Monday, May 31, 2010
my request to telecom
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
Sarah Thompson investigating officer Privacy Commissioner Office Auckland : fyi
Tanya Bowers , Privacy Officer Telecom: For your attention
Re : Privacy Act Complaint : Paul Evans-Mcleod and Telecom New Zealand Privacy commissioner ref C/222143
Principle 7 of the privacy act sets out that an individual is entitled to request that an agency correct the personal information held about them having due regard to the purposes for which the information may be lawfully used ,the information is accurate .up to date, complete and not misleading
Events at a recent meeting between the parties with the Employment Relations Authority unfortunately proved the information in part to be incomplete thus I have found Telecom to fall well below the standard required under the act
This compels me to act to protect my good name so in order to ally myself of any further concerns as to the veracity of the documents held about me in regard to this matter I am requesting under the auspices of the act all information held about me
This is to include
All conversation notes ,emails dairy notes correspondence to/ from all related parties including, human resources ,legal opinions and others to include same between all participants inclusive of Bridgette Dalzell, Michelle Young ,Shaun Hoult, Iain Galloway ,Hannah Sullivan Peter Cooper-Davis Sandra Cleaver , Dr David Prestage, the Department of Labor, Sheryl North , Trish Keith ,Debbie Herlihy .Bryan Abraham,
Subsequent from that time up to but not including the mediation and any produced post mediation
Any concerns about non compliance to the act and my request are to be forwarded in the first instance to the privacy commissioner office, attention investigating officer Sarah Thompson with a copy cc to myself
warm regards
Paul
17 Minnie Place
Pukete
Te Rapa
Hamilton
New Zealand
Phone 0064 7 8494584
Mobile 0272423017
Paul.evans-mcleod@xtra.co.nz
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
the privacy commisioner
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
18 May 2010
Paul Evans-McLeod
17 Minnie Place
Pukete
HAMILTON 3200
Dear Mr Evans-MCLeOd
• Privacy Commissioner Te Mana Matapoflo MatatapU
Privacy Act Complaint: Paul Evans-McLeOd and Telecom New Zealand Limited
(Our Ref: C/22243)
Thank you for your letter received 12 May 2010.
I have reviewed the information you have provided and noted the comments you have made concerning your complaint about the actions of Telecom New Zealand Limited (“Telecom”). As previously advised, we have also notified Telecom of your complaint and I will be in further contact with you once we receive a respond from Telecom.
However, I note that in your letter under the heading “Principle 6” you have asked that we make a request, on your behalf, for correction of the personal information Telecom holds about you.
With regards to your request for correction, principle 7 of the Privacy Act is relevant. Principle 7 sets out that an individual is entitled to request that an agency corrects the personal information it holds about them. The agency is not required to make this correction, but if it chooses not to do so, then it must attach a statement of correction provided by the individual. The statement of correction provides you with an opportunity to set out your version of events. ~enclose a copy of principle 7 for your information.
However, in order to request that this information is corrected, you must make this request directly to Telecom. Our Office is not in a position to make this request on your behalf.
I hope this letter helps clarify the situation for you. As noted above, we will be in further contact as soon as we receive a response from Telecom.
Sarah Thompson Investigating Officer (Auckland)
End: Principle 7
C/22243/A2251 96
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
18 May 2010
Paul Evans-McLeod
17 Minnie Place
Pukete
HAMILTON 3200
Dear Mr Evans-MCLeOd
• Privacy Commissioner Te Mana Matapoflo MatatapU
Privacy Act Complaint: Paul Evans-McLeOd and Telecom New Zealand Limited
(Our Ref: C/22243)
Thank you for your letter received 12 May 2010.
I have reviewed the information you have provided and noted the comments you have made concerning your complaint about the actions of Telecom New Zealand Limited (“Telecom”). As previously advised, we have also notified Telecom of your complaint and I will be in further contact with you once we receive a respond from Telecom.
However, I note that in your letter under the heading “Principle 6” you have asked that we make a request, on your behalf, for correction of the personal information Telecom holds about you.
With regards to your request for correction, principle 7 of the Privacy Act is relevant. Principle 7 sets out that an individual is entitled to request that an agency corrects the personal information it holds about them. The agency is not required to make this correction, but if it chooses not to do so, then it must attach a statement of correction provided by the individual. The statement of correction provides you with an opportunity to set out your version of events. ~enclose a copy of principle 7 for your information.
However, in order to request that this information is corrected, you must make this request directly to Telecom. Our Office is not in a position to make this request on your behalf.
I hope this letter helps clarify the situation for you. As noted above, we will be in further contact as soon as we receive a response from Telecom.
Sarah Thompson Investigating Officer (Auckland)
End: Principle 7
C/22243/A2251 96
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
what is the next step
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
The next step is we wait for a ruling from the employment relations authority as regard to costs as they have to the decision to make regarding costs
Vicki Campbell the same lady that took the hearing will make the determination after receiving correspondence reviewed in the previous two posts
And that will close of this chapter of my dealings with telecom with regard to my dismissal as you can see all your effort and loyalty means very little in this modern day in big cooperates they are nothing but very shallow people without ethics or morality look to your own health your family and your friends as work doesn’t own your soul and doesn’t deserve the efforts your put in
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
The next step is we wait for a ruling from the employment relations authority as regard to costs as they have to the decision to make regarding costs
Vicki Campbell the same lady that took the hearing will make the determination after receiving correspondence reviewed in the previous two posts
And that will close of this chapter of my dealings with telecom with regard to my dismissal as you can see all your effort and loyalty means very little in this modern day in big cooperates they are nothing but very shallow people without ethics or morality look to your own health your family and your friends as work doesn’t own your soul and doesn’t deserve the efforts your put in
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
my reply to the authority regarding memorandum re costs
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
File Number 5294885:
Memorandum as to costs
While I accept the authorities ruling, as it is required to act under the terms of the law, sometimes that means you don’t get the perceived justice you desire, but you do get the law applied in a fair and just way. (However it is still my personal belief that the four people involved in my story have while behaving legally have reached their goal of having me dismissed in a very unethical and dishonest way)
My initial response to the respondents counsel is as tabled below
Dear John
Thank you for the recent correspondence with regard to costs: File 5294885
I wish to dispute the costs, and offer the following proposal in respect of those costs.
We note Para.3 that the notional daily rate is $3000 dollars per hearing day.
