HB - thanks! Being a newbie in an ET court room, I learned a number of lessons. The most important one is perhaps for any future claimant to ALWAYS ask for a full panel of judges upfront - do not save money for the ET! I made the mistake of not asking for a full panel, thinking that the process will be more streamlined and speedier. It probably was, but a speedier but unfavourable judgment is just rotten useless! It is just probable that a single individual judge may get away with errors and mis-understandings a lot easier than with a panel of judges. My judge for some reason has chosen to favour the respondent's evidence - impossible to explain even with clear written evidence presented. I have the distinctive feeling that the institutions are there to protect each other. Maybe that is what a judge has to do if he or she has to come down to a yes or no judgment. The reconsideration process is simply useless as it asks the original judge to reconsider his or her own judgment. What is the chance of any ET verdict to be revoked by the original judge?! A full panel will provide some balance to the judgment process - I really wish I knew that.

One of the aftermath effects following the judgment is that the Respondent has made a request for me to pay part of their legal expenses amounting to £7,000! The Tribunal has asked me to write with reasons for them not considering this request. The Respondent's request cites Rule 76 (1) (a) & (b) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of procedure) Regulations 2013 (the Rules) for their request. I guess I just need to deal with this particular rule. Rule 76 states that : (1) A Tribunal may make a costs or a preparation time order, and shall consider whether to do so, where it considered that - (a) a party (or that party's representative) has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in either the bringing of the proceedings (or part) or the way that the proceedings (or part) have been conducted; or (b) any claim or response had no reasonable prospect of success. I can deal with (a) by saying that I had brought the case forward for the sake of justice, not for any vexation. As evident in the stages leading to the full Hearing and during the Hearing, I prepared for the case every step of the way as much as I could have done, and participated in the Hearing in a reasonable and honourable manner. Regarding (b), the Tribunal itself had not indicated upfront that my case "had no reasonable prospect of success" . If it had done that and I still insisted on the case, they would have demanded certain deposit. Is this correct? The Respondent did offer me independent legal advice up to £500, which I took up. While that legal advice I received did suggest that the case is unlikely to win, I believed and I still believe that that advice was based on flawed understandings of the case (which I pointed out to the lawyer in an email and I intend to forward this email to the Tribunal). Any suggestion is welcomed to strengthen my arguments to persuade the Tribunal to reject the respondent's request for expenses order. Thanks in advance!

--- Here is the answer to my own question, just for the benefit of any future reader: The reconsideration fees only apply if a case is lodged after 29th July 2013 when fees were introduced. Whether it is £100 or £350 depends on the type of case, or which jurisdiction it falls under. If it is a case of constructive unfair dismissal, it is £350. Calling the Tribunal is the best and quickest way to find out.

Well, I had a roller-coaster period of time, having had the highs of the trial and the lows of getting the judgement outcome! I felt high at the time of the trial as I thought I presented a good case, said what I wanted to say. But the judge seemed to have taken the respondent's side and came with a surprising outcome: I failed my case - very depressing! There are a number of points based on which I can ask for a reconsideration and/or appeal. But then I am already feeling emotionally exhausted. Does anyone know if the reconsideration will be undertaken by the same judge or not? I have been told that I will need to pay £100-350 to have the judgement reconsidered so I would like to know how it might pan out beforehand.

I called the ET, and was told that the Pre-Hearing was most likely to be arranged in the morning set aside for the Hearing, and push out the formal hearing if necessary. Thta makes sense but I will not delay the formal hearing so I will rely on the documents I have.

The List of issues is now submitted as part of my bundle. Another decision to make: I submitted a request for documents from the Respondent, and they replies with some omissions. I applied for an order for additional information/documents. The Respondent replied with nothing (dismissing my requests claiming irrelevance). Following that, the Tribunal has just emailed me with a letter from the Clerk: "Employment Judge MJ has instructed that I ask whether you insist on the Order being granted having seen the respondent’s reply. If so, the case will be listed for a Preliminary Hearing to determine the application." I would like to see the Respondent to release documents but did not expect another "Preliminary Hearing" as the Hearing is less than 2 weeks away! Any advice what I should?

