Hoist with your own petard

Welcome

2013-12-24T08:36:00.000+13:00

Welcome

Hi, and welcome especially if this is the first visit, and double welcome if you have chosen to visit as the result of the recent article in the Waikato Times regarding my occasional letters.

I use this blog for several reasons.

It is a place to voice my views on other matters , philosophies and concerns as I feel the urge and see fit to express.

It helps to catalogue an on going saga I am having with a previous employer.

It assists in my struggles

It serves an additional subtle purpose, which I will let readers surmise.

Best results for items or people of any particular interest are achieved by typing the relevant word into the search facility top right hand corner.

Try typing sex ....that gets you straight to some juicy bits read carefully

Or you can start at the very beginning and watch it unfold

Either way

Thanks for the visit, enjoy , comment or email at

paul.evans-mcleod@xtra.co.nz

Be very aware some if not all of the names below are the subject of a still open complaint for fraud with the Hamilton police

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

These people showed cowardice and deceit to achieve their purpose

to quote Dickens

"In a word, I was too cowardly to do what I knew to be right, as I had been too cowardly to avoid doing what I knew to be wrong.”

people think im playing around i am not

2013-12-17T11:56:00.001+13:00

this from the top feature writer of a major newspaper

Thanks Paul. Disappointing result.

We think on this that we'll wait and see if your petition to Parliament
goes ahead, and there will be a strong story in the whole saga.

I'll refer to it in the piece I'm writing. I'll give you a call a bit later
today to arrange a photo.

Cheers, D

Be very aware some if not all of the names below are the subject of a still open complaint for fraud with the Hamilton police

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

peter marshall is the police commsioner

2013-11-10T22:52:00.002+13:00

To:	peter.marshall@police.govt.nz (peter.marshall@police.govt.nz)
Bcc:	Patrick Evans-McLeod (the_haven@xtra.co.nz)

Peter

FYI

I would like it resolved please, that's all I have ever asked .it is no small matter to me, in lost wages alone the cost is $264k
After 40years of solid work for the one company and paying taxes I am left to survive on the dole, sorry that is not going to happen

I sincerely would like to advise media , that the situation has been resolved ,

After the week you have had re roast busters ,wouldn't you and the minister concur

Kind Regards

Paul

Be very aware some if not all of the names below are the subject of a still open complaint for fraud with the Hamilton police

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

so what's this all about, who is mike

2013-11-10T13:41:00.003+13:00

so what's this all about, who is mike
Mike,
Thank you for your response and acknowledgement that the Ministry has received the information.
I recently sent the whole farcical sorry story to the media et.al
The media enquiries I am now in receipt of, have requested information as to progress and resolution
There is bemusement as to why such a straight forward matter , gets the bureaucratic run around that has been documented.
I would like to respond that the situation has been resolved and would request an urgent update from the Minister

Currently I share the views of the minister it has been "poorly handled "
Respectfully
Paul
well Mike is
Mike Wright :Inspector
Private Secretary (Police) | Office of the Hon Anne Tolley MP | Minister of Police

""There is bemusement as to why such a straight forward matter , gets the bureaucratic run around that has been documented.""
refers to a police complaint no 119299892 for fraud by three telecom workers
which they have yet to apply resources to
having a complaint number indicates the acceptance that it is a crime
that has been documented
alerts them to the fact that all communications have all been via email
so why the letter
well they have been caught out with the Roastbusters saga I am not so subtly advising them that unless they act .the media has been made aware of this failure
substantiated by documents from beginning to end
I am not over concerned as the complaint will remain in place till address
the only downside is that if any of the three telecom participants lose their jobs it may well no it will appear on any back ground checks new employers may conduct
I learnt that trick from themselves when they stamped my file do not re-employ two weeks after I exited
the fight goes on, fuck it, it gives me something to do

Be very aware some if not all of the names below are the subject of a still open complaint for fraud with the Hamilton police

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

INTERESTING a major fail

2013-08-14T13:46:00.001+12:00

After 4 days i contacted the P.A of joe mccollum director of hr telecom

to be told that they had pursued it with a wider audience and they had been advised they shouldn't even be talking to me

so it ends there

what i find interesting is that the top dog is prepared to listen to his underlings advice flawed that it may be rather than applying himself to the simple question i ask show me substantive evidence to support the claim of the intellectually handicapped girl complaint that i was condescending patronising and rude

so next step is to take in to ombudsman the human rights commission then petition to parliament or may be its time for a lawyer i have been advised of one that has success against telecom for exactly the same thing false customer complaints

never ever quit

Be very aware some if not all of the names below are the subject of a still open complaint for fraud with the Hamilton police

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

SUCCCES

2013-08-10T09:43:00.001+12:00

me and telecom

success reached the secretary of a board member today she took notes and listened

i indicated the two instances of fraud and requested someone deal with it

i also indicated politely but firmly that it i wasn't responded to it would presented as a petition to parliament

indicated also the information i had gathered and corroborated when shake telecoms image and definitely bring it into disrepute

THE SECRETARY PROMISED TO PRESENT IT TO HER BOSS

CANT ASK FOR MORE THAN THAT MY WORK IS DONE

QUITE RELAXED ABOUT IT

IF THEY STILL CHOSE TO IGNORE IT I'M NOT AT ALL BOTHERED

DON'T WORRY WILL POST THE DAY AND TIME ITS GET PRESENTED IN PARLIAMENT

Be very aware some if not all of the names below are the subject of a still open complaint for fraud with the Hamilton police

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

be foolish to ignore To the Ceo and the board

2013-08-08T16:14:00.000+12:00

To the Ceo and the board

This week, I communicated as per below to the following staff .

Debbie Herlihy
Trish Keith
Danielle George

I am now communicating the same to you, and the board members ; as part of the procedural requirement of the act in placing a petition before the House of Representatives

At the conclusion of this letter

which fully outlines my case,
shows I have supporting evidence
support of the very best quality

After alerting them to the issues of fraud , outlining my next steps

a petition to parliament
offering them a chance of resolution

Their response is pass it to your lawyer , the lawyer does nothing

This completely contravenes telecom's

own code of conduct and code of ethics
supported both by you and the board

This lack of action and the subsequent reading of same on the floor of parliament will definitely bring “telecom into disrepute”

Simon, the incompetence of your staff and lawyer has the potential to fail your own “red face test “

Especially when this exact letter is tabled amongst others, showing that you were advised and ignored same

My suggestion is you question the participants in this fraud in the same manner and to the same standard that the parliament process will.