We also note your acknowledgment in Para.4 that the hearing was half a day, the hearing in fact, in my recollection only lasted at most a hour and half
So on a pro rata basis considering a full day to be eight hours, we consider a contribution to costs( including gst) of $562.50 to be an entirely reasonable contribution
($3000 divided by 480, the number of minutes in a full eight day, times 90 the number of minutes involved in the hearing)
Your comments in regard to the fact that my claim was statue banned and bound to fail are noted..
However my concern in taking my case to the authority was to ascertain the legally of the process I was put through to achieve Telecoms aim.
A successful outcome on my behalf would have effectively negated the mediation ban.
The authority was the only avenue available to me to pursue this question.
With regard to my approach to discovery incurring far more costs to your client than it should have.
This entirely of their own doing.
Over the course of my long dispute with telecom, several compromises were offered by myself, which would have mitigated the cost.
My resignation was offered, this telecom refused to accept.
Secondly (this formed part of the incomplete meeting notes alluded to in the hearing) when I offered that, we end all this nonsense, apologise to each other accept the lesson learned on both sides and put it behind us .Telecoms response was a final written warning forcing me to mediation
Which indicated to me that it was a personal vendetta on behalf of the site manager and the seconded national manager which they proceeded with, being fully aware of impact it was having on my health and my marriage this despite the fact they were fully aware of the medical issues I was facing
This is supported in their own documents from HR written by Helen Sullivan, (the same documents you requested be keep confidential) they indicate, in my view, that the final written warning was to be the outcome; which indicates predetermination and premeditation.
Careful perusal of my response notes would indicate that I advised you in reply that I would not be keeping them confidential and would be using all at my disposal to clear my name, this process is ongoing
One would also question why therefore I should pay for incomplete product of discovery.
Para 6 I quote “ if an agreement cannot be reached by this time we will file a memorandum in the authority seeking costs and disbursements over and above the amount sought in this letter “ I also reserve that right
The offer is full and final, fair and reasonable
All other considerations are immaterial and largely of Telecoms own making
Your faithfully
Paul Evans-McLeod
In answer to the latest communication I offer this as my defense as to costs
1 This whole sorrowful event could have been avoided if Telecom had accepted the compromises alluded to and offered above.
2 If the employment relations authority had advised me that the threshold for a successful claim with regards to stress in the work place was set extremely high I would have accepted the advice given and not proceeded with my complaint. The acceptance by the authority indicated a belief my claims had merit and so I proceeded.
3 As a laymen and even if I judged John's fees to be $1000 an hour I’m afraid I don’t see 13 hours worth of product in his presentation of his brief .
4 As to disbursements costs I feel these are highly inflated as the instructing person Hannah Sullivan had full and complete notes at the mediation, as did Michelle Young, as the copying machine and fax are within five meters of Michele Young’s office. I afraid I just can’t quantify costs to the value they are suggesting.
5 In closing i wish to the authority to note that my subsequent resignation under duress has placed me on the dole for the last nine months since the hearing
Hence my income has shrunken severely to $361 a week my house hold has approximately $202 in required outgoings rate utilities etc, leaving the remainder to provide food and petrol etc.
I will pay what the authority deems fair and just however, unless I can persuade the local winz office to pay in full the amount determined ,it will unfortunately be on a regular but minimal amount until I am fortunate enough to gain employment in the interim.
It is to be noted however that the prolonged stress Telecom put me thru has impacted heavily on my health as indicated in earlier notes I am manic-depressive; a fact that telecom was well aware of.
Currently l have entered what is termed a manic-phase which means im am in a highly hyper –alert state, much akin to being on p, this means I don’t sleep literally for days on end because of my greatly agitated state this can lead to self harm ,harming others or hospitalization. I am being monitored constantly by my physician and my family and am currently on 12 different medications daily to hold any further relapse into a complete breakdown
I have applied on a daily basis to find employment both within the industry and Telecom in completely different departments on to find myself apparently, black listed I have applied to nine jobs within telecom bearing in mind the fact that I was a top performer as with a vast knowledge and network within the industry as well as time served I should have been a sitter
It is therefore my belief that the instruction person Hannah sullivan is and has acted out side of the requirements of the settlement of the mediation and blacklisted my name within HR thus effectively negated any efforts I make to practice the only craft I know this has the compounding effect of a “restraint of trade” due to the confidentiality of the documents the only thing that should be known within hr is that I resigned.
Thus my punishment for my perceived misdemeanors that brought about this case about has far exceeded both the crime and the penalty imposed
I respectfully ask that a senior investigator from your Auckland office pay a surprise visit with the head of hr and ask for my personal file and have a discussion with Hannah Sullivan to ally me of my suspicions if this request is improper please advise me of the required channels to make my request
Kind regards
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
Paul Evans-McLeod
File Number 5294885:
Memorandum as to costs
While I accept the authorities ruling, as it is required to act under the terms of the law, sometimes that means you don’t get the perceived justice you desire, but you do get the law applied in a fair and just way. (However it is still my personal belief that the four people involved in my story have while behaving legally have reached their goal of having me dismissed in a very unethical and dishonest way)
My initial response to the respondents counsel is as tabled below
Dear John
Thank you for the recent correspondence with regard to costs: File 5294885
I wish to dispute the costs, and offer the following proposal in respect of those costs.
We note Para.3 that the notional daily rate is $3000 dollars per hearing day.
We also note your acknowledgment in Para.4 that the hearing was half a day, the hearing in fact, in my recollection only lasted at most a hour and half
So on a pro rata basis considering a full day to be eight hours, we consider a contribution to costs( including gst) of $562.50 to be an entirely reasonable contribution
($3000 divided by 480, the number of minutes in a full eight day, times 90 the number of minutes involved in the hearing)
Your comments in regard to the fact that my claim was statue banned and bound to fail are noted..
However my concern in taking my case to the authority was to ascertain the legally of the process I was put through to achieve Telecoms aim.
A successful outcome on my behalf would have effectively negated the mediation ban.
The authority was the only avenue available to me to pursue this question.
With regard to my approach to discovery incurring far more costs to your client than it should have.
This entirely of their own doing.
Over the course of my long dispute with telecom, several compromises were offered by myself, which would have mitigated the cost.
My resignation was offered, this telecom refused to accept.
Secondly (this formed part of the incomplete meeting notes alluded to in the hearing) when I offered that, we end all this nonsense, apologise to each other accept the lesson learned on both sides and put it behind us .Telecoms response was a final written warning forcing me to mediation
Which indicated to me that it was a personal vendetta on behalf of the site manager and the seconded national manager which they proceeded with, being fully aware of impact it was having on my health and my marriage this despite the fact they were fully aware of the medical issues I was facing
This is supported in their own documents from HR written by Helen Sullivan, (the same documents you requested be keep confidential) they indicate, in my view, that the final written warning was to be the outcome; which indicates predetermination and premeditation.