Thanks - that helps! Another thing is the List of Issues. I must have seen somewhere to construct a list of issues with a series of "Question + If yes + more questions" like the following: 1. Did the Claimant make complaints of bullying against his manager on 28/10/2011? a. If yes, did the Claimant express a clear wish to HR about raising a formal complaint on 2/11/2011? b. If yes, did the manager initiate an investigation on the bullying allegations on 15/11/2011 instead? c. If yes, was this investigation initiated in line with any internal procedures? d. If not, did the manager claim that the investigation was “formal”? e. If yes, could the Claimant be misled to think that this was a “formal” investigation? f. If yes, would that deflect the Claimant from raising a formal complaint following the internal grievance procedure? g. If yes, could HR be supporting the manager in setting up the investigation NOT in line with internal procedures? h. If yes, did HR fulfill its duty of care to the Claimant in terms of the Claimant’s right of complaint according to the internal grievance procedure? i. Did the actions of the Respondent on dealing with the Claimant’s complaint of bullying strengthen or weaken the Claimant’s trust and confidence with the Respondent? ... I find the "If yes" approach quite helpful in focusing the mind but I have a few questions: - Not everything falls into a linear argument so I guess I shall use a mixture of "If yes" structure and stand-alone questions. Or shall I adopt one way or another? - Is this approach too detailed? And do you have a good sample of "List of Issues" to share? Any help is much appreciated:).

Would anyone be able to help on the following issue: I have spotted in the letter from the Tribunal about the witness arrangement: "You are responsible for making sure that all the witnesses you want to call can attend the hearing and know the place, date and time of the hearing. Please note that the use of prepared witness statements will not be permitted unless their use has been ordered by, or otherwise agreed to, by the Tribunal ." I have not called for any witness myself, but I did ask a former colleague to provide an email about a meeting she had with the management on an issue related to my case. Would her email constitute as a "prepared witness statement" and not be permitted? Should I leave it out of my bundle now and take it to the Hearing to ask for permission to use as evidence first? Any comment/help is much appreciated.

OK - thanks for that. I will add the lot into the bundle. I presume the same goes for the List of Issues?

Hi guys, not been here for a while. Now getting nearer to the Hearing on 2 December! Would anyone be able to share your wisdom on the following question: - Should my "schedule of loss" be part of the bundle for the Hearing? I sent my schedule of loss to the Respondent's lawyer. He has included it in their part of the bundle and also wants all the mitigation evidence. I feel this will distract the bundle away from the actual evidence of the case. Can I prepare a separate "mitigation bundle" and submit it at some point of the hearing? Thanks in advance.

I should add that the second investigation (the disciplinary investigation on my "conduct") was totally unjustified. The investigation was supposed to focus on two meetings I refused to attend: one for 2/8/2011, and the other 4/11/2011. The investigation was unjustified for the following reasons: - At the time of investigating being initiated on 15/11/2011, more than three months had elapsed from 2/8/11 - I need to check the internal procedure whether there is some sort of time restriction on how far the manager would be allowed to go back in bringing such an action on an employee; - I had a pre-scheduled meeting with the manager on 28/9/2011 so the employer cannot accuse me of not responding to his meetings at all. - For the 4/11 meeting due to my teaching engagements, I asked it to be moved to December yet the manager/HR insisted that it had to be that day. This is just a hallmark of the bullying behaviours on the manager's side!

- No I am not a Lecturer in Industrial Relations. I lectured on management. - Precisely I am going along the line of the employer undermined the term of trust and confidence through a serious of events to such an extent that I had to resign.

Could you re-phrase your question?

First of all, really appreciate your comments. There were two investigations my manager set up in a letter to me on 15/11/2011, one to investigate my allegations of his bullying behaviours to me, and the second is to investigate his allegations of my "conduct", namely refusing to attend his meetings. The first is his response to my accusing him of bullying in an email. HR asked me whether I wanted to raise a formal complaint, I said yes but I would do it in December as I was busy teaching. The staff grievance procedure requires who ever complains to complete a form to start a formal complaint but he took it on himself to start the investigation, which was very odd to me at the time. But I went along with it, and went through meetings and two appeals right to the Principal, who in the end delegated the final appeal hearing to one of the Snr Deputy Principal (he will be one of the two witnesses). So this investigation was completed, and surprise surprise, my appeals were dismissed (the last of which was 6/8/2012). I have a number of issues with this investigation of his bullying: - initiated by the manager, not in line with the grievance procedures; - calculated to confuse so that I would not start my "formal complaint" but I did not know at that time; - I put forward a colleague as a witness, who was interviewed, but the interview was not minuted, allegedly for the reason of anonymity with the witness's agreement. Yet the witness prompted me to request for the interview record at the time! When my witness learned about no record of the meeting being created, she referred to it as a "procedural irregularity"; - there are other delays to the investigation devious from the grievance procedure (the procedure says some should happen in 10 w/days but it took 2 months etc). While the first investigation was going, the second was started on me. A report was produced on 13/2/2012 but it was held back from me without consulting/informing me. I thought the investigation was dropped because the investigator suggested that manager's meeting requests may be regarded as "unreasonable management actions". By the end of August, my manager announced that he was leaving the university after 4 years of services. The majority of the colleagues were talking about celebrations. And I thought the bad days were over too. Hence I renewed my request for p/t contract change as I was still concerned about my health. On 9/11/2013, I had a meeting with one of the Snr Deputy Principals (who was acting as my interim manager by then). He told me that my contract change request was turned down, and the disciplinary investigation was to be re-instated. I snapped and walked out of the meeting as I thought that neither decisions were fair, the first ignoring my health conditions altogether, and the second a total surprise. I just felt that I did not have any trust left with the snr management to go through another investigation. I emailed my resignation two days later. So yes the second investigation was not concluded, but my argument is not against the investigation itself (I went to the initial investigatory meeting after all), but about the long delay which is totally against the staff disciplinary procedure. As a result of the delay, I did not get a chance to address some of the untrue allegations against me made by the bullying manager. This is to give a bit of background to the two investigations.