Bridgette Dalzell
Michelle Young
Shaun Hoult

Ask them to provide and substantiate the complaint from the intellectually handicapped girl (which never existed as a documented evidence trial cannot be produced)

It will be at odds to that stated by the girl within the same forum.

You will be aware with reference to the case recently settled , won by lawyer Kathy Fisher, that exiting of staff by dubious practises, indicates a both a pattern of behaviour and a legal precedence.

Cheers paul

Dear Debbie /Trish/Danielle

You will be well aware that my pursuit for a resolution to the illegal act, a fraud , the nonexistence of a customer complaint which assisted my exit from telecom continues ..

It concludes with a petition to the house of representatives.
The presentation of the petition requires certain perquisites.
These I have been carefully fulfilling, this letter, is effectively the penultimate step.
To summarise the salient points.
• I have documentation from the Minster of Labour acknowledging it is a crime and advising me to take it to the police or the serious fraud office.
• I am in receipt of a police complaint number regarding same.
Persuaded, not by what is just, but by the law
To achieve this end they have accepted nothing, believed no one and asked me to corroborate everything, which I have done
I already have
• the required full support of a sitting MP
• this results in my concerns to be expressed on the floor of the houses of parliament under privilege.
The petition will detail, all those with whom the issue has been raised,you are now aware of the reasoning behind my prolific entreaties to all and sundry both within and outside of Telecom inclusive of the CEO both past and present and the board.

It relates to the fraud, not to the mediation process, that avenue being statue based , is not an option.

Bridgette Dalzell has stated in previous correspondence, she had every confidence in the integrity of Michelle Young and Shaun Hoult
Feel free to bet your future on Bridgette’s judgment ( in reality nothing would give me more pleasure)

You both once had my respect, confidence, and trust.
No more, documentation sourced via the privacy act show me, this was misplaced.

Telecoms lawyer John Rooney at one point in this travesty attempted to scare me off with defamation.
It was not pursued, when, I advised the documentation signed off by the participants as true and correct records could be shown as not so, and the number of witnesses that I would call.
I was being set up and lied to ..realizing the outcome was predetermined and premeditated, I successfully gained corroboration.
The complaint from the intellectually handicapped person never existed, a document and evidence trail , can not be produced.
This will, if necessary require her, to substantiate same within the appropriate parliamentary process.

This letter provides for an opportunity for my concerns to be addressed, you may choose to respond.
I’m really not bothered whether I get taken seriously or not I am just fulfilling the requirements of the process and documenting same.

I will no longer respond to any correspondence from telecoms lawyer as,
• there is nothing in law that precludes me from exercising my democratic right
• the process requires me that all information be substantiated and corroborated that has been achieved
Regards

Paul

Paul Evans-McLeod
17 Minnie Place
Pukete
Te Rapa
Hamilton
New Zealand

Phone 0064 7 8494584
Mobile 0272423222
Paul.evans-mcleod@xtra.co.nz

I received this reply

rom: John Rooney [mailto:John.Rooney@simpsongrierson.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 6:58 PM
To: Paul Mcleod (paul.evans-mcleod@xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Telecom New Zealand Ltd [SG-SGDMS.FID361431]

Dear Paul,

We are instructed you have made further attempts to contact Telecom personnel directly. As previously advised, these approaches will not result in a response. Telecom will not respond to any direct approaches by you. Any communications are to be directed to us.

Regards

John Rooney
Partner
Simpson Grierson
Level 27, 88 Shortland Street, Private Bag 92518, Auckland, New Zealand
DDI +64-9-977 5070 | Fax +64-9-977 5083 | Mobile +64-21 499 365
john.rooney@simpsongrierson.com | www.simpsongrierson.com

Paul Evans-McLeod

17 Minnie Place

Pukete

Te Rapa

Hamilton

New Zealand

Phone 0064 7 8494584

Mobile 0272423222

Paul..evans-mcleod@xtra.co.nz

is all a farce really

2013-08-07T22:25:00.001+12:00

me and telecom

is all a farce really

received this from telecoms lawyer to day

From: John Rooney [mailto:John.Rooney@simpsongrierson.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 6:58 PM
To: Paul Mcleod (paul.evans-mcleod@xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Telecom New Zealand Ltd [SG-SGDMS.FID361431]

Dear Paul,

We are instructed you have made further attempts to contact Telecom personnel directly. As previously advised, these approaches will not result in a response. Telecom will not respond to any direct approaches by you. Any communications are to be directed to us.

Regards

John Rooney
Partner
Simpson Grierson
Level 27, 88 Shortland Street, Private Bag 92518, Auckland, New Zealand
DDI +64-9-977 5070 | Fax +64-9-977 5083 | Mobile +64-21 499 365
john.rooney@simpsongrierson.com | www.simpsongrierson.com
________________________________________

My reply

Hi
John

I am following the procedural process as required, it is my democratic right, response not expected or required

Encouraging is recent success of Kathy Fisher.

Cheers Paul

kathy fisher is auckland lawyer who successfully took on telecom and won pretty much the same scenario as me accused of being rude to customers and managed out

above worries me not it telecoms image and their futures when all their misdeeds are read out on the floor of parliament

AND THE CEO AND THE BOARD GO WTF

Be very aware some if not all of the names below are the subject of a still open complaint for fraud with the Hamilton police

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

Procedural requirement

2013-08-05T14:35:00.001+12:00

Procedural requirement

Dear Debbie /Trish

You will be well aware that my pursuit for a resolution to the illegal act, a fraud , the nonexistence of a customer complaint which assisted my exit from telecom continues ..