Careful perusal of my response notes would indicate that I advised you in reply that I would not be keeping them confidential and would be using all at my disposal to clear my name, this process is ongoing
One would also question why therefore I should pay for incomplete product of discovery.
Para 6 I quote “ if an agreement cannot be reached by this time we will file a memorandum in the authority seeking costs and disbursements over and above the amount sought in this letter “ I also reserve that right
The offer is full and final, fair and reasonable
All other considerations are immaterial and largely of Telecoms own making
Your faithfully
Paul Evans-McLeod
In answer to the latest communication I offer this as my defense as to costs
1 This whole sorrowful event could have been avoided if Telecom had accepted the compromises alluded to and offered above.
2 If the employment relations authority had advised me that the threshold for a successful claim with regards to stress in the work place was set extremely high I would have accepted the advice given and not proceeded with my complaint. The acceptance by the authority indicated a belief my claims had merit and so I proceeded.
3 As a laymen and even if I judged John's fees to be $1000 an hour I’m afraid I don’t see 13 hours worth of product in his presentation of his brief .
4 As to disbursements costs I feel these are highly inflated as the instructing person Hannah Sullivan had full and complete notes at the mediation, as did Michelle Young, as the copying machine and fax are within five meters of Michele Young’s office. I afraid I just can’t quantify costs to the value they are suggesting.
5 In closing i wish to the authority to note that my subsequent resignation under duress has placed me on the dole for the last nine months since the hearing
Hence my income has shrunken severely to $361 a week my house hold has approximately $202 in required outgoings rate utilities etc, leaving the remainder to provide food and petrol etc.
I will pay what the authority deems fair and just however, unless I can persuade the local winz office to pay in full the amount determined ,it will unfortunately be on a regular but minimal amount until I am fortunate enough to gain employment in the interim.
It is to be noted however that the prolonged stress Telecom put me thru has impacted heavily on my health as indicated in earlier notes I am manic-depressive; a fact that telecom was well aware of.
Currently l have entered what is termed a manic-phase which means im am in a highly hyper –alert state, much akin to being on p, this means I don’t sleep literally for days on end because of my greatly agitated state this can lead to self harm ,harming others or hospitalization. I am being monitored constantly by my physician and my family and am currently on 12 different medications daily to hold any further relapse into a complete breakdown
I have applied on a daily basis to find employment both within the industry and Telecom in completely different departments on to find myself apparently, black listed I have applied to nine jobs within telecom bearing in mind the fact that I was a top performer as with a vast knowledge and network within the industry as well as time served I should have been a sitter
It is therefore my belief that the instruction person Hannah sullivan is and has acted out side of the requirements of the settlement of the mediation and blacklisted my name within HR thus effectively negated any efforts I make to practice the only craft I know this has the compounding effect of a “restraint of trade” due to the confidentiality of the documents the only thing that should be known within hr is that I resigned.
Thus my punishment for my perceived misdemeanors that brought about this case about has far exceeded both the crime and the penalty imposed
I respectfully ask that a senior investigator from your Auckland office pay a surprise visit with the head of hr and ask for my personal file and have a discussion with Hannah Sullivan to ally me of my suspicions if this request is improper please advise me of the required channels to make my request
Kind regards
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
Paul Evans-McLeod
Sunday, May 30, 2010
memorandom as to costs
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
They take a long time to just to say they didn’t agree with my view on the costs plus add some smart patronising comments about the validity of my claim
Note the instructing officer is Hannah Sullivan she is from hr telecom note they telecom on her instructions are quite happy to put the knife in this lady hasn’t lived on the earth for as long as I have served Telecom makes a complete mockery out of being loyal doesn’t it HR is not our friend the kids in there lack compassion empathy it a wonder they can sleep at night
.its becoming a common occurrence to be greeted in the street by current and old work mates who are so glad that i have taken telecom on and not to put too fine a piont on it they are or have had a complete guts full of telecom and thiers views on management are of complete disgust how bloody surprising
UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ACT 2000
BEFORE THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY AT AUCKLAND
5294885
BETWEEN PAUL EVANS-MCLEOD
Applicant
AND TELECOM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED, BRIDGETTE
DALZELL, MICHELLE YOUNG and SHAUN HOULT
Respondents
MEMORANDUM OF COUNSEL AS TO COSTS
DATED 19 MAY 2010
RECEIVED
24 MAY 2U10
ER Authority - Auckland
MAY IT PLEASE THE AUTHORITY:
1. THE respondents apply to the Authority for an order that the applicant pay a reasonable contribution to their legal costs following the Authority’s determination in Paul Evans4tñcLeod v Telecom New Zealand Limited and Ors (AA 187/10, 26 April 2010, V Campbell).
Background
2. IN this case, the applicant sought to bring a personal grievance comprising various claims against the respondents. The personal grievance was in relation to matters that had been concluded under a mediated settlement agreement. The Authority directed it would first determine whether it had jurisdiction to investigate the applicant’s personal grievance and whether the second, third and fourth respondents were the applicant’s employer.
3. THE Authority determined that it did not have jurisdiction to investigate the applicant’s personal grievance. The Authority determined that both parties “freely entered into the final and binding Record of Settlement” (at paragraph 24 of the determination) and that “Mr Evans-McLeod is statute barred by section 149(3) of the [Employment Relations] Act from pursuing a personal grievance” (paragraph 26).
4. THE Authority also stated, at paragraph 25 of its determination, that there was no evidence that the ~p~ca1s peuson~ ~ievaice h~J aw substantive merit.
5. THE Authority declined to allow the applicant to pursue his personal grievance.
COSTS APPLICATION
Attempt to resolve costs with applicant
6. THE Authority invited the parties to reach an agreement between
themselves on the issue of costs (paragraph 27 of the Determinabon).
7. IN a letter to the applicant’s representative dated 10 May 2010, the respondents attempted to resolve the issue of costs between the parties. The parties have not been able to reach an agreement.
8. THE respondents therefore apply to the Authority for an order that the applicant pay a reasonable contribution to their legal costs.
Legal principles
9. PURSUANT to clause 15, Schedule 2 of the Employment Relations Act
2000, the Authority has the power to award costs to the respondent in any amount which it thinks is reasonable.
10. THE principles relating to awards of costs in the Authority are well settled (see PBO. Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] ERNZ 808). The principles outlined by the Full Court in the Da Cruz case included the following:
a) There is a discretion as to whether costs will be awarded and in what amount;
b) Conduct which increased costs unnecessarily can be taken into account in inflating or reducing an award;
C) Costs generally follow the event;
d) Frequently costs are judged against a notional daily rate; and
e) The nature of the case can also influence costs.
