You have reached this link because you are considering hiring the person/persons named in this link
You have decided to do your “due diligence” as any new employer should to find out the true character of the individual you are considering
When deeds speak, words are nothing. ~African Proverb
As I grow older I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do. ~Andrew Carnegie
I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts. ~John Locke
So all I ask is to consider their actions in their own words, signed off by each as a true and correct record
So open the link to the blog http://hwyop.blogspot.com/
Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it
This was my experience of them
The rest is your decision completely
Be advised that a complaint regarding a police acknowledged crime has been lodged with the Hamilton CIB against the following people complaint number 1111299892
Bridgette Dalzell: National Manager Telecom: who had oversight of the process as her role dictates
Michelle Young Site manager 123 Call Centre Hamilton (Bridgette Dalzell is Michelle's manager)
Shaun Hoult my Team Leader (Michelle Young is his manager)
Iain Galloway Site Human Resource Manager
Hannah Sullivan head office Human Resource
The sum involved in this crime could well exceeded $480.000.00
This in no way can be construed as defamatory as their legal team has tried that option before and lost when i highlighted that i had numerous records attesting to the pertinent facts in their own words
highlighted also is the fact that their own legal team admitted in writing that accusation was false and did not exist there make it fraud yet they have failed to put it right
Please continue to read the following in Sparks representatives own words will display how the operate
May you gain some enlightenment
On a whim I read my former employer Spark”s
* Code of Conduct
* Code of Ethics
I decided to challenge them. .
What an interesting, indeed a revealing exercise.
As indicated all of my accusations can be substantiated with hard copy evidence available in public data bases, which anyone can access.
After contact with Sparks reception I sent my concerns to the following relevant people associated with the “whistleblower hotline‘
* ,Melissa Anastasiou
* Mark Churches
Initial letter
I hope one of you are the compliance manager or at least the right person to address my issue
I lodged a concern via 0800 688 369, and was treated in a very cavalier way.
( No doubt the call is recorded)
With nil response after approximately a month, it appears that this reporting avenue is merely an illusion.
I am taking a more direct approach by contacting yourself.
Spark as its companies code of ethics and conduct promises, ensures
* Compliance with Laws and Policies
* Requires employees to familiarise themselves with and comply with all of the Company’s policies and all other codes, frameworks and processes at all times (including those relating to the Legal and Compliance, Fraud, equal employment opportunities and health and safety
* Requires employees to abide by the laws, rules and regulations of the countries in which they are operating
* That employees will not behave in a way that has the potential to bring Spark New Zealand’s image into disrepute..
* That employees will deal fairly and honestly with Spark New Zealand’s people, professional advisors, customers, and suppliers.
* That employees will not behave in any way, or promulgate any information that is deceptive, misleading or otherwise unfair.
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
There are those within your management team, that have breached all of the above, through proactive and deliberate action.
They have failed in honesty, integrity, in the good faith component of employment law, and failed in compliance, with the predetermined outcome of my dismissal. All can be fully substantiated by hard copy evidence available from myself, your HR. department and documents in possession of Sparks lawyer namely John Rooney of Simpson Grierson.
It is also a matter of public record, via employment court records, police fraud complaint, and within blogs on the Internet.
The employment law determination Adams versus AMC Contracting Ltd, bears an exact similarity to the details of my own case..
The employer instigated a miscarriage of justice by lying to the employee.
The court ruled in favour of Adams the employee.
The lie within my case relates to a letter of complaint from a customer that did not exist, citied in documents within that proceeding, attested to as true and correct that was unable to be produced in a disciplinary meeting regarding it, despite being frequently requested. (Copies of all evidence stated is available via my statement of problems submissions within the employment courts data base)
I attended meditation, where under the cloak of confidentiality was instructed to resign, or be dismissed within six weeks.
The legality of the instructions and proceedings mattered little.
I had close to four decades service.
Was on a very old contract within which some of the clauses indicating I was going to be a cost to the business, hence the hidden reason for my exit..
This deliberate use of mediation and consequent intimidation within those meetings is a tactic used frequently by Spark HR., and can be viewed as criminal
I did resign, August 20 2009 under extreme duress, as resignation carried less taint to my hard earned reputation for honesty and integrity than a dismissal.
You are required to operate within the law ,Telecom/Spark didn't.