It concludes with a petition to the house of representatives.
The presentation of the petition requires certain perquisites.
These I have been carefully fulfilling, this letter, is effectively the penultimate step.
To summarise the salient points.
• I have documentation from the Minster of Labour acknowledging it is a crime and advising me to take it to the police or the serious fraud office.
• I am in receipt of a police complaint number regarding same.
Persuaded, not by what is just, but by the law
To achieve this end they have accepted nothing, believed no one and asked me to corroborate everything, which I have done
I already have
• the required full support of a sitting MP
• this results in my concerns to be expressed on the floor of the houses of parliament under privilege.
The petition will detail, all those with whom the issue has been raised,you are now aware of the reasoning behind my prolific entreaties to all and sundry both within and outside of Telecom inclusive of the CEO both past and present and the board.

It relates to the fraud, not to the mediation process, that avenue being statue based , is not an option.

Bridgette Dalzell has stated in previous correspondence, she had every confidence in the integrity of Michelle Young and Shaun Hoult
Feel free to bet your future on Bridgette’s judgment ( in reality nothing would give me more pleasure)

You both once had my respect, confidence, and trust.
No more, documentation sourced via the privacy act show me, this was misplaced.

Telecoms lawyer John Rooney at one point in this travesty attempted to scare me off with defamation.
It was not pursued, when, I advised the documentation signed off by the participants as true and correct records could be shown as not so, and the number of witnesses that I would call.
I was being set up and lied to ..realizing the outcome was predetermined and premeditated, I successfully gained corroboration.
The complaint from the intellectually handicapped person never existed, a document and evidence trail , can not be produced.
This will, if necessary require her, to substantiate same within the appropriate parliamentary process.

This letter provides for an opportunity for my concerns to be addressed, you may choose to respond.
I’m really not bothered whether I get taken seriously or not I am just fulfilling the requirements of the process and documenting same.

I will no longer respond to any correspondence from telecoms lawyer as,
• there is nothing in law that precludes me from exercising my democratic right
• the process requires me that all information be substantiated and corroborated that has been achieved
Regards

Paul

Paul Evans-McLeod
17 Minnie Place
Pukete
Te Rapa
Hamilton
New Zealand

Phone 0064 7 8494584
Mobile 0272423222
Paul.evans-mcleod@xtra.co.nz

Be very aware some if not all of the names below are the subject of a still open complaint for fraud with the Hamilton police

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

COMPLETING THE STEPS AND TICKING THE BOXES

2013-06-02T13:41:00.000+12:00

ME and TELECOM
COMPLETING THE STEPS AND TICKING THE BOXES
before i put a petition to parliament i am required to exhaust all other avenues ,this has required me to rethink and refine my approach
the fraud is a breech of emplyement relations law spefically good faith emploment relations law
The parties to an employment relationship specified in subsection (2)—
• (a) must deal with each other in good faith; and
• (b) without limiting paragraph (a), must not, whether directly or indirectly, do anything—
• (i) to mislead or deceive each other; or
• (ii) that is likely to mislead or deceive each other.
• A party to an employment relationship who fails to comply with the duty of good faith in section 4(1) is liable to a penalty under this Act if—
• (a) the failure was deliberate, serious, and sustained; or
• (b) the failure was intended to undermine—
by getting the ombudsman to deal with it costs me nothing but it costs telecom to defend it on bugger

letter to ombudsman

Dear Sir,

I have a right to justice under article 27 of the Human Rights Act.
Telecom, my employer, committed a fraud against myself by engaging in a disciplinary process based on a false, nonexistent customer complaint.
I have sought redress of this crime via the police, ministers of parliament responsible for government departments that are relevant, and the Employment relations authority
(Determinations (2011)NZERA315/5315212 ,File Number 5412923 refer)
Each statement of problem and the associated attachments provide substantiated evidence of this fraud, this is indicative of the failure of my employer to act in good faith, as required by law.
It was information withheld from myself, and only available subsequent to my signing of a mediation agreement.
This deliberate proactive breach of employment and criminal law has not been addressed by those agencies tasked with the requirement for enforcement.
I wish a review and determination by your department.
I intend to petition the House of Representatives; a prerequisite of that action is that all other avenues be exhausted.
Thank you for your assistance

Please feel free to contact me is anything is unclear.

Be very aware some if not all of the names below are the subject of a still open complaint for fraud with the Hamilton police

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

Digital serfdom on the road to perdition

2013-04-10T21:48:00.001+12:00

Digital serfdom on the road to perdition / or Telecom ethically compromised.

Beware the ethics of those that manage.

Beware the duplicity of the dollar driven bottom line

telecom a big player on the small New Zealand share market.

Has most recently been in the news for its proposed removal of 1500+ employees, coupled with a revelation that 2700 almost 50% of its staff are on $100000+.

The corporate headquarters costing in excess of $250 million.

All whilst the remainder of the country fights its way out of a recession.

One can reflect on what this represents, in image and brand, and how.

And why it seems somewhat out of kilter.

Myself , I do not need to, I have experienced the ethic, and the morality sacrificed for process, policy and profit.

Commenced some 40+ years ago with the then Post Office or the P and T

Worked in the outside plant area, and ultimately a 123 call centre.

Had been a loyal employee for the 39+ years... and then disaster.

Suffered a heart attack, recovered; returned to work...and then false accusations and micro management , ultimately exhausted exited.

Time allowed healing, reflection and knowledge. Truths revealed in managers own emails , sourced via the provisions of the privacy act.

Learned of a boot camp, attended by all managers, whom were instructed in order to motivate the remainder , exit a person from each team.

Those that remain within the digital serfdom will remember the “cleansing” that occurred, when and who, by whom

My own exit and micromanagement to achieve it now more sharply in focus.

I have in my more idle moments reflected on this and other aspects of the call centre culture.

With its cadres, scripted conversations and the micromanagement aspects.

For a entity in the capitalist environment it bears a resemblance to aspects of its polar opposite, communism, defined by group think, and re-education of dissidents by repetitive indoctrination (micro management) to repress and discipline on “trumped up charges” , mine as detailed within this blog a non existent verbal compliant.

I note other similarities, the excess’s of those in power, the edifices built to exult them.