11. AS to the notional daily rate which may be applied by the Authority, the Full Court’s view, in Da Cruz, was that this would usually be approximately $2,000 to $3,000.
12. IN a more recent decision, Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Tawhiwhirangi [2008] ERNZ 73, the Court stated that due to the passage of time since Da Cruz and other decisions, $3000 “is
most likely to be an appropriate starting point for the Authority’s tariff rather than an upper figure” (paragraph 7 of the Judgment).
Application of legal principles to facts
13. IN this case, the respondents have incurred the following costs in relation to the investigation meeting:
Fees: 13,393.00
Disbursements - Document production
(copying/printing), document
delivery and telephone calls 219.48
- Travel in order to attend
Investigation Meeting in
Hamilton 182.00 401.48
GST: 1,724.32
TOTAL: $15,518.80
Copies of Simpson Grierson’s invoices for its legal services in the period to 30 April 2010 is annexed to this Memorandum and marked “A”.
14. THE investigation meeting in this case lasted under half a day. The hearing was on claims that were statute banned and clearly bound to fail. Further, the applicant’s approach to discovery was improper and resulted in the respondents incurring far more costs than they should have done in preparing for the investigation meeting.
15. IT is submitted that the unmeritorious nature of the applicant’s case and the conduct of the applicant in relation to the case warrant an award of costs above the amount suggested by the notional daily rate.
16. SO it is submitted that an order for costs in the sum of $3,000 plus GST and disbursements of $401.48 is reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.
DATED this 20th day of May 2010
J D Rooney/J M Ren e’
Counsel for the Resp ndent
GST on above
1,182.63
$10,643.63
/ /
Simpson Grierson
TAX INVOICE
Telecom New Zealand Limited
March 31, 2010
Account Reference 429446-2005652
Tax Invoice No. 444813
GST .Reg No 48-371-809 Ref.JDR
P0 Num: tba
Accounts Payable
P0 Box 1800
WELLINGTON
Instructing Person: Hannah Sullivan
Employment Advice
Purchase Order tba
OUR FEE
9,321.00
Disbursements
Document production, delivery and telephone calls
Net GST
140 17.50
140 17.50
1.182.63
GST ON ABOVE
10643.63
Fees billed life to date:
Fee Estimate:
Amount to Estimate:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Payments by Direct Credit to account 030104 0943847 00.
Reference to accompany payment: 429446 - 2005652 -444813.
THIS ACCOUNT IS NOW DUE FOR PAYMENT
BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS
AUCKLAND: 88 Shortland Street, Private Bag 92518, Auckland, New Zealand.
TAX INVOICE
Telecom New Zealand Limited April 30, 2010
Accounts Payable Account Reference 429446-2005652
P 0 Box 1800 Tax Invoice No. 447327
Instructing Person: Hannah Sullivan
Employment Advice
Purchase Order 4500778316
OUR FEE 4,072.00
Disbursements Net GST
Document production, delivery and telephone calls 79.48 9.94
Local Travel 182.00 22.75
261.48 32.69
261.48
GSTon above 541.69
$4,875.17
Fees billed life to date: $9,321.00
Fee Estimate: $0.00
Amount to Estimate: $-9,321.00
Payments by Direct Credit to account 030104 0943847 00.
Reference to accompany payment: 429446 - 2005652 - 447327.
THIS ACCOUNT IS NOW DUE FOR PAYMENT
Page 1
BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS
AUCKLAND: 88 Shortland Street, Private Bag 92518, Auckland, New Zealand.
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
They take a long time to just to say they didn’t agree with my view on the costs plus add some smart patronising comments about the validity of my claim
Note the instructing officer is Hannah Sullivan she is from hr telecom note they telecom on her instructions are quite happy to put the knife in this lady hasn’t lived on the earth for as long as I have served Telecom makes a complete mockery out of being loyal doesn’t it HR is not our friend the kids in there lack compassion empathy it a wonder they can sleep at night
.its becoming a common occurrence to be greeted in the street by current and old work mates who are so glad that i have taken telecom on and not to put too fine a piont on it they are or have had a complete guts full of telecom and thiers views on management are of complete disgust how bloody surprising
UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ACT 2000
BEFORE THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY AT AUCKLAND
5294885
BETWEEN PAUL EVANS-MCLEOD
Applicant
AND TELECOM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED, BRIDGETTE
DALZELL, MICHELLE YOUNG and SHAUN HOULT
Respondents
MEMORANDUM OF COUNSEL AS TO COSTS
DATED 19 MAY 2010
RECEIVED
24 MAY 2U10
ER Authority - Auckland
MAY IT PLEASE THE AUTHORITY:
1. THE respondents apply to the Authority for an order that the applicant pay a reasonable contribution to their legal costs following the Authority’s determination in Paul Evans4tñcLeod v Telecom New Zealand Limited and Ors (AA 187/10, 26 April 2010, V Campbell).
Background
2. IN this case, the applicant sought to bring a personal grievance comprising various claims against the respondents. The personal grievance was in relation to matters that had been concluded under a mediated settlement agreement. The Authority directed it would first determine whether it had jurisdiction to investigate the applicant’s personal grievance and whether the second, third and fourth respondents were the applicant’s employer.
3. THE Authority determined that it did not have jurisdiction to investigate the applicant’s personal grievance. The Authority determined that both parties “freely entered into the final and binding Record of Settlement” (at paragraph 24 of the determination) and that “Mr Evans-McLeod is statute barred by section 149(3) of the [Employment Relations] Act from pursuing a personal grievance” (paragraph 26).
4. THE Authority also stated, at paragraph 25 of its determination, that there was no evidence that the ~p~ca1s peuson~ ~ievaice h~J aw substantive merit.
5. THE Authority declined to allow the applicant to pursue his personal grievance.
COSTS APPLICATION
Attempt to resolve costs with applicant
6. THE Authority invited the parties to reach an agreement between
themselves on the issue of costs (paragraph 27 of the Determinabon).
7. IN a letter to the applicant’s representative dated 10 May 2010, the respondents attempted to resolve the issue of costs between the parties. The parties have not been able to reach an agreement.
8. THE respondents therefore apply to the Authority for an order that the applicant pay a reasonable contribution to their legal costs.
Legal principles
9. PURSUANT to clause 15, Schedule 2 of the Employment Relations Act
2000, the Authority has the power to award costs to the respondent in any amount which it thinks is reasonable.