They committed an act of fraud (as evidenced in the precedence set by Adams vs. Amc) , and those within Telecom HR committed further breaches via a letter to members of the Telecom board from Iain Galloway HR.
All within the process appear to be wilfully blind.
Being wilfully blind is an illegal act so much for your companies stated intentions of obeying the law.
Your employment practices in this case don't meet the standard require in your own code of conduct, and does little to enhance the reputation of your company..
No one can produce the complaint letter.
I request nothing more than you act as your code of conduct requires , with the thought in mind that its tenets are supported by the board .
The actual facts support it by the ample hardcopy evidence available to you, and resolve the issue based on what is front of you, as the act of fraud by your employees is irrefutable without production of the complaint letter. No doubt you will request it.
Of interest to you will be the disciplinary and meeting notes written by Michele Young and Shaun Hoult alleging the existence of two NOT one written complaints combined with a copy of an email written by Bridgette Dalzell complementing the actions of Michelle and Shaun by advising Shaun and Michelle "have a nice rhythm going ".
A statement which indicates implicitly, that she Bridgette is across what is happening to me and comfortable with her direct reports actions.
No doubt a forensic audit across all correspondence involved in this matter, will unearth more of interest, as each and every person failed in the duty of care inherent within their job requirements according to each contract by failing to ensure the code of compliance and most importantly the laws of the land where adhered to. (I have most information sourced via a privacy act request.)
Your employers legal consul John Rooney admission that the letter could NOT be produced as it DID NOT EXIST, will be problematic to refute in any court proceedings, or public forum.
My case is sound supported by hardcopy evidence all signed off as true and correct by your own employees and consul
As telecom , spark have in place a block on my email address, any dialogue with yourself will require its removal.
The Response
To the board of Spark New Zealand
Below is a copy of an email sent to the following three employees ,melissa.anastasiou@spark.co.nz,T822740@spark.co.nz ,mark.churches@spark.co.nz early this month.
And copied in the email the initial letter (see above)
On having had no response or an acknowledgement of receipt of the email,I rang Mark Churches 7 days later for an update on the 08/08/2016 AT 3.15 PM..
After politely introducing myself I ask for a response to my email to be told ""we will not be responding to anything from you Paul we have been thru all this before we are not going there again "" then he rudely hung up.
On contact with Melissa her response was that she had not received an email.
So apparently it is telecoms/sparks policy to ignore the law, and not to address issues of fraud.
You as the board , have ratified the code of conduct, which is being ignored by those with your organisation.
Are my concerns to be responded to.
Are you condoning the fraud.
Are you condoning Mark Churches response.
All can be resolved by asking Sparks legal consul John Rooney of Simpson Grierson for a copy of the letter his inability to produce it proves my case, yet none has performed this simple request
Your formal response to these specifics in writing would be appreciated.
Thank You
This was sent to various board members and general managers
Secretary to board of directors:
* Sivana Roest silvana..roest@spark.co.nz * Janson Paris Jason.paris@spark.co.nz * Tim Miles tim.miles@spark.co.nz * Jodie Hodson Jodie.hodson@spark.co.nz * David Havercroft david.havercroft@spark.co.nz * Rod Snodgrass rod.snodgrass@spark..co..nz * Joe McCollum joe.mccollum@spark.co.nz
All opened and read it ,as I have confirmation via email read receipts.
Sparks response
From: John.Rooney@simpsongrierson.com To: paul.evans-mcleod@xtra.co.nz Subject: Spark New Zealand Ltd Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 23:31:13 +0000
Dear Paul,
We are instructed you have attempted to make direct contact with Spark New Zealand regarding matters relating to you ceasing to be an employee in 2009. We have no comment to make on the content of the email you sent other than to note these are matters that you were statue barred from pursuing by the Employments Relation Authority
As previously advised, all communications on these matters are to be directed through Simpson Grierson. Attempts at direct contact with Spark New Zealand personnel will not be responded to.
Yours sincerely John Rooney | Partner | Simpson Grierson Level 27, 88 Shortland Street, Private Bag 92518, Auckland 1141, New Zealand DDI +64-9-977 5070 | Mobile +64-21 499 365 | Fax +64-9-977 5083 Assistant Lisa Yeardley | DDI +64-9-977 5443 john.rooney@simpsongrierson.com | www.simpsongrierson.com
My reply to John Rooney
From: paul..evans-mcleod@xtra.co.nz To: john.rooney@simpsongrierson.com Subject: FW: Spark New Zealand Ltd Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 01:54:58 +1200
Dear John
I am little bemused to see your reply and your renewed involvement, however it serves to confirm that the correspondence has been received and read by Sparks representatives. Their “read receipts” confirm same
Indeed the latest response has been quite prompt, so Thank You
My intent was to test the integrity of telecoms/Sparks code of ethics and codes of conduct.