But what of those that deliver on the front line....now all are micro managed as the scramble to claw back the squandered profit commences.

, but the edifice remains proclaiming ....what?

You decide...

Be very aware some if not all of the names below are the subject of a still open complaint for fraud with the Hamilton police

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

PROGRESS

2013-03-26T14:51:00.002+13:00

PROGRESS

THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY HAS ACCEPTED MY CLAIMS AND WE MOVE FORWARD

UNABLE TO PRINT TELECOMS STATEMENT OF REPLY AS THE MADE IT UNDER THE ACT PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
now postponed till 3.30pm same day

they are in for a surprise

From: Boon Lee [mailto:Boon.Lee@era.govt.nz]
Sent: Monday, 25 March 2013 12:26 p.m.
To: Paul Mcleod; 'John Rooney'
Subject: RE: Request for a Conference Call; File#: 5412923 Paul Alan Evans-McLeod and Telecom New Zealand Ltd

Dear Parties,

The Authority member, Jim Crichton, can take the call on Monday 8 April 2013 at 11am. Please confirm your availability on this new date and time.

Kind regards,
Boon Lee
Support Officer
Employment Relations Authority | Te Ratonga Ahumana Taimahi
10th Floor 280 Centre 280 Queen Street | PO Box 105 117 | Auckland | New Zealand
Tel: +64 9 970 1571 | Fax: +64 9 970 1579
Email: boon.lee@era.govt.nz ; Website: www.era.govt.nz

Employment Relations Authority

www.era.govt.nz

The Employment Relations Authority is an independent body set up under the Employment Relations Act 2000. Its role is to resolve employment relationship problems by looking into the facts and making a decision based on the merits of the case, not on technicalities.

Persistance Pays

2013-03-12T09:57:00.000+13:00

Persistance Pays

My persistence has paid off..

Independent investigator advice hits the mark.

For those that have followed my trials and tribulations we have after all this time succeeded in placing Telecom before the Employment Relations authority.

Changing tack and seeking the assistance of an independent investigator has borne fruit

Below is the revised statement of problem that was required by the authority.

applicant Paul Alan Evans-McLeod

Address of applicant: 17 Minnie Place Pukete Hamilton

and

Full name of respondent: Telecom New Zealand Limited (Telecom)

Address of respondent c/o John Rooney partner Simpson Grierson Private Bag 92518 Auckland 1141

To the Employment Relations Authority

And to the respondent

Statement of problem (or matter)

^1.The problem (or matter) that I wish the Authority to resolve is:

With regard to section 114 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 paragraph

(4)On an application under subsection (3), the Authority, after giving the employer an opportunity to be heard, may grant leave accordingly, subject to such conditions (if any) as it thinks fit, if the Authority—

(a)is satisfied that the delay in raising the personal grievance was occasioned by exceptional circumstances (which may include any 1 or more of the circumstances set out in section 115); and
(b)considers it just to do so.

It is occasioned by exceptional circumstances namely:

An alleged verbal compliant from an intellectually handicapped girl was used to commence a disciplinary procedure against myself.

I am disputing the fact that this complaint occurred as no substantive verifiable proof can be provided by Telecom despite frequent requests since the commencement of the disciplinary action

It represents a fraud against me, and the identity theft against the girl with the intellectual disability.

It is just to do so: as this act by telecom violated principles of good faith when Telecom engaged in my disciplinary process that relied on the integrity of that which they provided, and thus impacted consequent agreements entered “freely entered into” in ‘good faith” which should thus be negated and required to be revisited

Requests for the specific information were not honoured.

With regard to

Further provision regarding exceptional circumstances under section 114

For the purposes of section 114(4)(a), exceptional circumstances include—

(a)where the employee has been so affected or traumatised by the matter giving rise to the grievance that he or she was unable to properly consider raising the grievance within the period specified in section 114(1);

At the time of the disciplinary action I was subjected to a sustained and deliberate process of micromanagement against the achievement of impossible targets ( part of which was having a standard of being 100% right 100% of the time) and repeated disciplinary meetings within each working week on a continuous basis for a period of about eight months. This is attested to in emails obtained under the Privacy act consequent to my exit, from Bridgette Dalzell advising that “Shaun and Michelle had a good rhythm going and it normal takes him two days to calm down.” .

Shaun Hoult is my team leader , Michelle Young his manager.

A further email from Trish Keith Telecom National General Manager advised she was aware I was very distressed.

Ian Galloway HR telecom ,and Michelle Young acknowledged within these disciplinary meeting that I was being micromanaged on two occasions (which can be defined as work place bullying) confirming the deliberate process, the effect of this resulted in severe chest pain immediately after meetings requiring medical attention, (Note. The disciplinary action commenced shortly after return from work from an heart operation). The mental pressure deliberately imposed has left me with PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) as advised by my doctor, whom expressed her concerns directly to telecom particularly as I already under treatment from her for bipolar , manic depression, which telecom was aware of throughout my employment and prior to this disciplinary procedure.

Thus I was unable to probably consider raising the grievance within the period specified

I am claiming these actions amongst others by my employer were unjustified.

· A fraudulent non existent verbal complaint from a intellectually impaired girl

· A disciplinary action based on this complaint

· Deliberate micro management to affect my mental state and ability to reason to my detriment

2. The facts that have given rise to the problem (or matter) are:

Requests for audio files, verbatim transcripts , or any documentation regarding the complete process have typically been ignored, or a have had disingenuous response, or advice has been received , that files no longer exist, or did not exist under section 29(2)(b) of the privacy act

I contend that no verbal compliant was made by the girl with the intellectual disability

¹ Give enough detail to ensure that the Authority and the respondent are fully, fairly, and clearly informed.

Form 1 - continued

3. I would like the problem (or matter) to be resolved in the following way:^{1 2}

I request that the intellectually handicapped girl be interviewed first, to confirm that a verbal complaint was laid by her, with regard to my previous interactions with her, this will determine the veracity of each of the following peoples statements and contentions regarding this matter.