10. THE principles relating to awards of costs in the Authority are well settled (see PBO. Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] ERNZ 808). The principles outlined by the Full Court in the Da Cruz case included the following:
a) There is a discretion as to whether costs will be awarded and in what amount;
b) Conduct which increased costs unnecessarily can be taken into account in inflating or reducing an award;
C) Costs generally follow the event;
d) Frequently costs are judged against a notional daily rate; and
e) The nature of the case can also influence costs.
11. AS to the notional daily rate which may be applied by the Authority, the Full Court’s view, in Da Cruz, was that this would usually be approximately $2,000 to $3,000.
12. IN a more recent decision, Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Tawhiwhirangi [2008] ERNZ 73, the Court stated that due to the passage of time since Da Cruz and other decisions, $3000 “is
most likely to be an appropriate starting point for the Authority’s tariff rather than an upper figure” (paragraph 7 of the Judgment).
Application of legal principles to facts
13. IN this case, the respondents have incurred the following costs in relation to the investigation meeting:
Fees: 13,393.00
Disbursements - Document production
(copying/printing), document
delivery and telephone calls 219.48
- Travel in order to attend
Investigation Meeting in
Hamilton 182.00 401.48
GST: 1,724.32
TOTAL: $15,518.80
Copies of Simpson Grierson’s invoices for its legal services in the period to 30 April 2010 is annexed to this Memorandum and marked “A”.
14. THE investigation meeting in this case lasted under half a day. The hearing was on claims that were statute banned and clearly bound to fail. Further, the applicant’s approach to discovery was improper and resulted in the respondents incurring far more costs than they should have done in preparing for the investigation meeting.
15. IT is submitted that the unmeritorious nature of the applicant’s case and the conduct of the applicant in relation to the case warrant an award of costs above the amount suggested by the notional daily rate.
16. SO it is submitted that an order for costs in the sum of $3,000 plus GST and disbursements of $401.48 is reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.
DATED this 20th day of May 2010
J D Rooney/J M Ren e’
Counsel for the Resp ndent
GST on above
1,182.63
$10,643.63
/ /
Simpson Grierson
TAX INVOICE
Telecom New Zealand Limited
March 31, 2010
Account Reference 429446-2005652
Tax Invoice No. 444813
GST .Reg No 48-371-809 Ref.JDR
P0 Num: tba
Accounts Payable
P0 Box 1800
WELLINGTON
Instructing Person: Hannah Sullivan
Employment Advice
Purchase Order tba
OUR FEE
9,321.00
Disbursements
Document production, delivery and telephone calls
Net GST
140 17.50
140 17.50
1.182.63
GST ON ABOVE
10643.63
Fees billed life to date:
Fee Estimate:
Amount to Estimate:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Payments by Direct Credit to account 030104 0943847 00.
Reference to accompany payment: 429446 - 2005652 -444813.
THIS ACCOUNT IS NOW DUE FOR PAYMENT
BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS
AUCKLAND: 88 Shortland Street, Private Bag 92518, Auckland, New Zealand.
TAX INVOICE
Telecom New Zealand Limited April 30, 2010
Accounts Payable Account Reference 429446-2005652
P 0 Box 1800 Tax Invoice No. 447327
Instructing Person: Hannah Sullivan
Employment Advice
Purchase Order 4500778316
OUR FEE 4,072.00
Disbursements Net GST
Document production, delivery and telephone calls 79.48 9.94
Local Travel 182.00 22.75
261.48 32.69
261.48
GSTon above 541.69
$4,875.17
Fees billed life to date: $9,321.00
Fee Estimate: $0.00
Amount to Estimate: $-9,321.00
Payments by Direct Credit to account 030104 0943847 00.
Reference to accompany payment: 429446 - 2005652 - 447327.
THIS ACCOUNT IS NOW DUE FOR PAYMENT
Page 1
BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS
AUCKLAND: 88 Shortland Street, Private Bag 92518, Auckland, New Zealand.
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
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
my reply to the investigating officer
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 and read upwards
Sarah Thompson
Investigating officer
Privacy Commissioner
Re privacy act complaint: Paul Evans-McLeod and Telecom New Zealand Limited REF C/22243
Dear Sarah
Thank you for correspondence received 06 0510
Please read attached letter received from Hannah Sullivan Employment Relations Manager Telecom. Hannah comments "I can inform you that Bridgette Dalzell advised that she believed Nigel Dick was your lawyer, as you told her directly"
I have requested from Hannah in what manner she was informed by Bridgette, that Nigel was my lawyer, this has not been responded to, could ask for this on my behalf ?
The salient point to note here that this is an out and out lie (the third one I have caught this senior manager out with) why is it a lie?
Bridgette perceives that Nigel is my lawyer . The only way she could ascertain that was by reading the contents of my emails
Nigel is a close friend whom I requested to act and behave as if he was my lawyer within e-mail correspondence to myself. It was a ploy to determine whom was accessing my e-mails. Therefore for me to tell Bridgette Dalzell directly would negate the efficacy of that approach.
To further make my point you will note in previous correspondence sent to your office she emails Nigel Dick directly, what would give me cause to give her Nigel’s email address, this then could only have been obtained by her accessing the private e-mail
Sarah also points out that under Telecoms Email Guidelines it only undertakes to notify that email account has been accessed where it does so to conduct business during a business crisis
To quote their own rules specifically
"to conduct business during a business crisis if an employee is absent (I am rarely absent )when information is thought to be in the employee mailbox is required .please note – a business crisis is defined as a need requiring the business critical information thought to be contained with the employees mailbox
The employee will be notified by EDS administration staff whom will notify the employee if and when it occurred .and by whom it was authorized.
I was never notified of its occurrence, or by whom it was authorised
Could your office please ask why?.
What business crisis justified the need and subsequent acts.
Telecom may monitor and inspect individual staff email activity under the direction of a body that has the necessary legal authority
Whom is that body, and what legal authority Is Bridgette Dalzell that body or the legal authority. How is the legal authority granted, was required process procedures adhered to
I would like to know who else has been accessing my email without authority, so I request the Privacy office to ask Telecom to provide same, via their IT staff at EDS with a forensic search across my email account.
The other persons THAT WOULD FIND MY EMAILS OF interest would be Michelle Young, Shaun Hoult, and Iain Galloway
My primary concern through all of this is, I was in a dispute with Telecom, in which I was being micro-managed out of my job after 39 years
In previous correspondence Bridgette Dalzell gained the perception from accessing my emails that Nigel Dick may have been my lawyer she then in her open email for to Nigel , sort to confirm that he is in fact my lawyer
It is my belief that she and Telecom, if they have formed that belief that I’m writing to my lawyer ,have thus accessed these emails illegally, surely correspondence between a person and his lawyer is sacrosanct and private it is a severe breach of my privacy
As per below, in red, I raise specific concerns , that require appropriate redress.