Totally agree - I have documentary evidence to prove every claim I make. However, the law goes further. For example, I can prove that the employer breached implied term of trust and confidence, but how to argue the "fundamental" part as CUD requires the proof to go as far as a "fundamental breach". And then there is the word "unfair". I feel strongly it was unfair, but what sort of lines do I need to take to prove it in court? Do I point to other former colleagues as a benchmark? Or do I highlight the fact that I am the only one who was under the attack by the manager? Or else? I am still not sure about these two key parts and will defintely have to read more - any suggestions would be much appreciated.

I did make my request for p/t for health reasons so the employer cannot plead ignorance. However, I am not raising the case on disability, but I am hoping to hinge it on some health and safety regulations. I have no illusion on the challenges of proving my case in law. Ignoring the health/medical conditions is just one of my three arguments. The other two are to do with not following internal procedures in the grievance and disciplinary investigations. What you are highlighting is helping me to tighten my arguments - much appreciated!

Never had a Fit note, but I did have a 2-week sick note from GP for work-related stress which I submitted to HR at the time. I also visited OH so I will be asking for their record of my visit. I have asked GP to produce a medical record for the period in question. The stress caused a serious and sustaining skin condition that I had to visit my GP a good few times (BTW, the GP/dermatologists have claimed that they don't have any cure of the conditions!). The issue is that the employer did not engage in any discussion whatsoever regarding my health conditions. The OH consultant advised me to speak to my manager - I did but no consideration was given from him. My GP advised me to make changes to my work arrangement hence my request for contract adjustment.

Here is an update you on my CMD today. I received a letter from ET on July 11 for having a CMD. That letter spelled out the matters to be discussed, covering 11 items, such as whether a Pre-Hearing Review (PHR) is required, and crucially, "The nature of the claim which is being made, the statutory provisions upon which the claimant relies and the essential matters which must be capable of being proved at the Hearing if the claim is to have a reasonable prospect of success.", and blah blah. What turned out today is certainly not as scary as I thought. The Judge started off by explaining that the Rules of Procedure for ET have been updated from 2004 to 2013 from July 29, which means a CMD is now called a "Preliminary Hearing"! What comes after PH is "Final Hearing" with no other stages in between. Though I raised my case before this change, my case will be heard under the new Rules. Thankfully, I do not have to pay for this stage of ET even though there is a new fee schedule in use from July 29. Any appeal later would attract a fee. The Judge explained that, as part of the new Rules, the parties should communicate with each other as well as to the Tribunal. Hence either party writing to ET should copy in the other party. And both parties are free to communicate with each other, only copying ET when necessary. I was glad that the Judge clarified this as I was not sure about the relevant formalities. A fairly lengthy discussion took place about whether a full panel or a single judge should hear the case. As my case is a simple CUD with no other discrimination claims, the Judge explained that, unless the Claimant and Respondent differ in many of the facts, a single judge is usually sufficient. As I do believe that both sides agree on the basic facts, I went along the eventual decision for a single judge. That was despite a small reservation in my mind that a judge may well be overly legalistic by their very nature. As an appeal is now a quite expensive thing to do from now on, it is likely that I will just have this one opportunity to argue my case. I felt quite bit of stress to decide there and then, and I am just hoping that going for a single judge will not make too big a difference in the eventual outcome - but I will never know. The Respondent is represented by a solicitor, and he declared two internal witnesses - two Senior Deputy Principals (SDP) in fact. One was very closely involved in my grievance case against my manager, and I certainly have a few questions for him. But the other SDP only heard my appeal once in my grievance case - not sure why he was called as a witness. I asked for no witness as I do not really want to put my former colleagues in an awkward situation of going back to face these snr managers. An employer is not supposed to victimise, but do I trust my former employer? - definitely not! Due to the availability of the witnesses and my own prior engagements, the trial is scheduled to take place over 3 days a long time away: Dec 2, 16, 17! We also discussed about exchanging documents. It was decided that the Respondent will send me their bundle by Nov 1, and then I will send them my documents not found in their bundle by Nov 15. They will produce the final bundle by numbering and copying for ET one week before the final hearing. In the meantime, I will write to the Respondent for some additional info like the number of employees on p/t contract (by gender) etc. The Judge did ask whether I have prepared a schedule of loss, and I have. But I did not get a chance to clarify when would be a good time to send the schedule of loss to the Respondent - any suggestions? For a layman like me representing myself, I thought the CMD/PH session is helpful for me to get a feel of ET - first time after all. Hope this rambling account is of some use to someone. And I would be grateful for any specific suggestions you may have on my case, especially regarding what sort of information I could/should request from the Respondent. Emmzzi mentioned earlier about OH report - I did visit OH at the time, I will ask for their record - thanks for that:).