Bridgette Dalzell , Hannah Sullivan ,Iain Galloway, Shaun Hoult and Michelle Young

After the authority has spoken with the girl. I request that the people mentioned then be individually interviewed without the others present and that they be requested to verify and confirm all statements, views, content and contentions with regard to this specific matter

That they also all be separated both before and after to avoid collusion

Resolution of this matter requires the determination as to whether the girl made a verbal compliant, if she has not, then does this fraudulent act impact on other employment matters which Telecom engaged in with my disciplinary process that relied on the integrity of that which they all provided, particularly those agreements entered “freely entered into” in ‘good faith” now found to be fraudulent.

The authority to make a determination regarding: Are these negated and required to be revisited.

The authority to make a determination: Are there other offences under the Crimes Act, Defamation Act or any other relevant laws committed by any and all either jointly and severally?

The remedies I seek are , but not limited to:

· reinstatement of my former position or the placement a position no less advantageous

· reimbursement of a sum equal to the whole or any part of the wages or other money lost as a result of the grievance:

· the payment of compensation by the employer, including compensation for

humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to the feelings, loss of any benefit, whether or not of a monetary kind, might reasonably have been expected to obtain if the personal grievance had not arisen:

I have lost the benefit of good health and possible life expectancy.

My marriage and personal relationships have suffered immensely

· if the Authority or the court finds that any workplace conduct or practices are a significant factor in the personal grievance, recommendations to the employer concerning the action the employer should take to prevent similar employment relationship problems occurring:

Practise of micromanagement was a significant factor

Concerning the action the employer should take in respect of the person who made the request or was guilty of the harassing behaviour, which action may include the transfer of that person, the taking of disciplinary action against that person, or the taking of rehabilitative action in respect of that person about any other action that it is necessary for the employer to take to prevent further harassment of the employee concerned or any other employee.

4. I attach copies of the following documents (which I think are relevant to the problem):³

Attachment 1 Manner described by customer

Attachment 2 Manager referring to purported statement from non-existent complaint

Attachment 3 Additional reference to TWO customer complaints

Attachment 4 Reference to verbal complaints

Attachment 5 Alleging the customer described the calls

Attachment 6 Latest requests

Mediation

5. Have you, the applicant, tried to resolve this problem (or matter) by using mediation services provided by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment? Yes ¨ No ¨X

6. Have you, the applicant, tried to resolve this problem (or matter) by using mediation provided by someone other than the Department of Labour? Yes ¨ No ¨X

7. Have you, the applicant, taken any other steps of any kind to resolve the problem (or matter)? Yes ¨X No ¨

If the answer to this question is "Yes", specify the other steps taken:

Addressed the contention of fraud with Department of Labour, lodged compliant with Police, Privacy Commission, Ombudsman, Telecom Ceo (past and present) Telecom Board Members of Parliament, Prime Minister Leaders of all Parties, and currently preparing a petition to House of Representatives to request of Telecom, the verifiable specifics of the alleged verbal complaint and other matters being denied to me by Telecom since the onset. The matter is most easily addressed by any of the members of any of these departments, interviewing the girl whom allegedly made the verbal complaint, my preferred option. Ministers of the Crown have advised that they view it as fraud, and therefore a matter for the Police. The Police view it as an employment matter. Raising the matter via this process seems to be a logical alternative to the bureaucratic ping pong engaged in by Government Departments. The Petition to Parliament requires all avenues be pursued prior; this action complies with that request. I have requested the details of the intellectually disabled girl so that an independent investigator can determine the truth via an appropriately prescribed process, this has been denied to me, I am very aware of the distress this may cause with this girl and would rather avoid it. One of my advisors conscious of this has been in touch with the head office of the IHC to determine, what support, process is appropriate.

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 problem (or matter):

All straight forward requests for verifiable information, has met with disingenuous responses, denials or advice that files no longer exist. There is no verifiable evidence of process within Telecom around the verbal complaint, notes taken at onset, verbatim transcriptions, written notes of discussions within management, or any indication that the girl’s concerns have been actioned and signed off to the girl’s satisfaction. There has been no opportunity provided to myself to attest to accuracy of any of these discussions and facts presented. All of which under privacy provisions I am entitled to, it has not been provided thus far , and is unlikely to be provided within mediation. All five managers etc. mentioned were across the process, all have been given the opportunity to correct the situation they have not.

Fee

9. This application is accompanied by the prescribed fee. Will be via internet banking with the reference Evans-McLeod or McLeod.

Signature of applicant:..................................................

Date:.............................

¹ Give enough detail to ensure that the Authority and the respondent are fully, fairly, and clearly informed.

²Please include reference to any specific remedy (being a remedy under any enactment or rule of law) that you are seeking. If the applicant is an employee who is seeking, by this application, an order, under section 127(l) of the Employment Relations Act 2000, for the employee’s interim reinstatement, the applicant must, at the time of lodging this application, file a signed undertaking in Form 2.

³List here all the documents that are attached, e.g. your employment agreement or letters that you wish to rely on, or documents required under any other legislation, etc.

Form 1-continued

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 [ ].

* Note that Regulation 8 of the Employment Relations Authority Regulations 2000 allows the Authority to direct a shorter period in any particular case

2. The term days (in paragraph 1 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 Paul Evans-McLeod.................................. , whose address for service is

17 Minnie Place Pukete Hamilton.......................................................... and whose telephone

number is 07 8494584.............. and whose fax number for service is …………………….……. and whose

document exchange number for service is ……………………………... and whose e‑mail address for

service is paul.evans-mcleod@xtra.co.nz……...…………………………………………… .⁴

This application is lodged by............................................................ on behalf of the above named

applicant, whose address for service is .……………………………………………...…………

…………………………………………………………………..and whose telephone number is

……………………. and whose fax number for service is …………………….……. and whose document

exchange number for service is ……………………………... and whose e‑mail address for service is

………...…………………………………………… .⁴

⁴Although a full postal address must always be supplied, the supply of a telephone number and the supply for service of any 1 or more of the following, namely, a fax number, a document exchange number, or an e-mail address are optional.