PRIVACY ACT 1993 I
Principle I
Purpose of collection of personal information
Personal information shall not be collected by any agency unless —
(a) the information is collected for a lawful purpose connected with a function or activity of the agency; and
(b) the collection of the information is necessary for that purpose.
What was that lawful purpose ? and why was the collection necessary?
Principle 2
Source of personal information
Where an agency collects personal information, the agency shall collect the information directly from the individual concerned.
They did not collect the information directly from me, why not?
(2) It is not necessary for an agency to comply with subclause (1) if the agency believes, on reasonable ground,-
(a) That the information is publicly available information; or
It was not publicly available
(b) That the individual concerned authorizes collection of the information from Someone else; or
I did not authorize any one
(c) That non-compliance would not prejudice the interests of the individual concerned; or
it did prejudice me they were aware of my every move and/or thought .
(d) That non-compliance is necessary -
(i) To avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law by any public sector agency, including the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution, and punishment of offences; or
what offense was I committing
(ii) For the enforcement of a law imposing a pecuniary penalty; or
-(iii) For the protection of the public revenue; or
what offense was I committing ?
(iv) For the conduct of proceedings before any court or tribunal (being proceedings that have been commenced or are reasonably in contemplation); or
what offense was I committing ?
(e) That compliance would prejudice the purposes of the collection; or
(1) That compliance is not reasonably practicable in the circumstances of the particular case; or
(g) That the information -
(i) will not be used in a form in which the individual concerned is identified; or
(ii) will be used for statistical or research purposes and will not be published in a form that could reasonably be expected to identify the individual concerned; or
(h) that the collection of the information is in accordance with an authority granted under section 54. C 22243/A2241 59
DID they act with the authority under section 54?
4
Principle 3
Collection of information from subject
(1) Where an agency collects personal information directly from the individual concerned, the agency shall take such steps (if any) as are, in the circumstances, reasonable to ensure that the individual concerned is aware of -
(a) the fact that the information is being collected; and
they didn’t tell me ! why not ? please explain
(b) the purpose for which the information is being collected; and
they didn’t tell me why not ? please explain
(c) the intended recipients of the information; and
they didn’t tell me why not ? please explain
(d) the name and address of -
(I) the agency that is collecting the information; and
they didn’t tell me why not? please explain
(ii) the agency that will hold the information; and
they didn’t tell me why not ?please explain
(e) if the collection of the information is authorised or required by or under law -(i) the particular law by or under which the collection of the information is so authorised or required; and
what law did they act under ?
(ii) whether or not the supply of the information by that individual is voluntary or mandatory; and
so which was it
(f) the consequences (if any) for that individual if all or any part of the requested
I was not aware it was happening therefore I couldn’t be aware of the consequences until my little ruse confirmed it
information is not provided; and
(g) the rights of access to, and correction of, personal information provided by these principles.
They did not advise me of my rights why not ? please explain
(2) The steps referred to in subclause (1) of this principle shall be taken before the
information is collected or, if that is not practicable, as soon as practicable after the information is collected.
Never happened why not ?
the collection of information from an individual if that agency has taken those steps in relation to the collection from that individual, of the same information or information of the same kind, on a recent previous occasion
(a) that non-compliance is authorised by the individual concerned; or
(b) that non-compliance would not prejudice the interests of the individual
concerned; or
(c) the non-compliance is necessary -
(I) to avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law by any public sector
agency, including the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution, and punishment of offences; or
(iii) for the protection of the public revenue; or
(iv) for the conduct of proceedings before any court or tribunal (being
proceedings that have been Commenced or are reasonably in
contemplation); or
(d) that compliance would prejudice the purposes of the collection; or
(e) that compliance is not reasonably practicable in the circumstances of the
particular case; or
(f) that the information -
(I) will not be used in a form in which the individual concerned is identified; or
(ii) will be used for statistical or research purposes and will not be published in a form that could reasonably be expected to identify the individual Concerned
Principle 4
Manner of collection of personal information
Personal information shall not be collected by an agency -
(a) by unlawful means; or
(i) are unfair; or
Access to personal information
(1) Where an agency holds personal information in such a way that it can readily be retrieved, the individual concerned shall be entitled —
(a) to obtain from the agency confirmation of whether or not the agency holds such personal information; and
(b) to have access to that information.
(2) Where, in accordance with subclause (1 )(b), an individual is given access to personal information, the individual shall be advised that, under principle 7, the individual may request the correction of that information.
Section 66(1)(b) of the Privacy Act
Summary
This section states that an action is an interference with the privacy of an individual if the action breaches an information privacy principle and that action:
• Has caused loss, detriment, damage, or injury to that individual, or may do so; or
• Has adversely affected the rights, benefits, privileges, obligations, or interests of that individual, or may do so; or
• Has resulted in significant humiliation, significant loss of dignity or significant injury to the feelings of that individual, or may do
It would assist me if you would let me know:
• What adverse consequences you have suffered as a result of the actions of Telecom, particularly in relation to the personal information which Telecom collected from your emails; and
• Further detail as to what you think would be a suitable resolution of your complaint.
if illegal acts have occurred
Sarah Thompson
Investigating officer
Privacy Commissioner
Re privacy act complaint: Paul Evans-McLeod and Telecom New Zealand Limited REF C/22243
Dear Sarah
Thank you for correspondence received 06 0510
Please read attached letter received from Hannah Sullivan Employment Relations Manager Telecom. Hannah comments "I can inform you that Bridgette Dalzell advised that she believed Nigel Dick was your lawyer, as you told her directly"
I have requested from Hannah in what manner she was informed by Bridgette, that Nigel was my lawyer, this has not been responded to, could ask for this on my behalf ?
The salient point to note here that this is an out and out lie (the third one I have caught this senior manager out with) why is it a lie?
Bridgette perceives that Nigel is my lawyer . The only way she could ascertain that was by reading the contents of my emails
Nigel is a close friend whom I requested to act and behave as if he was my lawyer within e-mail correspondence to myself. It was a ploy to determine whom was accessing my e-mails. Therefore for me to tell Bridgette Dalzell directly would negate the efficacy of that approach.
