Automatically unfair dismissal?

[hhh_88873]

Only thing on there is my name and the GMP, IM not bothered about anyone knowing my name. Ive done nowt wrong lol

[papasmurf1cx]

Anyone that knows you and knows of your problem with this company will be able to identify the company in two seconds flat. If it is a sizable firm and have resources to spend on you for desmirching their charactor (and I know you will say what about my charactor, but that is not the point) reputation and business may be motivated to go after you and whatever assets you have. Having a judgement against you can do you damage. I would anonymise it just to be safe.

[hhh_88873]

fair dos

[elpulpo]

Harvey Keitel woz ere

Edited February 15, 2011 by elpulpo
nothing. What? I wasn't doing anything!

[hhh_88873]

the tribunal dates etc are a matter of public record, anyone can look at the et listings and see them. and as for the police location I already said I worked in manchester so its not gonna be somerset police dealing with it lol

[papasmurf1cx]

+ ET dates, meeting dates, police location etc.

In fact delete everything, chuck your computer in a canal, nail your front door shut, turn out all the lights and hide under the kitchen table.

Sell the kids pets too.

 

:lol::lol:

[elpulpo]

the tribunal dates etc are a matter of public record, anyone can look at the et listings and see them. and as for the police location I already said I worked in manchester so its not gonna be somerset police dealing with it lol

It's more from the point of view that you don't want anything on here that will easily catch the eye of the other side, or you can end up discussing the case and receiving advice and the respondant is following every word. Possibly even giving you false advice.

[papasmurf1cx]

But the details of a ET 3 are not until the hearing has started and everything is given in evidence. Factor in that most cases never get into the Tribunal, are subject to compromise agreements or struck out for various reasons AND the advice thus far has been you are struggling, I say again err on the side of caution

[elpulpo]

It's more from the point of view that you don't want anything on here that will easily catch the eye of the other side, or you can end up discussing the case and receiving advice and the respondant is following every word. Possibly even giving you false advice.

It's happened before, believe me, the employer plonking dozens of pages in front of them at a disciplinary hearing, everything they'd discussed.

[honeybee13]

It's more from the point of view that you don't want anything on here that will easily catch the eye of the other side, or you can end up discussing the case and receiving advice and the respondant is following every word. Possibly even giving you false advice.

 

Apart from that, it would be good not to have anything that would endanger the CAG website and stop people offering advice.

 

My best, HB

[hhh_88873]

there we go. That should do it.

[papasmurf1cx]

GReat Elpulpo probably needs to assist you now by editing his post!!

[hhh_88873]

lol, lets hope so~!!

[hhh_88873]

Well, Ive now got hold of ACAS and according to them my former employer has refused to even talk to them, and said that settlement is not something they are interested in. Should be interesting when the tribunal see this on the 16th as surely they have some sort of duty to attempt mediation of some kind.

Any one got any advice on what happens at at tribunal and what i should do and look out for?

[elpulpo]

They're not obliged to enter into mediation, and you're not at liberty to disclose the fact that they refused to the ET.

I'd strongly advise that you visit the ET before your hearing, and sit in on at least one hearing of some similarity to yours.

http://etclaims.co.uk/

A good read of this site, and of the book they publish will do no harm.

[elche]

I'd strongly advise that you visit the ET before your hearing, and sit in on at least one hearing of some similarity to yours.

http://etclaims.co.uk/

A good read of this site, and of the book they publish will do no harm.

 

All good advice - the ET service used to publish a booklet entitled something like 'The Hearing what to expect' - or something like that.

 

I can't find a pdf but all the information is here - http://www.employmenttribunals.gov.uk/FormsGuidance/theHearing.htm

 

I would also say that if what you posted is verbatim from their ET3, then it clearly hasn't been drafted by a solicitor. I think they could still raise the issue of eligibility to bring the UD claim, but perhaps they are going to raise that at the full hearing.

 

As you are in Greater Manchester you can get free employment law advice on 0161-839-3882 - what used to be the GM LPU - http://www.gmemploymentrights.org.uk/

 

You say you have a date of the 16th March - is this for a full hearing or a CMD or PHR - seems very quick for a full hearing??

 

Che

[hhh_88873]

Its the first meeting at the tribunal, they mention something about case management etc, and what I assume is whether they feel my case is going to stand up oor not and and examination of what each party wants from the hearing etc.

[hhh_88873]

Ok guys, hearings in a few days, heres how Im breaking down my case to present.

 

Unfair dismissal due to the STATUTORY human rght (under 6.2 of the european human rights act) that I cannot be found guilty of a offence or suffer the consequences there of with out charge or fair trial.

 

Unfair dismissal due to my demanding the statutory rest period required for a driver and being forced to only have 3-4 hours rest between shifts

 

Discrimination on the basis of the denial of any leave whatsoever including already accrued holiday entitlement due to the birth of my daughter.

 

And lastly Im not sure that its relevant but due to a clean previous employment history, dismissal being excessively harsh as I had no previous warnings of any form and the contract gave ample opportunity for other punitive measures other than dismissal. (Although Im worried that if I use that Ill be negating my first point by indicating Id be willing to accept a warning rather than dismissal despite my point being I hadnt actually done anything wrong to merit any punitive measures at all, Pointers anyone?)

 

If anyone else has anything else that they think is handy or a better way of presenting this then please feel free to chime in.

[teaboy2]

Ok guys, hearings in a few days, heres how Im breaking down my case to present.

 

Unfair dismissal due to the STATUTORY human rght (under 6.2 of the european human rights act) that I cannot be found guilty of a offence or suffer the consequences there of with out charge or fair trial.