I swear that ....#2

2013-03-03T15:17:00.002+13:00

I swear that ....#2

I have just received this from my independent advisor
Paul,
I have finally had some time to further look at the issues that you raised with regarding the action your are engaged in re employment.
Should your contention re the purported verbal complaint be proven, then a cursory reading of the Crimes Act reveals that the following laws may apply, see below, these would need to be examined in depth , to determine further outcomes, so do not read them as literal yet...I will continue to assist as time permits...it certainly is an interesting exercise.
can you confirm those documents signed off as true and correct , that you have, or will request.
Anyway for your consideration and review, it is early in the journey
cheers

113Fabricating evidence
• Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, with intent to mislead any tribunal holding any judicial proceeding to which section 108 applies, fabricates evidence by any means other than perjury.
Compare: 1908 No 32 s 135
110False oaths
• Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who, being required or authorised by law to make any statement on oath or affirmation, thereupon makes a statement that would amount to perjury if made in a judicial proceeding.
66Parties to offences
• (1)Every one is a party to and guilty of an offence who—
o (a)actually commits the offence; or
o (b)does or omits an act for the purpose of aiding any person to commit the offence; or
o (c)abets any person in the commission of the offence; or
o (d)incites, counsels, or procures any person to commit the offence.
70Offence committed other than offence intended
• (1)Every one who incites, counsels, or procures another to be a party to an offence of which that other is afterwards guilty is a party to that offence, although it may be committed in a way different from that which was incited, counselled, or suggested.
(2)Every one who incites, counsels, or procures another to be a party to an offence is a party to every offence which that other commits in consequence of such inciting, counselling, or procuring, and which the first-mentioned person knew to be likely to be committed in consequence thereof.
240Obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception
• (1)Every one is guilty of obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception who, by any deception and without claim of right,—
o (a)obtains ownership or possession of, or control over, any property, or any privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration, directly or indirectly; or
o (b)in incurring any debt or liability, obtains credit; or
o (c)induces or causes any other person to deliver over, execute, make, accept, endorse, destroy, or alter any document or thing capable of being used to derive a pecuniary advantage; or
o (d)causes loss to any other person.
(2)In this section, deception means—
o (a)a false representation, whether oral, documentary, or by conduct, where the person making the representation intends to deceive any other person and—
 (i)knows that it is false in a material particular; or
 (ii)is reckless as to whether it is false in a material particular; or
o (b)an omission to disclose a material particular, with intent to deceive any person, in circumstances where there is a duty to disclose it; or
o (c)a fraudulent device, trick, or stratagem used with intent to deceive any person.
257Using forged documents
• (1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who, knowing a document to be forged,—
o (a)uses the document to obtain any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration; or
o (b)uses, deals with, or acts upon the document as if it were genuine; or
o (c)causes any other person to use, deal with, or act upon it as if it were genuine.
(2)For the purposes of this section, a document made or altered outside New Zealand in a manner that would have amounted to forgery if the making or alteration had been done in New Zealand is to be regarded as a forged document.
258Altering, concealing, destroying, or reproducing documents with intent to deceive
• (1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who, with intent to obtain by deception any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration, or to cause loss to any other person,—
o (a)alters, conceals, or destroys any document, or causes any document to be altered, concealed, or destroyed; or
o (b)makes a document or causes a document to be made that is, in whole or in part, a reproduction of any other document.
(2)An offence against subsection (1) is complete as soon as the alteration or document is made with the intent referred to in that subsection, although the offender may not have intended that any particular person should—
o (a)use or act upon the document altered or made; or
o (b)act on the basis of the absence of the document concealed or destroyed; or
o (c)be induced to do or refrain from doing anything.
259Using altered or reproduced document with intent to deceive
• (1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who, knowing any document to have been made or altered in the manner and with the intent referred to in section 258, with intent to obtain by deception any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration, or to cause loss to any other person,—
o (a)uses, or deals with, or acts upon, the document; or
o (b)causes any person to use or deal with, or act upon, the document.
(2)For the purposes of this section, it does not matter that the document was altered or made outside New Zealand.
Compare: 1961 No 43 s 266B
332Indictment for perjury or fraud
• (1)No count charging perjury, the making of a false oath or of a false statement, or the fabrication of evidence, or procuring the commission of any of those crimes, shall be deemed insufficient on the ground that it does not state the nature or the authority of the tribunal before which the oath or statement was taken or made, or the subject of the inquiry, or the words used, or the evidence fabricated, or that it does not expressly negative the truth of the words used; but the court may order that the prosecutor shall furnish further particulars in writing of what is relied on in support of the charge.
(2)No count charging any false pretence, or any fraud, or any attempt or conspiracy by fraudulent means, shall be deemed insufficient because it does not set out in detail in what the false pretence, or the fraud, or the fraudulent means consisted; but the court may order that the prosecutor shall furnish further particulars in writing of those matters, or any of them.

and here is the kicker with me, putting in a statement of problem and if they want to take it the investigation stage
two things will transpire
one they will be put under oath so lying is perjury
two one of the sunday papers has responded to my expression of interest so the media will be doing a feature

Be very aware some if not all of the names below are the subject of a still open complaint for fraud with the Hamilton police

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

I swear that the evidence

2013-02-23T14:46:00.000+13:00

I swear that the evidence that I shall give, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

APPLICATION TO EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY
(Section 158, Employment Relations Act 2000)
Between
Full name of applicant                     Paul Alan Evans-McLeod:
Address of applicant:               17 Minnie Place Pukete Hamilton
and
Full name of respondent: Telecom New Zealand Limited (Telecom)
Address of respondent   c/o John Rooney partner Simpson Grierson Private Bag 92518 Auckland 1141
To the Employment Relations Authority
And to the respondent
Statement of problem (or matter)
1. The problem (or matter) that I wish the Authority to resolve is:1
An alleged verbal compliant from an intellectually handicapped girl was used to commence a disciplinary procedure against myself.
I am disputing the fact that this complaint occurred as no substantive verifiable proof can be provided by Telecom despite frequent requests since the commencement of the disciplinary action
It represents a fraud against me, and the identity theft against the girl with the intellectual disability.