To further make my point you will note in previous correspondence sent to your office she emails Nigel Dick directly, what would give me cause to give her Nigel’s email address, this then could only have been obtained by her accessing the private e-mail
Sarah also points out that under Telecoms Email Guidelines it only undertakes to notify that email account has been accessed where it does so to conduct business during a business crisis
To quote their own rules specifically
"to conduct business during a business crisis if an employee is absent (I am rarely absent )when information is thought to be in the employee mailbox is required .please note – a business crisis is defined as a need requiring the business critical information thought to be contained with the employees mailbox
The employee will be notified by EDS administration staff whom will notify the employee if and when it occurred .and by whom it was authorized.
I was never notified of its occurrence, or by whom it was authorised
Could your office please ask why?.
What business crisis justified the need and subsequent acts.
Telecom may monitor and inspect individual staff email activity under the direction of a body that has the necessary legal authority
Whom is that body, and what legal authority Is Bridgette Dalzell that body or the legal authority. How is the legal authority granted, was required process procedures adhered to
I would like to know who else has been accessing my email without authority, so I request the Privacy office to ask Telecom to provide same, via their IT staff at EDS with a forensic search across my email account.
The other persons THAT WOULD FIND MY EMAILS OF interest would be Michelle Young, Shaun Hoult, and Iain Galloway
My primary concern through all of this is, I was in a dispute with Telecom, in which I was being micro-managed out of my job after 39 years
In previous correspondence Bridgette Dalzell gained the perception from accessing my emails that Nigel Dick may have been my lawyer she then in her open email for to Nigel , sort to confirm that he is in fact my lawyer
It is my belief that she and Telecom, if they have formed that belief that I’m writing to my lawyer ,have thus accessed these emails illegally, surely correspondence between a person and his lawyer is sacrosanct and private it is a severe breach of my privacy
As per below, in red, I raise specific concerns , that require appropriate redress.
PRIVACY ACT 1993 I
Principle I
Purpose of collection of personal information
Personal information shall not be collected by any agency unless —
(a) the information is collected for a lawful purpose connected with a function or activity of the agency; and
(b) the collection of the information is necessary for that purpose.
What was that lawful purpose ? and why was the collection necessary?
Principle 2
Source of personal information
Where an agency collects personal information, the agency shall collect the information directly from the individual concerned.
They did not collect the information directly from me, why not?
(2) It is not necessary for an agency to comply with subclause (1) if the agency believes, on reasonable ground,-
(a) That the information is publicly available information; or
It was not publicly available
(b) That the individual concerned authorizes collection of the information from Someone else; or
I did not authorize any one
(c) That non-compliance would not prejudice the interests of the individual concerned; or
it did prejudice me they were aware of my every move and/or thought .
(d) That non-compliance is necessary -
(i) To avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law by any public sector agency, including the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution, and punishment of offences; or
what offense was I committing
(ii) For the enforcement of a law imposing a pecuniary penalty; or
-(iii) For the protection of the public revenue; or
what offense was I committing ?
(iv) For the conduct of proceedings before any court or tribunal (being proceedings that have been commenced or are reasonably in contemplation); or
what offense was I committing ?
(e) That compliance would prejudice the purposes of the collection; or
(1) That compliance is not reasonably practicable in the circumstances of the particular case; or
(g) That the information -
(i) will not be used in a form in which the individual concerned is identified; or
(ii) will be used for statistical or research purposes and will not be published in a form that could reasonably be expected to identify the individual concerned; or
(h) that the collection of the information is in accordance with an authority granted under section 54. C 22243/A2241 59
DID they act with the authority under section 54?
4
Principle 3
Collection of information from subject
(1) Where an agency collects personal information directly from the individual concerned, the agency shall take such steps (if any) as are, in the circumstances, reasonable to ensure that the individual concerned is aware of -
(a) the fact that the information is being collected; and
they didn’t tell me ! why not ? please explain
(b) the purpose for which the information is being collected; and
they didn’t tell me why not ? please explain
(c) the intended recipients of the information; and
they didn’t tell me why not ? please explain
(d) the name and address of -
(I) the agency that is collecting the information; and
they didn’t tell me why not? please explain
(ii) the agency that will hold the information; and
they didn’t tell me why not ?please explain
(e) if the collection of the information is authorised or required by or under law -(i) the particular law by or under which the collection of the information is so authorised or required; and
what law did they act under ?
(ii) whether or not the supply of the information by that individual is voluntary or mandatory; and
so which was it
(f) the consequences (if any) for that individual if all or any part of the requested
I was not aware it was happening therefore I couldn’t be aware of the consequences until my little ruse confirmed it
information is not provided; and
(g) the rights of access to, and correction of, personal information provided by these principles.
They did not advise me of my rights why not ? please explain
(2) The steps referred to in subclause (1) of this principle shall be taken before the
information is collected or, if that is not practicable, as soon as practicable after the information is collected.
Never happened why not ?
the collection of information from an individual if that agency has taken those steps in relation to the collection from that individual, of the same information or information of the same kind, on a recent previous occasion
. Had they please ask ?
(a) that non-compliance is authorised by the individual concerned; or
(b) that non-compliance would not prejudice the interests of the individual
concerned; or
(c) the non-compliance is necessary -
(I) to avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law by any public sector
agency, including the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution, and punishment of offences; or
what offense was I committing ?
(iii) for the protection of the public revenue; or
(iv) for the conduct of proceedings before any court or tribunal (being
proceedings that have been Commenced or are reasonably in
contemplation); or
(d) that compliance would prejudice the purposes of the collection; or
(e) that compliance is not reasonably practicable in the circumstances of the
particular case; or
(f) that the information -
(I) will not be used in a form in which the individual concerned is identified; or
(ii) will be used for statistical or research purposes and will not be published in a form that could reasonably be expected to identify the individual Concerned
Principle 4
Manner of collection of personal information
Personal information shall not be collected by an agency -
(a) by unlawful means; or
did they break the law ? why ? what offence was I committing ?
(i) are unfair; or
it was definitely unfair they had me at a disadvantage by knowing all I was doing
. I consider it a massive intrusion it was correspondence between myself and my consul/lawyer
Access to personal information
(1) Where an agency holds personal information in such a way that it can readily be retrieved, the individual concerned shall be entitled —
(a) to obtain from the agency confirmation of whether or not the agency holds such personal information; and
(b) to have access to that information.
(2) Where, in accordance with subclause (1 )(b), an individual is given access to personal information, the individual shall be advised that, under principle 7, the individual may request the correction of that information.
