Employment Tribunal (List Of Documents) Forged Documents

[imnewbie2020]

Firstly I apologise I am new to the Forum so ignore my mistakes:

 

I have taken my employer to employment tribunal.

One of the many facts I am relying on for breach of trust is is that my employee drafted many backdated and forged documents to support their side of story. 

 

During one meeting, I was told by my employer that do not have any knowledge of a particular meeting taking place between myself and them.

Furthermore, they said that they did not have any meeting minutes for that particular meeting.

I was asked to produce the meeting minutes instead, as the manager had left the business (thinking I may not have it).

 

I did eventually produced meeting minutes as I had complete log of events which I attended with my union rep.

The fact that the employer does not have meeting minutes or prior knowledge is recorded in minutes of another meeting which for me is an admission.

 

Later on I made a SAR and there was nothing in the SAR relating to minutes of manager from this meeting which again re-confirms my version.

In Fact in the Preliminary Hearing Bundle at ET too these minutes were missing and instead my minutes were used in the bundle.

 

I rely on some crucial information and evidence from this meeting which helps me prove my case.

However, when I exchanged the list of documents with the Respondent I noticed that they have listed 2 documents,

(1) My version of meeting minutes,

(2) Manager's meeting minutes.

Something they have repeatedly said they did not have.

 

My question is

 

(i) how can they add this document to list of documents at this stage after admitting many times before that they did not have it and that the manager left the business?

 

(ii) Can I challenge this and stop this being in the bundle for final hearing? If so then how?

 

(iii) Since it was not there in SAR I received (rightly so as it is backdated/forged) if employer adds this now then is it also a breach of Data Protection Act?

 

Eventhough I have not seen this but to me this is another act of forgery the employers have done as they had done in the past as they realise the importance of this document and now they have drafted this document 3 years later to support their side of story?

 

I am really nervious and furious.

Kindly help if you could

[Emmzzi]

Let it go in; and add your pieces of evidence that it didn't exist to the bundle; in court, challenge the validity. That will be more effective than having it removed.

[imnewbie2020]

4 hours ago, Emmzzi said:

Let it go in; and add your pieces of evidence that it didn't exist to the bundle; in court, challenge the validity. That will be more effective than having it removed.

Thanks Emmzzi for the reply. I already thought of this however I wasn’t sure. I thought if I let it go to the bundle I may be questioned by the ET why did I not object to this document earlier and why did I not object to this making to the bundle.

[ericsbrother]

the panel will consider how the parties have behaved and if the employer has been caught out producing false evidence any detail this is a "he said she said" argument will invariabley go the way of the person who hasnt lied elsewhere as the other evidence will be considered unreliable.

That will go for their oral terstimony as well.

 

dont get bogged down into breaches of the data laws, it is not of interest to an ET. Evidence may be used that has been gained unlawfully or even illegally if the circumstances make it admissible, for example voice recordings, photocopied private correspondence etc.

[imnewbie2020]

On 08/05/2020 at 16:41, ericsbrother said:

the panel will consider how the parties have behaved and if the employer has been caught out producing false evidence any detail this is a "he said she said" argument will invariabley go the way of the person who hasnt lied elsewhere as the other evidence will be considered unreliable.

That will go for their oral terstimony as well.

 

dont get bogged down into breaches of the data laws, it is not of interest to an ET. Evidence may be used that has been gained unlawfully or even illegally if the circumstances make it admissible, for example voice recordings, photocopied private correspondence etc.

Thanks EricsBrother for the reply.

Do you suggest I should let them include this in the bundle and question this during the actual hearing to bring their behaviour and credibility of evidence and them in general to question using this? I do not understand the bit about obtaining evidence unlawfully or illegally. It is them who are using the entire management machinery and solicitors to create all these evidences to suit the loop holes and weaknesses in their case but I feel helpless because I am on the receiving end of this bullshit! so how can I obtain evidence after quitting the employment now?

[ericsbrother]

Produce your evidence and state that no contempory notes were made or  produced at the time or subsequently under a SAR. You can then state that you do not BELIEVE the notes are contempory and thus may well not represent a true record of the events at the time.

 

You must understand that ranting about thsi will get you nowhere and may well snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

It doesnt matter whether they made the notes up or not, it wouldnt matter if they illegally tapped your phone to obtain evidence, they can still present it and the tribunal decides what they will admit as evidence and the weighting they place upon it.

By just politely showing that their records are not contemporaneous you will  cast a doubt over their other evidence and make them appear to be unrelaible witnesses.

 

In short, be the better person and stick to the facts as can be proven or from your personal knowledge as witnessed by you and leave the rest to the tribunal, they have seen it all before

 

many years ago a friend of mine who ran a printing business sacked someone for stealing and was taken to the ET. The ex-employee turned up wearing a neck brace and in a wheelchair claiming they my friend had beaten him up the day before in an attempt to get the sympathy of the tribunal. They seemed to go along with this premise but then asked him  if he would accept an adjournment so they could get copies of his medical records etc and then it was game over.