Hi Emmzzi, thanks for taking the time to go through my statement above - I apologise for the dense block of text it appears on the page. I obviously deleted some blank lines which I should not have. Regarding your point of not having a part time role does not make a case: my argument is not about the part-time role per se. My argument is that the employer ignored my medical/health conditions for asking for the p/t role. The employer claims in their response that they denied my request for p/t contract for "sound operational reasons". There are three problems with their claim: 1). there is no evidence of that anywhere in my personnel file (I asked for a full copy of my personnel file before I left), and I am not aware of any consultation with my colleagues. Hence this is just a claim with no evidence to back it up. 2. this is contradictory to the fact that they happily let me go 100% without making any effort in retaining me, despite their "sound operational reasons" for not granting me 50% contract. They knew that by refusing my request, I would resign - a classic definition of constructive dismissal? 3. the biggest problem I can see is that they ignored my repeated complaints of stress/depression. And by their own admission, they did not consider this factor when denying my request. If they had considered this factor, and had had conversations with me exploring various options, and then denied me of my request, I would certainly have less reason to complain. My argument is that given my repeated complaints of stress/depression, and given that the employer did not want to know, I would be risking my life to continue working there, hence I had no option but to resign. How would an employer be expected to behave given the current health&safety regulations and given that the employer has a health/safety policy as part of the employment contract? Please keep throwing questions at me as they really do help me to gather my thoughts - thanks.

Hi, Presumably not here in the UK - ET accepted my claim application and there will be a hearing - I will report on today's CMD below.

I did go through a grievance process against my HOS, and I had to appeal twice. Every time, the uni dismissed my complaint:(.

Hi DJ, I resigned on 11/10/12 and left the job in Feb 2013. This type of delay is usual in the university sector as there is always a long notice period (3 months minimum) for teaching arrangement. Thanks for picking this up and sorry for the sloppy use of words. I will amend the papers accordingly. In a previous case Buckland v Bournemouth University [2010], the claimant resigned in Feb, and left in July. ET held that "that the delay between letter of resignation and its effective date was not such, in the circumstances, as to amount to an affirmation of the contract of employment." Hence I hope that my working through the notice period does not present a problem for me either. There are quite a lot of fine points which I would have to present in ET. Regarding the very last point (#5) in the above claim statement, I am wondering whether there is a concept called "conditional acceptance of contract breaches". By that I argue that there were fundamental breaches but I was prepared to accept them if my teaching assistant role was not so unfairly rejected (I have written evidence to suggest that 1.there are definitely works to be done, 2.I am excluded as the named person; and 3.much less qualified people are being employed). Is there any previous similar case that anyone may be able to suggest on this, or will I be making legal history on this point? Many thanks as always. AG