I would like you to request it on my behalf
Section 66(1)(b) of the Privacy Act
Summary
This section states that an action is an interference with the privacy of an individual if the action breaches an information privacy principle and that action:
• Has caused loss, detriment, damage, or injury to that individual, or may do so; or
• Has adversely affected the rights, benefits, privileges, obligations, or interests of that individual, or may do so; or
• Has resulted in significant humiliation, significant loss of dignity or significant injury to the feelings of that individual, or may do
It would assist me if you would let me know:
• What adverse consequences you have suffered as a result of the actions of Telecom, particularly in relation to the personal information which Telecom collected from your emails; and
• Further detail as to what you think would be a suitable resolution of your complaint.
The adverse consequences suffered are the direct infringement of my rights, benefits, privileges and obligations and interests , these have been ignored and dismissed, in a brutal uncaring illegal manner, at a time when I was under severe stress with the employment dispute with Telecom. It provided Telecom with an unfair advantage, and thus served to achieve their desired outcome. It was an action that I had neither recourse or an ability to mitigate.
BECAUSE THEY WHERE AWARE OF MY EVERY MOVE AND MORE ESPECAILLY MY EVERY THOUGHT AS I WAS USING MY CORRESSPONDANCE WITH NIGEL TO VENT MY ANGER AND FRUSTRATIONS WITH THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED
I HAVE NO WAY TO ASCERTIAN WEATHER MY PRIVATE THOUGHTS HAD ANY BEARING ON MY SUBSEQUNT DISMMISAL, AS I WAS MOST CERTAINLY NOT VERY COMLIMENTARY IN MY ASSESSMENT OF THE CHARACATER OF THE THREE INDIDIVDUALS I WAS DEALING WITH .(THIS IS ANOTHER REASON I REQUIRE KNOWLEDGE OF WHO HAD ACCESS TO ,EMAILS )
if illegal acts have occurred
, these should be addressed by the appropriate authorities, (Justice should not only be done, it must be seen to be done)
a personal apology both verbal and written.
an adherence to their own stated guidelines, would demonstrate the integrity of both their process and policy, and would restore the confidence of those staff that remain within Telecom faced with any similar disputes..
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
my reply re request for costs
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 and read upwards
Attn John Rooney
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Dear John
Thank you for the recent correspondence with regard to costs file 5294885
I wish to dispute the costs and offer the following proposal in respect of those costs
We note Para.3 that the notional daily rate is $3000 dollars per hearing day .
We also note your acknowledgement in Para.4 that the hearing was half a day, the hearing in fact in my recollection only lasted at most a hour and half
So on a pro rata basis considering a full day to be eight hours, we consider a contribution to costs( including gst) of $562.50 to be an entirely reasonable contribution
($3000 divided by 480, the number of minutes in a full eight day, times 90 the number of minutes involved in the hearing ).
Your comments in regard to the fact that my claim was statue banned and bound to fail are noted .
However my concern in taking my case to the authority was to ascertain the legally of the process I was put through to achieve Telecoms aim .
A successful outcome on my behalf would have effectively negated the mediation ban .
The authority was the only avenue available to me to pursue this question.
With regard to my approach to discovery incurring far more costs to your client than it should have.
This entirely of their own doing.
Over the course of my long dispute with telecom , several compromises were offered by myself , which would have mitigated the cost.
My resignation was offered, this telecom refused to accept.
Secondly ( this formed part of the incomplete meeting notes alluded to in the hearing) when I offered that we end all this nonsense, apologise to each other accept the lesson learned on both sides and put it behind us .Telecoms response was a final written warning.
Which indicated to me that it was a personal vendetta on behalf of the site manager and the seconded national manager which they proceeded with , being fully aware of impact it was having on my health and my marriage despite the fact they were fully aware of the medical issues I was facing
This is supported in their own documents from HR written by Helen Sullivan, (the same documents you requested be keep confidential ) they indicate in my view that the final written warning was to be the outcome which indicates predetermination and premeditation
Careful perusal of my response notes would indicate that I advised you in reply that I would not be keeping them confidential and would be using all at my disposal to clear my name, this process is ongoing
One would also question why therefore I should pay for incomplete product .
Para 6 I quote “ if an agreement cannot be reached by this time we will file a memorandum in the authority seeking costs and disbursements over and above the amount sought in this letter “ I also reserve that right
The offer is full and final, fair and reasonable
All other considerations are immaterial and largely of Telecoms own making
Your faithfully
Paul Evans-McLeod
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
Attn John Rooney
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Dear John
Thank you for the recent correspondence with regard to costs file 5294885
I wish to dispute the costs and offer the following proposal in respect of those costs
We note Para.3 that the notional daily rate is $3000 dollars per hearing day .
We also note your acknowledgement in Para.4 that the hearing was half a day, the hearing in fact in my recollection only lasted at most a hour and half
So on a pro rata basis considering a full day to be eight hours, we consider a contribution to costs( including gst) of $562.50 to be an entirely reasonable contribution
($3000 divided by 480, the number of minutes in a full eight day, times 90 the number of minutes involved in the hearing ).
Your comments in regard to the fact that my claim was statue banned and bound to fail are noted .
However my concern in taking my case to the authority was to ascertain the legally of the process I was put through to achieve Telecoms aim .
A successful outcome on my behalf would have effectively negated the mediation ban .
The authority was the only avenue available to me to pursue this question.
With regard to my approach to discovery incurring far more costs to your client than it should have.
This entirely of their own doing.
Over the course of my long dispute with telecom , several compromises were offered by myself , which would have mitigated the cost.
My resignation was offered, this telecom refused to accept.
Secondly ( this formed part of the incomplete meeting notes alluded to in the hearing) when I offered that we end all this nonsense, apologise to each other accept the lesson learned on both sides and put it behind us .Telecoms response was a final written warning.
Which indicated to me that it was a personal vendetta on behalf of the site manager and the seconded national manager which they proceeded with , being fully aware of impact it was having on my health and my marriage despite the fact they were fully aware of the medical issues I was facing
This is supported in their own documents from HR written by Helen Sullivan, (the same documents you requested be keep confidential ) they indicate in my view that the final written warning was to be the outcome which indicates predetermination and premeditation
Careful perusal of my response notes would indicate that I advised you in reply that I would not be keeping them confidential and would be using all at my disposal to clear my name, this process is ongoing
One would also question why therefore I should pay for incomplete product .
Para 6 I quote “ if an agreement cannot be reached by this time we will file a memorandum in the authority seeking costs and disbursements over and above the amount sought in this letter “ I also reserve that right
The offer is full and final, fair and reasonable
All other considerations are immaterial and largely of Telecoms own making
Your faithfully
Paul Evans-McLeod
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)