Is that what the OP was doing then. Not going to argue the point anyway, I had 15 yrs of the job, same old story, poor drunken thugs being picked on, until they put a glass in your girl friends face, different then.........where were you, you are supposed to protect us, perhaps she should have walked away.

Yes not sure myself, thats why I originally said might be covered.

Associative discrimination (S.13 EA 2010) This protects non-disabled people from discrimination who nevertheless experience discrimination because of their association with a disabled person (Attridge -v- Coleman). This is a type of direct discrimination. Macdonald -v- Flyde Motor Company Ltd (2011 EqLR 660) The claimant was dismissed as he refused to work overtime after 5.30 pm because he had to look after his disabled sister.

I mentioned a law firm stated 75% to me, however I found information since then that a person was told 51%, so it may not be a hard and fast rule and more a case of the particular law firms policy ( which makes sense).

chase it up, try the easy way first, then kick up a fuss. as you have been off work a while, did you have a contact, he should keep you updated on work matters, especially something as important as this.

Sorry to state this if obvious. Have you tried contacting HR to see if it is too late to get the shift pattern you would prefer. Might actually be that simple.

Here's some more info, wish I could find what I'm looking for though ;-) In the case of Halawi v WDFG UK ltd (t/a World Duty Free) and another the EAT has found that Ms Halawi did not have a contract of employment and therefore could not pursue an unfair dismissal and/or discrimination claim. An individual must meet the definition of an employee or a worker under sections 230(1) and 230(3) Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) respectively to bring an unfair dismissal claim. There are similar definitions under sections 83 and 41 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) where an individual wishes to claim discrimination. If none of the definitions are met then the individual will be unable to pursue a claim in the tribunals or courts. Ms Halawi worked as a beauty consultant by providing her services to Caroline South Associates (CSA). CSA provided management services to Shiseido, a cosmetics brand. Mrs Halawi worked at a World Duty Free (WDF) at Heathrow airport. She provided her services to CSA through Nohad Ltd, a company she had formed for this purpose. No contract existed between Mrs Halawi and WDF or CSA. Mrs Halawi could and often did provide a substitute to perform her role. She could refuse work but she would not get paid unless she worked. She was not entitled to holiday or sick pay. Mrs Halawi was provided with a uniform to wear by Shiseido and therefore could be mistaken as an employee by the general public. Following the withdrawal of Ms Halawi’s airside pass by WDF she claimed that she had been unfairly dismissed and discriminated against as she could no longer work at Heathrow. Before she could pursue her claims the tribunal was required to decide whether Ms Halawi met the definitions under the ERA and the EqA to give her employment rights. At a preliminary hearing, the tribunal held that in the absence of a contract between Ms Halawi and WDF or CSA she could not be an employee, worker or a contract worker. The fact that Ms Halawi’s relationship was with Nohad Ltd and there was no mutuality of obligation or control meant that there was an absence of any of the typical employment-related criteria. Ms Halawi appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) specifically against the finding that she was not an employee under s83 of the EqA. The EAT dismissed the appeal. The EAT has held that the Tribunal took all of the relevant factors into account and had come to the right conclusion. However, unease was expressed by Langstaff J that a potential victim of discrimination may have been left without a remedy in law. There are well recognised tests for establishing employment status which the tribunals will apply. If you are in doubt about your employees’ status come and talk to us. The label you give it might not be determinative. Many people will provide services as a self-employed consultant but forget that in doing so they might be giving up valuable employment rights. You cannot have your cake and eat it!

Not surprised there is a drop what with the fees and the fact that they are not user friendly to the LIP

Not 100% sure but your wife due to the depression might come under the equality act and therefore you now have certain rights carried over to you on account of looking after her. Sounds like you have a good defence for the discipline hearing, had you not brought this up in the meeting. Employment disciplinary process have gone mad, common sense doesn't seem to have a part in it anymore

Yeah tried them ages ago........said they would help for £22 000

I wonder if it comes under one of the sanctions for gross misconduct, where reduction in wages can be one penalty along with reduction in rank etc.etc.

The more I read about employment tribunals and experience through my own, the more I believe it is just lip service to the unrepresented claimant. You now have to pay to bring a claim, parties are encouraged to represent themselves, yet they are in the dark as to how the process works and to be represented costs a lot of money. The judges also need more equality training, they are as guilty as the employer.

Hairbear , sorry for including bad info. I didn't research it, as it was not relevant to my case. Found it and Just thought I would pass it on, as it might help, wasn't implying anything and OP should always do own research. Have I given a bum steer, will keep stuff to myself unless I know for sure it is good info. Sorry again, must stop trying to help without knowing what I'm talking about.

Hairbear, I found the following while searching for my case and thought it may be some help to you. The Question Of Employment Status – Employed or Self Employed? The recent decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in the case of Quashie v Stringfellows Restaurants Ltd. is an important one for employers as it deals with the issue of employment status, something that always seems to cause problems. The case itself concerned the status of a lapdancer: was she an employee or self-employed? The EAT held that Ms Quashie was an employee which means her unfair dismissal claim against the nightclub will now be heard by the Tribunal and if unsuccessful in defending the claim, the nightclub will have to pay compensation to Ms Quashie. Points to note: On the face of it this may appear a surprising decision, especially as it is generally accepted in the industry that dancers are self-employed. The question of employment status however can be difficult to determine, and on further consideration, it is actually more surprising that Ms Quashie is the first dancer to bring a claim of this type. In order to determine employment status, the first thing to look at is any contractual documents that exist. It cannot be stressed enough however that any label contained in those documents is only one factor to be taken into account. Just because a document states a person is self-employed does not necessarily mean they are. The Stringfellows case is a perfect illustration of this - Ms Quashie had signed an agreement that clearly stated she was self-employed. In addition to any contractual documents that exist, a Tribunal will also look at how the relationship actually works in practice and in particular, at the following three core elements: Personal Service - The contract must impose an obligation on an individual to provide work personally. Mutuality of Obligation - Some legal obligation towards each other which is a continuing overriding arrangement. Put simply this relates to the wage/work bargain i.e. is the individual obliged to work and is the business obliged to pay the individual for that work on an on-going basis. Control - There must be some form of control over the employee by the employer. i.e. the ultimate authority over the employee in the performance of their work resides in the employer. If all three elements are present then employment status is established albeit that a Tribunal will also consider facts such as how the individual was paid, whether they provided their own equipment, whether they were subject to disciplinary or grievance procedures, whether they were paid for sick pay and holiday pay, whether they were provided with other benefits and whether they had a degree of financial risk or level of responsibility within the business

I see what you mean now, why was he banned.

I agree with some of happyhelpers points on an independant body, not acas though.

Is this a costs order or a deposit for the appeal costs if you are unsuccessful

So Acas have even more spanners to throw in the works now. As I said before, apart from Employers, has anyone actually been pleased with anything ACAS has done for them.

I don't get emails, but I have been asked to give my comments/thoughts, after which they held a cmd or phr ( whatever they call it) so be prepared to state your argument at that meeting. ie: why it should be struck out or upheld, they will be doing the same.

I guess you are as impressed with them as I am ;-)

Why? don't you think it's got a 75% chance of success. As for Acas, I would be interested to know if anyone has actually been happy with their intervention.

I was told 75%, my case had a 70% so they declined.

no answer from mr mitchell, so i'm stumped.

Totally agree, I don't trust anyone, they all say it will be confidential , but there is no such thing.