunately the Authority is unable to give consideration to any of this material. This is because the Authority does not have jurisdiction to do so. Pursuant to section 161(l)oftheAct:

The Authority has exclusive jurisdiction to make determinations about employment

relationship problems generally, including — (Emphasis added)

(a)

(1,)...

AA 187/l0, Member CampIell, 26April 2010
[6] The insurmountable problem that Mr Evans-McLeod has, in regard to pursuing the current claim, is that he is no longer in an “employment relationship” with Telecom2 and hence it follows, that he is not able to pursue any further actions within the Employment Relations Authority relating to his past employment with Telecom. This is because the Authority does not have jurisdiction to hear any further claims from him. Therefore, the current claim is dismissed for want ofjurisdiction.





[7] Given that Mr Evans-McLeod continues to pursue what appears to be little short of a vexatious and misguided campaign of litigation against Telecom, I would trust that he now understands that it is just not possible for him to bring any other matters to the Authority pertaining to his past relationship with Telecom.


Costs: Costs are reserved. The respondent has 28 days from the date of this determination to file and serve submissions with the Authority. The applicant has a further 14 days to file and serve submissions.


Those invested in the process are as follows



Bridget Dalzell: national manager : who had oversight of the process

Michelle Young: Call Centre Manager who had oversight of Shaun Hoult

Shaun Hoult: My team manager and instigator of alleged letter

Iain Galloway :HR representative on Hamilton Site .who was involved in disciplinary meetings, sometimes as note taker

Hannah Sullivan: national HR representative who had oversight of process

asked for update

 

So after waiting 12  weeks I was starting to get a little impatient so I sent an email to Michael Barraclough 

Michael

I appreciate completely that your office is snowed under ,and I do not wish to annoy unduly the DOL or the authority member in question Mr K J Anderson in regard to my concerns ,

But would you be able to give me some indication as to progress of my case and the expectation of when it may be resolved ,this would go a long way to relieving my anxiety concerning same

Michael is a support officer in the office of the ERA
 
he replied promptly 
 
Paul,




I did refer your email to the Member, he is still working on the matter.



Regards


this gave me hope as i had presented them with a 30 page submission and i thought to myself yipee if they are still working on it .my submission has some substance to it i have raised some doubts so there might be a good outcome
unfortunately that assumption was to prove wrong

Those invested in the process are as follows



Bridget Dalzell: national manager : who had oversight of the process

Michelle Young: Call Centre Manager who had oversight of Shaun Hoult

Shaun Hoult: My team manager and instigator of alleged letter

Iain Galloway :HR representative on Hamilton Site .who was involved in disciplinary meetings, sometimes as note taker

Hannah Sullivan: national HR representative who had oversight of process

sound advice which i am following

Expose. Outing bullies and their enablers is essential to eliminating bullying. Corporate bullies use fear of consequence as the main weapon to keeping their victims and enablers silent.
Once bullies are exposed, I recommend an accounting audit
 
part of my submission requires that if discrepancies are found that all dissmissals done by this group are audited  not long now before things see the light of day


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

above/beyond the law

This is all very interesting ...and should you be successful and I wish you the best of luck.



So if fraud and deception and thus subsequent defamation has occurred...which crime is then acted on by the courts, and which requires you to pursue, and which are able to be actioned and how


Is it a liability that is held jointly and severally...I think that it is...


One would need to determine whether the subsequent defamation can then be pursued on both and individual and also separately on a collective basis.


I remain watchful

a question posed by a reader of my blog

i, if successful will persue all avenues available to me they have the impression that they are above/beyond the law
they have little realization of the effect a successful submission from me will have on themselves, on telecom, and on employment law
the famous five or six who invested time and effort in exiting me in doing so broke the law  in its simplist form the era has a central question to answer

when the corporation broke the law by commiting fraud how is it they who did the act remain employed while i was made unemployed
Question?
>who had oversight
> the national manager, failed to do job properly
> site manager same failed to do job
>team manager same failed to do job
> HR site advisor same failed to do job
> HR head office advisor same failed to do job



your watchfull  me i,m just fucken angry as soon as the submission is answered then i start the next phase

jointly and severally


A designation of liability by which members of a group are either individually or mutually responsible to a party in whose favor a judgment has been awarded.




Joint and several liability is a form of liability that is used in civil cases where two or more people are found liable for damages.

The winning plaintiff in such a case may collect the entire judgment from any one of the parties, or from any and all of the parties in various amounts until the judgment is paid in full. In other words, if any of the defendants do not have enough money or assets to pay an equal share of the award, the other defendants must make up the difference.



Defendants in a civil suit can be held jointly and severally liable only if their concurrent acts brought about the harm to the plaintiff. The acts of the defendants do not have to be simultaneous: they must simply contribute to the same event

well that certainly ticks all the boxes so if telecom dumps them to avoid a payout which they well may ,i will launch after each individuals

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

never

"Never be bullied into silence.  Never allow yourself to be made a victim.  Accept no-one's definition of your life; define yourself"


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

the mouse that roared

Great news

 my story is getting out there, have just been in contact with an overseas freelance journalist who has been following my story




He calls me the “the mouse that roared”



Be good title for my book



Yahoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

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

oh dear

i checked with the E R A re progress on my submission reply "we are still working on it " so what is the point then really .


well if they are still working on it , it means the submission has some substance to it .

so wtf ?

well thats really good news for me

but not so good news for some people who are/were lacking honesty and integrity

bugger the truth is finally about to set me free





aug 20 two year anniversary if im celebrating others wont be



i will await the outcome with enthusiam others will with trepidation


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