2. The facts that have given rise to the problem (or matter) are:1
Requests for audio files, verbatim transcripts , or any documentation regarding the complete process have typically been ignored, or a have had disingenuous response, or advice has been received , that files no longer exist, or did not exist under section 29(2)(b) of the privacy act
I contend that no verbal compliant was made by the girl with the intellectual disability

1 Give enough detail to ensure that the Authority and the respondent are fully, fairly, and clearly informed.
Form 1 - continued
3. I would like the problem (or matter) to be resolved in the following way:1 2
I request that the intellectually handicapped girl be interviewed first, to confirm that a verbal complaint was laid by her, with regard to my previous interactions with her, this will determine the veracity of each of the following peoples statements and contentions regarding this matter.
Bridgette Dalzell , Hannah Sullivan ,Iain Galloway, Shaun Hoult and Michelle Young
After the authority has spoken with the girl. I request that the people mentioned then be individually interviewed without the others present and that they be requested to verify and confirm all statements, views, content and contentions with regard to this specific matter
That they also all be separated both before and after to avoid collusion
Resolution of this matter requires the determination as to whether the girl made a verbal compliant, if she has not, then does this fraudulent act impact on other employment matters which Telecom engaged in with my disciplinary process that relied on the integrity of that which they all provided, particularly those agreements entered “freely entered into” in ‘good faith” now found to be fraudulent. Are these negated and required to be revisited. Are there other offences under the Crimes Act, Defamation Act or any other relevant laws committed by any and all either jointly and severally?

4. I attach copies of the following documents (which I think are relevant to the problem):3
          Attachment 1 Manner described by customer
         Attachment 2   Manager referring to purported statement from non-existent complaint
         Attachment 3 Additional reference to TWO customer complaints
      Attachment 4 Reference to verbal complaints
        Attachment   5 Alleging the customer described the calls
        Attachment    6 Latest requests

Mediation
5. Have you, the applicant, tried to resolve this problem (or matter) by using mediation services provided by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment?  Yes •  No •X
6. Have you, the applicant, tried to resolve this problem (or matter) by using mediation provided by someone other than the Department of Labour? Yes •  No •X
7. Have you, the applicant, taken any other steps of any kind to resolve the problem (or matter)?                                 Yes •X  No •
If the answer to this question is "Yes", specify the other steps taken:
Addressed the contention of fraud with Department of Labour, lodged compliant with Police, Privacy Commission, Ombudsman, Telecom Ceo (past and present) Telecom Board Members of Parliament, Prime Minister Leaders of all Parties, and currently preparing a petition to House of Representatives to request of Telecom, the verifiable specifics of the alleged verbal complaint and other matters being denied to me by Telecom since the onset. The matter is most easily addressed by any of the members of any of these departments, interviewing the girl whom allegedly made the verbal complaint, my preferred option. Ministers of the Crown have advised that they view it as fraud, and therefore a matter for the Police. The Police view it as an employment matter. Raising the matter via this process seems to be a logical alternative to the bureaucratic ping pong engaged in by Government Departments. The Petition to Parliament requires all avenues be pursued prior; this action complies with that request. I have requested the details of the intellectually disabled girl so that an independent investigator can determine the truth via an appropriately prescribed process, this has been denied to me, I am very aware of the distress this may cause with this girl and would rather avoid it. One of my advisors conscious of this has been in touch with the head office of the IHC to determine, what support, process is appropriate.

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 problem (or matter):
All straight forward requests for verifiable information, has met with disingenuous responses, denials or advice that files no longer exist. There is no verifiable evidence of process within Telecom around the verbal complaint, notes taken at onset, verbatim transcriptions, written notes of discussions within management, or any indication that the girl’s concerns have been actioned and signed off to the girl’s satisfaction. There has been no opportunity provided to myself to attest to accuracy of any of these discussions and facts presented. All of which under privacy provisions I am entitled to, it has not been provided thus far , and is unlikely to be provided within mediation. All five managers etc. mentioned were across the process, all have been given the opportunity to correct the situation they have not.

Be very aware  some if not all of the names below are the subject of a still open complaint for fraud with the Hamilton police

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

telecom codes of ethics do they measure up yeah right

2013-02-19T21:06:00.001+13:00

http://www.telecomgroup.co.nz/binarys/code_of_ethics_dec11.pdf

Code of Ethics Policy Statement

Telecom has a Code of Ethics framework that sets the standards for which employees of Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Limited and its subsidiaries (“Telecom”) are expected to conduct their work life.

This framework has been approved by the Board.

Background

A Code of Ethics will generally not prescribe an exhaustive list of acceptable and non-acceptable behaviour but provide a framework to facilitate decisions that are consistent with Telecom’s Values, business goals and legal and policy obligations thereby enhancing performance outcomes.

Telecom people must be familiar with Telecom’s Values, as they govern their behaviour while they are employed by Telecom.

Accountability All Telecom people are expected to work in accordance with these standards of ethical and professional conduct.

Failure to follow the standards provided in this Code will result in the appropriate staff management practices being invoked. This may lead to disciplinary action including dismissal.

Core Principles

Conflicts of Interest

A conflict of interest occurs when an individual’s interests interfere, or appear to interfere, with Telecom’s interests. Telecom expects its people to act in Telecom’s best interests at all times

Telecom people will not without the prior written consent of Telecom:

• Engage in any other business or commercial activities which may conflict with their ability to perform their duties to Telecom;

• Support a political party or organisation other than in a personal capacity;

• Be directly or indirectly interested or concerned in any capacity including as a material shareholder

(ie. a shareholder who holds more than 25% of the shares), or as a director, employee, independent

contractor with any other business in the telecommunications/ internet industry;

• Engage in any procurement activities where the Telecom person has a commercial or personal

interest in the supplier/vendor Code of Ethics without disclosing those interests;

and

• Engage in any other activity which could conflict with Telecom’s interests.

Gifts

“Gifts” and “personal benefits” can include accommodation, goods, services, discounts, special terms on loans and so on. See the Telecom guidelines on the acceptance of gifts for further information regarding employee obligations.