To give further background info, here is an anonymised version of my claim statement in ET1 to the Tribunal: -- 1. I had been employed in the University as a full-time Lecturer from April 2005. I was suffering from work-related stress and I had to go to my Human Resources (HR) advisor in March 2011 to express my concern on health and enquired about a 50% contract. I highlighted my concern to my manager the Head of the School (HOS). The HOS dismissed my stress concern and contract change request, and pressurised me further (May/June 2011) with regular reviews. Even with regular reviews agreed, he demanded extra meetings without giving reason. I had to fend him off by pointing out his bullying behaviours (01/07/11 and 28/10/11). 2. Though I expressed a clear wish to HR about raising a formal complaint (31/10/11) about his bullying behaviours, the HOS instead set up an investigation into my allegation of his bullying and at the same time, started a disciplinary investigation on my "conduct" (15/11/11). A prolonged investigation on bullying took place, but no meeting record was kept when interviewing a key witness I introduced. Despite complaints by other colleagues about the HOS at the same time, my complaint was dismissed by the senior management, first by a Deputy Principal (28/01/12), then by a Senior Deputy Principal (19/04/12), and finally by another Senior Deputy Principal (06/08/12). To me the bullying investigation was deeply flawed as it was launched by the offender himself against internal procedures, and no meeting record with the witness was created. 3. While the HOS announced his departure from the University in late August 2012, I discovered that my grievances were far from over. As one Senior Deputy Principal was appointed as the interim HOS, I renewed my request for 50% contract change primarily for the health reason. In a meeting on 09/10/12, the interim HOS turned down my request on “operational reasons”. In addition, I was told that the disciplinary investigation on my "conduct" the former HOS initially set up was to be re-instated. My previous relevant meeting on this subject was on 23/01/12 and I had not received any update for over 8 months. This re-instatement was a shock, and was totally unjustified. What was left of my trust and confidence with the University was destroyed. In response, I resigned from my position (11/10/12). There was no effort from the management to retain me in any way whatsoever, despite the resource considerations cited to deny my contract change request in the first place. 4. In summary, my case is based on: 1), the employer's unwillingness to heed my complaint of work-related stress; 2), not supporting me sufficiently on my rights to complain against my manager's bullying, as a result denying me of a formal complaint opportunity, and suppressing relevant witness evidence; 3), violating its own internal procedure on communicating disciplinary investigation results within prescribed days and re-instating an investigation by total surprise. These events together destroyed my trust in and confidence with my employer, and led to my resignation. Therefore I contend that I suffered a case of constructive dismissal, which was unfair as it was achieved by the employer neglecting its duty of care and violating its own procedures. 5. There is an additional piece of supporting evidence about my claim after my contract ended in February 2013. Before I left my position, my working colleagues asked me if I would be interested in becoming a "recognised teacher" or "teaching assistant" over the summer months to supervise Master dissertations. I was indeed very keen on this. However, when I queried on the status of this application in April 2013, I was informed that the management refused the application without an explanation (17/04/13). One of my colleagues wrote to me afterwards (26/04/13) that there was "definitely" work to be done and other far less qualified people were employed. I consider this otherwise inexplicable management decision as another piece of evidence in support of my constructive dismissal case against my former employer. -- Question: Any initial views on how strong the case is?

Greetings to everyone! I have read some very helpful threads on this forum on constructive unfair dismissal (CUD) in preparation for my own case. I am keen to share my ongoing case so that, hopefully I can get help and support from you guys, and at the same time, other people might find my experiences with ET useful. Some basic info first: I had been employed FT in a uni in Scotland as a lecturer for over 7 years. I had to resign from my job in Feb 2013, essentially due to bullying by my Head of School aggravating my stress/depression, and the failure of the snr management to deal with my allegations of his bullying and refusal to adjust my contract despite medical evidence. I filed a CUD case on 22/5/13, and currently a case management discussion (CMD) is scheduled for 22/8 - only one day away now! Fashioning after one of the previous cases found on this forum, I have prepared an "Issues for the court" doc as follows: -- 1) Did the Respondent breach the implied term of “trust and confidence” in: a) Failing to consider my health conditions when dealing with my request for 50% contract change, both in May/June 2011 and August/September 2012? b) Failing to make reasonable adjustments to my contract given my medical conditions? c) Failing to follow internal procedures when dealing with my allegations of bullying by my manager? d) Failing to follow internal procedures when conducting a disciplinary investigation against me? And if it did: 2) Was the claimant constructively unfairly dismissed as defined by the Employment Rights Act 1996 section 95 (1) c? -- Of course, the above only provides a glimpse. I will try to provide more details later when I get time. But in the meantime, I would appreciate any opinion whether the "Issues" above appear more or less at the right level of details. b) might appear to be repeating a) but it does highlight a different aspect ("make reasonable adjustments"), or am I reading too much into it? Any comment is appreciated - thanks in advance! AG

Hi DJ, it is very good of you to have left a trail of events for your claim, so that folks like me going through a similar case can find useful info and indeed inspirations from your experiences. I have a quick question regarding this paragraph: "The respondent have also submitted an application to amend their grounds of resistance in relation to the discovery that I had forwarded two emails and a financial settlement agreement to my personal email address and that of my wife, roughly one month before I resigned..." How did your Employer discover your emails in question? Did they go through your old emailbox? If so, is that allowed? AGY