Your reply and that of Mark Churches are sufficient to prove that the codes are; as I thought, a complete farce thus sufficient evidence to prove my point.
Of note to myself and others it is an interesting approach by those contacted, the board and others, whom rather than adhere to their professed support of the codes and launch an enquiry they seek the immediacy of your involvement.
Speaks volumes.
It really does
These codes and standard stand as a cornerstone of your client’s business dealings, I hesitate to think of the disquiet the public will embrace when I publish my findings.
"As previously advised, all communications on these matters are to be directed through Simpson Grierson""
Do I refer the media enquires to yourself as well ?
They will be I touch
Would those contacted like to change this view ?
I fully appreciate I am statue barred from pursuing them by the Employment Relations Authority.
My current interest is
the criminal act of fraud as per the compliant 1111299892 held by the police.
You have misconstrued my intent.
But since you have raised it.
It does however not prevent me seeking a overturning of the bar based on the content of the email, now that the fraud has been admitted, and the precedent has been set with ADAM vs. AMC Contracting.
I will be raising this directly with the Chief Judge of the Employment Court. as well as seeking further clarification around the legal aspects of "wilful blindness ",with the law commission with reference to Sparks behaviour while you may not wish to comment I am sure these august bodies may well wish to.
Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do, however it is impossible to tell where the law stops and justice begins.
As Edmund Burke , succinctly states. ‘It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity and justice tell me I ought to do.
My integrity is something I value.
John at least had the courtesy to acknowledge my communication
The overall company response is to
- refuse to communicate
- deny access for any dialogue
Stated more than once is by senior executives is.
- Please do not get involved in this and we will not be having any further conversations about Mr Evans-McLeod
- his email address is blocked into Spark executives
And
Hide behind confidentiality
- The details behind Mr Evans-McLeod’s employment exit from Telecom NZ are confidential and he should not be discussing this.
- He is bound by legal agreement.
Somewhat disingenuous , I am clear on my legal rights and obligations and am not in breach as they would unsubtly infer (the spin does not go unnoticed) but
- funny that they expect me to be bound by legal agreement, but completely fail to acknowledge in any way the illegality of their actions .
State that my issues cannot be substantiated yet with their own claims against me, fail, as
- a document , a written customer complaint used to discipline me could not be produced on request
- the same was referenced in documents produced by them which were sworn as being true and correct
- their own legal counsel has stated the document in question does not exist
Spark wish to limit my conversations with current staff
- so I cant talk to friend in the work force in which I spent nearly four decades in
Sparks approach is to
- deny, deny , deny...
- pay big money to high priced lawyers
- spin process out for years, and years , with the hope that people will give up
Their production of the customer compliant letter I have requested would seem a far cheaper option to refute my claim.
Why is it not used
It is a question Bridgette Dalzell has yet to answer.
Simple really....
further and more complete information is available at http://hwyop.blogspot.co.nz/
the introduction reads
Welcome
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 , commen t or email at
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.”
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.”
so I sent the whole sorry lot to be reviewed by the minister
amy.adams@parliament.govt.nz
Subject: begs the question
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 12:02:16 +1200
Subject: begs the question
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 12:02:16 +1200
Amy
please read attachment
When the board of a corporate such as Spark completely and utterly reneges on stated and supposedly supported promises such as those found in their Code of Conduct and Code of Ethics
what's more the errant people are still on their employ ,it begs the question of the integrity of their whole business
Substantiating the facts via a pricy commission request prove very inlighting
on a different matter
As a former employee of nearly four decades service I can only suggest that in any request for detail regarding anything , hard copy evidence be provided in support as the culture from whence I came focused more on providing the outcome direct reports wanted rather than reality of the situation asked for
Kind Regards
Paul
Paul Evans-McLeod
17 Minnie Place
Pukete
TeRapa
Hamilton
paul.evans-mcleod@xtra.co.nz
Ph 0064 7 8494584
Mob 0064 0272423222
