Hi all, this is my first visit I have a 14 year old son who was recently diagnosed with Aspergers syndrome, which is a form of Autism. He has obsessive tendencies, which is one of the symptoms, and as such 'demands' that I take him to his favourite places on a Saturday. I approached my employer and asked for my hours to be amended to accommodate this and was open and honest and explained the situation fully. They made me fill in the relevant forms, and then knocked me back, stating their reasons, all of which dont hold any water. They first claim cost when I proved that cost would be zero and also that they couldnt 'cover my duty' of a Saturday, when I have evidence that my job has been covered every time that I was off on holiday on a Saturday. I have since become absent due to stress and anxiety and have attempted to contact my manager by email, requesting various documentary evidence that he claims to have to support him, but he has not answered three emails. My simple question is, where do I go next? Any help greatly appreciated

Hello fellow caggers, A rather simple question that I can't find any answer on and therefore asking here. Where do I address incorrect statements (aka lies) the respondent made on their ET3 and Further Particulars? And whom do I question/cross-examine regarding these statements? It is not really specified who said this and that, it's all very anonymous "Respondent". Do I address these incorrect statements in my witness statement? And if so, in what context? Do I incorporate the repondent response on ET3 into my witness statement? Or leave it for the submission? All help is appreciated.

Hi people! Just a quick bit of advice needed please, as I have found myself out of my depth... I worked for Company A which is owned by Company B, though the nature of meant I worked for company B whilst my contract was with company A. Apologies for how confusing this may seem! I initiated an ET claim against Company B, as the employees which carried out the discriminatory acts were employed by Company B. Company B is essentially the head office, but Company A is the subsidiary company, wholly owned by B but based offshore. So having filed an ET1 with a complaint against Company B, with the correct name and address etc, on day 28 I have received a response from their solicitor stating "the respondent in this matter is actually Company A, not Company B" and requesting a Pre-trial Hearing. Apparently I have 7 days to object to the application for a pre-trial hearing. This is the bit I am hopeful someone will be able to advise me... My position is this; I made a claim against Company B and with good reason. Company A has responded and resisted the claim and asked for a Pre-Trial Hearing. But Company B still hasn't responded at all. Would it be wrong of me to respond to the ET stating that I object to the Pre-Trial Hearing as the request for it wasn't made by the actual respondent in this matter? Pushing my neck out a bit further would it then be wrong of me to ask the ET to consider a judgement in default as the respondent in this matter hasn't answer within the 28 days? Essentially the respondent hasn't answered at all. All I have is a solicitors letter stating that the respondent in this matter is actually an entirely different company, so as far as I am concerned the respondent (an entirely different company) has failed to respond. Just for clarity, the respondent named in the ET1 form is a company in every sense of the word. 2000 staff, office in central London etc. The name and address was correct and I can prove that I did in fact actually work for this company. Is it normal for someone to name a respondent then get a solicitor stating that I am wrong and the respondent is an entirely different company? Surely its up to me to chose who to claim against and the respondent named in the ET1 should reply within time and with a defence or face being found out of time and having a judgement entered in default??? Just when I thought I was starting to understand ET's and their processes this goes and happens! Any advice or thoughts would be appreciated!!!

Hello All The ET accepted my claim (sexual harassment, discrimination, victimisation) and I have recieved the ET3 responses (1 from employer, 1 from manager) both basically the same and prepared by their rep from the EEF. This rep is the same person who advised the repsonse to the Statutory Questionnaire that I issued to the company. This was given to me on the last day of the 8 week time limit (and a week after the last day lodgement to ET) and was signed by a HR rep rather than the EEF rep (even though it was she who drafted the response). The response left a large number (all but 2 really) of direct questions wholey unanswered, "don't see relevance, please state and we will consider further upon reciept bla bla". Not to be drawn into this time wasting excercise since the 8 weeks had elapsed and the claim already lodged, I simply pointed out that the tribunal may draw an adverse inference bla bla. In the ET3, the rep has stated that the Stat Questionnaire was answered in full and no inferences should be drawn - so my question is: what is the point of this? As soon as the Tribunal read it, they will see that most questions weren't answered at all, let alone in full. There is also a denial that the HR rep that I had my initial meeting with, when reading through my grievance letter, made a comment referring to the manager "having been warned about this before" when she got to the part about him winking/calling me darling etc. Now, I told this to the investigator and it's there in the minutes of this and subsequent meetings that the HR rep said this and it was never challenged. I had not previously complained of these things so obviously some else had spoken to HR. The investigation summary said that a number of other females had confirmed that the manager does these things (though ofcourse he denies it). 1 of the people was the HR rep! So my question here is: what's the point in denying she said this now? On the ET3 and also the Questionnaire "response", they seem to make a big deal that "emails from the previous year" indicate that organized nights out are an extension of work. Yes, I know this. However, seeing that they press this point on paper, I have all the emails sent before this particular event/incident and it does not have that bit included. Question: is this a disclaimer of sorts? If so, what's the point in saying that emails from the past have included it when the ones relevant to the incident (which I have) do not? TBH, I didn't think much of their ET3 - it didn't seem like they were making much of an effort to counter my claims. No doubt as time goes on, they will become more agressive in their approach. I had requested a copy of my personnel folder on the Stat Questionnaire which wasn't provided so I then made a Subject Access Request which HR accepted more than 40 days ago and it has not been complied with. I have emailed a Letter Before Action giving a further 7 days to comply but I doubt they will and if so, then certainly not in full.