Telecom people will not accept gifts or personal benefits of any value from internal or external parties if it could be perceived this could compromise or influence any decision by Telecom taking into account Operational Separation and the perceptions of key stakeholders.

Corporate Opportunities

Telecom expects its people to advance its legitimate interests when the opportunity to do so arises.

Telecom people will not:

• Take any opportunity discovered through the use of Telecom property, information or position for

themselves;

• Use Telecom property (including Telecom’s name), information or position for personal gain;

• Compete with Telecom; and

• Trade in shares, or any other kind of property, based on knowledge that comes from their roles if that information has not been reported publicly. See Telecom’s Insider Trading Policy for further information.

Confidentiality

Telecom, our customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders entrust us daily with their confidential communications and information. Confidential information includes all information not in the public domain that has come to a Telecom person’s knowledge by virtue of working for Telecom.

Telecom people will maintain and protect the confidentiality of information entrusted to Telecom about customers, work colleagues, suppliers, stakeholders and Telecom’s business and financial affairs, except where disclosure is essential to the discharge of their duties or required by law

These confidentiality obligations will take into account those obligations explicitly imposed on Telecom including those prescribed by the Privacy Act. Telecom people will ensure they have followed appropriate business unit protocols or taken appropriate advice from legal and compliance advisers Code of Ethics prior to disclosing confidential information.

Behaviours

The actions and statements of Telecom people, whether to customers, suppliers, competitors, or employees, can impact on the way people see Telecom and whether they choose to do business with us.

Telecom people will:

• Undertake their duties in accordance with Telecom’s Values;

• Conduct themselves in a way that demonstrates that their honesty is beyond question;

• Will not behave in a way that has the potential to bring Telecom’s image into disrepute;

• Deal fairly and honestly with Telecom’s people, professional advisors, customers, and suppliers;

• Not enter into transactions or make promises on behalf of Telecom that Telecom does not intend to honour;

• Undertake their duties with care and diligence;

• Ensure that any personal opinions Telecom people express are clearly identified as their own and are not represented to be the views of Telecom;

• Value individuals’ differences and treat people with respect in accordance with Telecom’s Equal

Employment Opportunities and Anti-Harassment and Discrimination Policies;

• To the best of their ability, use reasonable endeavours to ensure that Telecom’s systems, records

and documents, including financial reports,

standards and internal controls; and are true, correct and conform to Telecom’s reporting

• Not accept or offer bribes or improper inducements to or from anyone.

Meet the needs of key stakeholders

Telecom people have regard to the needs of key stakeholders including

Telecom’s shareholders, customers, suppliers, central and local Government, the Commerce

Commission and industry bodies.

Telecom people will:

• Be committed to delivering shareholder value, through efficient operation, effective communication and clear risk management practices;

• Maintain high standards of service and product quality;

• Not behave in any way, or promulgate any information that is deceptive, misleading or otherwise unfair; and

• Ensure that Telecom does not engage in behaviour that violates the principles of fair competition.

Code of Ethics

Proper use of Telecom’s Assets and Information

Telecom people are required to protect Telecom’s assets from loss, damage, misuse, waste and theft. Telecom’s assets include company property assigned to Telecom people, systems, nformation, intellectual property and networks.

Telecom people will:

• Only use Telecom’s assets for lawful business purposes or as authorised by Telecom as reasonable personal use for a specific asset class; and

• Only create, and only retain, information and communications required for business needs or to

meet legal obligations in accordance with Telecom’s Information Management Policy.

Compliance with Laws and Policies

Telecom people will:

• Familiarise themselves with and comply with the Chief Executive’s Core Policies and all other policies, codes, frameworks and processes at all times (including those relating to the Legal and Compliance, Fraud, equal employment opportunities and health and safety);

• Abide by the laws, rules and regulations of the countries in which they are operating;

• Undertake training on legal obligations and policies as required by their manager; and

• Comply with all statutory and internal disclosure requirements on a timely basis.

Delegated Authority

The Telecom Board of Directors delegates the responsibility of managing the business and affairs of

Telecom to the Chief Executive Officer.

The Chief Executive Officer in turn delegates to other levels of management certain rights to make

operational and financial decisions within defined limits. The rules that govern this system are the Delegated Authority framework.

Telecom people will:

• Only act within the Delegated Authority framework and any authority that may be specifically given to them as a Delegated Authority holder; and

• Ask their manager if they are uncertain as to their Delegated Authority level of authority.

Reporting Concerns

Telecom has Reporting a compliance Code of Ethics issue or incident guidelines procedures for the reporting of any alleged breach of the Telecom Code of Ethics, a legal obligation or any other Telecom Policy.

Telecom also has specific financial compliance escalation procedures for the reporting of any breach of any accounting, internal control or auditing procedure.

If you become aware of any alleged breach outlined above, you are responsible for reporting it to your manager. If this is not appropriate in the circumstances, you should report the breach to:

• your manager’s manager;

• Group Compliance;

• askhr@telecom.co.nz; or

• The Whistleblower / Fraud Helpline

- 0800 688 369.

Roles and Responsibilities

The responsibilities of specific groups are:

CEO / Executive

Support the adoption of an adherence to this policy and underlying core policies.

Human Resources Team

Respond to alleged breaches of the Code of Ethics or Human Resources functional policies and direct

investigation resources, training or disciplinary actions as required.

Fraud Team

Undertake investigations at the direction of the Human Resources team for cases of suspected non-compliance with Core Policies or Human Resources functional policies

Group Compliance and BU Compliance Teams

Support Group HR and/or Fraud with investigation resources, training or awareness, and remediation actions as required.

Managers

Familiarity with the code of ethics, compliance responsibilities, implementation of procedures and processes to ensure compliance. Raising issues in the Telecom - Report a compliance issue or incident mechanism or through normal HR channels.

All

Awareness of Telecom's compliance framework, processes and tools.

Adherence to this Policy. Code of Ethics

Ownership

This is a CEO Policy owned by the Group HR Director and will be updated on a bi-annual

or as needed basis.

Publishing Date

December 2011

telecom codes of ethics do they measure up yeah right

2013-02-19T21:05:00.001+13:00