 

Unfair dismissal due to my demanding the statutory rest period required for a driver and being forced to only have 3-4 hours rest between shifts

 

Discrimination on the basis of the denial of any leave whatsoever including already accrued holiday entitlement due to the birth of my daughter.

 

And lastly Im not sure that its relevant but due to a clean previous employment history, dismissal being excessively harsh as I had no previous warnings of any form and the contract gave ample opportunity for other punitive measures other than dismissal. (Although Im worried that if I use that Ill be negating my first point by indicating Id be willing to accept a warning rather than dismissal despite my point being I hadnt actually done anything wrong to merit any punitive measures at all, Pointers anyone?)

 

If anyone else has anything else that they think is handy or a better way of presenting this then please feel free to chime in.

 

Change the above highlighted in red too this:

 

"Dismissal being excessively harsh, as I had no previous warnings (formal or otherwise) of any form. Plus the contract of employment gave ample opportunity for other punitive measures other than dismissal in the event of any need for discplinary actions. Which in this case such discplinary action was unjusitfied, as there was no wrong doing on my part as confirmed by the police."

 

Or something similar along those lines. Basically adding any deniability of any wrong doing is all that is need as to not effect the other points you made.

[hhh_88873]

Im more concerned at not going over points I had raised in my appeal as Im told that a tribunal wont be as concerned about the reasons I got dismissed, more about the legality of the actions taken by my former employers. More that they wont be particularly arsed about the whys and where fores, including my denial of wrongdoing, more just the bare facts and what rights were breached by my dismissal, (if that makes any sense)

[hhh_88873]

Hmm, Ive come across something VERY interesting. The supervisor of the site where I worked was involved in a situation where he used far more force than I did but wasnt even disciplined. Im contemplating adding inconsistency to my case with the findings of Proctor V British Gypsum (1992) which states when a company has communicated a clear change in policy between such incidents, that previous cases that seem to be inconsistent wouldnt apply. In my case, this was a senior party to me behaving in a more violent way, with no clear change in policy being sent out from the company. Any think this may help?

[elpulpo]

Ok guys, hearings in a few days, heres how Im breaking down my case to present.

 

Unfair dismissal due to the STATUTORY human rght (under 6.2 of the european human rights act) that I cannot be found guilty of a offence or suffer the consequences there of with out charge or fair trial.The HRA applies to how public authorities conduct themselves towards the public. It doesn't apply to individuals or private firms. Plus, correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I remember you did have a disciplinary hearing ('a trial'), the fact that you weren't prosecuted under criminal law is not relevant, as the burden of proof in employment law is far lower than in criminal law.

 

Unfair dismissal due to my demanding the statutory rest period required for a driver and being forced to only have 3-4 hours rest between shifts

Did they dismiss you for this? Can you prove that your dismissal was in fact for this reasoon, and not the reason they stated?

Discrimination on the basis of the denial of any leave whatsoever including already accrued holiday entitlement due to the birth of my daughter.

If this is true (and you can provide evidence to convince a tribunal that it is the case), you might have a case. It doesn't hold up all your other claims.

And lastly Im not sure that its relevant but due to a clean previous employment history, dismissal being excessively harsh as I had no previous warnings of any form and the contract gave ample opportunity for other punitive measures other than dismissal. (Although Im worried that if I use that Ill be negating my first point by indicating Id be willing to accept a warning rather than dismissal despite my point being I hadnt actually done anything wrong to merit any punitive measures at all, Pointers anyone?) Always an important point, did they consider alternatives to dismissal? But remember, dismissal need only be within a range of reasonable responses to be fair.

 

If anyone else has anything else that they think is handy or a better way of presenting this then please feel free to chime in.

wkhgi;h;iuqhrbq'

[elpulpo]

Hmm, Ive come across something VERY interesting. The supervisor of the site where I worked was involved in a situation where he used far more force than I did but wasnt even disciplined. Im contemplating adding inconsistency to my case with the findings of Proctor V British Gypsum (1992) which states when a company has communicated a clear change in policy between such incidents, that previous cases that seem to be inconsistent wouldnt apply. In my case, this was a senior party to me behaving in a more violent way, with no clear change in policy being sent out from the company. Any think this may help?

Yes, most relevant. A lot better than trying to spout HRA, which I just don't think is at all applicable to your case.

But remember, it needs to be a comparable situation that led to the other guy being disciplined more leniently- and there are many variables. You'd need to be able to go into quite some detail as to the other incident to show the tribunal that it was equivalent but the employer hasn't acted equally in your case. Not just say,"Oh well I 'erd that one time this other bloke smacked someone or somefink, and 'e got off with a warning!" That wouldn't be likely to interest them.

Edited March 10, 2011 by elpulpo

[hhh_88873]

The advice I have is that statutory law such as the HRA pre empts all other law, hence why its a statory right.

 

the Working time directive I can prove, but its merely me pointing it out that its very convenient that they got rid of me after I kicked off about it.

 

The refusal of leave and holidays I can prove as I have written refusal of the granting of any leave and it was specifically requested for paternity.

 

And as for the alternatives to dismissal, The contract states that employees would not normally be dismissed for a first breach of discipline excepting in the cases of gross misconduct. They had a full range of oral, first written, final written warnings at their disposal, plus something which I hadnt seen before, the option to suspend an employee without pay for up to 5 days in the case of a serious breach of discipline. I doubt this could be legal, but it was an option in their own contracts.

[hhh_88873]

In Trusthouse Forte (catering) ltd V Adonis 1984 it was also specified that If the rules within a contract are ambiguous enough as to the seriousness of an offence or breach of discipline regarding a particular matter, dismissal without any prior warnings may well be ruled to be unfair as well.