Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • matlof
    • By matlof 24th Sep 17, 11:09 PM
    • 20Posts
    • 1Thanks
    matlof
    Employment Tribunal Questions
    • #1
    • 24th Sep 17, 11:09 PM
    Employment Tribunal Questions 24th Sep 17 at 11:09 PM
    In about one month my wife will have final hearing in Employment Tribunal. I will be representing her and I have some questions. I will be very greatfull if you can help me. I learned everything just from websites.
    Case is for victimisation, race and pregnancy discrimination and constructive dismisal.
    1. If in ET 1 I included victimisation, but didn't describe all of detriments she experienced can I add it in witness statment? Can this new dertiments be part of procedings?
    2. If I representing my wife and I am also the witness, can she ask me the questions during cross examination?
    3. During cross examination can I ask as many question as I would like or there is any limit?
    This are the questions I coudn't find answer in other places
    Many Thanks
    Matt
Page 2
    • Cheeky_Monkey
    • By Cheeky_Monkey 27th Sep 17, 7:24 PM
    • 1,343 Posts
    • 2,600 Thanks
    Cheeky_Monkey
    Private hospitals have all the money they need for top notch lawyers to defend their position and, personally, I imagine that they will wipe the floor with you (not literally of course).

    You don't even seem able to state your case on an internet forum let alone in a Court where you will be nervous and totally inexperienced.

    I also think that there's a chance that the hospital's lawyers will claim that your case is vexatious and may well apply for costs against you.
    I used to be indecisive - now I'm not so sure
    • matlof
    • By matlof 28th Sep 17, 10:23 AM
    • 20 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    matlof
    The interpreter is usefull but my wife can comunicate in english. She worked in that place for 3 years and there was no complains about her language skills. All managers were happy with her work before.
    But during meeting they said that my wife because of sick leave during pregnancy and matternity leave didn't work enough hours and didn't have enough trainings and it wasn't true she had much more hours than NMC reqirements, so this what Employer said was only excuse. In that way they wanted put preasure on my wife, to make her think that she will be unable come back, so the best she can do is agree for money what they offered instead resignation.
    • IAmWales
    • By IAmWales 28th Sep 17, 10:28 AM
    • 1,491 Posts
    • 3,131 Thanks
    IAmWales
    The interpreter is usefull but my wife can comunicate in english. She worked in that place for 3 years and there was no complains about her language skills. All managers were happy with her work before.
    But during meeting they said that my wife because of sick leave during pregnancy and matternity leave didn't work enough hours and didn't have enough trainings and it wasn't true she had much more hours than NMC reqirements, so this what Employer said was only excuse. In that way they wanted put preasure on my wife, to make her think that she will be unable come back, so the best she can do is agree for money what they offered instead resignation.
    Originally posted by matlof
    Does she need an interpreter or not? It's a simple question!

    I assume you are paying for them yourself?
    • matlof
    • By matlof 28th Sep 17, 10:32 AM
    • 20 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    matlof
    Sorry but you need proper legal advice before this goes badly wrong!

    What you "consider" is irrelevant. Either it is unlawful or it is not, that is all that matters.

    If she "doesn't meet NMC requirements to renew her nurse registration" it would be illegal for them to employ her as a nurse so that would be a valid reason to dismiss.

    Have the tribunal agreed to accept a written transcript of this recording as evidence? It is far from certain that they will. The employer's lawyer will do all they can to get this excluded. Whilst such recordings can be accepted in some circumstances they are frequently not allowed. It is for the judge to rule on this.

    I repeat, get proper advice.
    Originally posted by Undervalued
    But my wife meet NMC requirements, Employer just wanted to use that as an excuice to put preasure on my wife.
    Yes tribunal acepted transcript.
    • matlof
    • By matlof 28th Sep 17, 10:43 AM
    • 20 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    matlof
    Does she need an interpreter or not? It's a simple question!

    I assume you are paying for them yourself?
    Originally posted by IAmWales
    Yes we need interpreter as we do not know different legal vocabulary
    • IAmWales
    • By IAmWales 28th Sep 17, 1:29 PM
    • 1,491 Posts
    • 3,131 Thanks
    IAmWales
    Yes we need interpreter as we do not know different legal vocabulary
    Originally posted by matlof
    The interpreter will only repeat word for word what is said. They're not there to explain things to you!
    • matlof
    • By matlof 28th Sep 17, 1:49 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    matlof
    The interpreter will only repeat word for word what is said. They're not there to explain things to you!
    Originally posted by IAmWales
    Yes I know that.
    That is why I asked some questions here, but till now I didn't received any help.
    For us the most important is to show how terible is the behawiour of General Managers, Regional Directors in that company. How are they treat the employee and that it is oposite to what they claim.
    If we can win the case will be great. I think that we have few proves that she was treated worse than before she made first grievance.
    Can someone write me if in victimisation is reverse burden of proof if not, how it looks like?
    • lincroft1710
    • By lincroft1710 28th Sep 17, 2:28 PM
    • 9,750 Posts
    • 7,765 Thanks
    lincroft1710
    If we can win the case will be great.
    Originally posted by matlof
    If you win the case it will be a b****y miracle!
    • Cheeky_Monkey
    • By Cheeky_Monkey 28th Sep 17, 2:49 PM
    • 1,343 Posts
    • 2,600 Thanks
    Cheeky_Monkey
    IMO, the OP and his wife have two hopes of winning their case .................. no hope and Bob Hope
    I used to be indecisive - now I'm not so sure
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 29th Sep 17, 10:14 AM
    • 486 Posts
    • 358 Thanks
    Comms69
    Yes I know that.
    That is why I asked some questions here, but till now I didn't received any help.
    For us the most important is to show how terible is the behawiour of General Managers, Regional Directors in that company. How are they treat the employee and that it is oposite to what they claim.
    If we can win the case will be great. I think that we have few proves that she was treated worse than before she made first grievance.
    Can someone write me if in victimisation is reverse burden of proof if not, how it looks like?
    Originally posted by matlof
    I don't understand what you mean by victimisation.


    As you are claiming constructive dismissal, the burden of proof is solely on you.


    Their behaviour will not be a factor, unless it's unlawful.


    At the minute all I can see is they made a mistake - a reasonably easy one to make. If Sick leave and maternity leave took her below the 450 hrs required, or they thought it might do - it's a very reasonable discussion to have.


    It doesn't matter if she was treated badly quite frankly, the behaviour must be so extreme as to leave no other option than to resign.
    • matlof
    • By matlof 30th Sep 17, 2:16 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    matlof
    I don't understand what you mean by victimisation.


    As you are claiming constructive dismissal, the burden of proof is solely on you.


    Their behaviour will not be a factor, unless it's unlawful.


    At the minute all I can see is they made a mistake - a reasonably easy one to make. If Sick leave and maternity leave took her below the 450 hrs required, or they thought it might do - it's a very reasonable discussion to have.


    It doesn't matter if she was treated badly quite frankly, the behaviour must be so extreme as to leave no other option than to resign.
    Originally posted by Comms69
    By victimisation I mean that they treated my wife worst because she started before employment tribunal claim because of race discrimination.
    It wasn't just a mistake. They know that my wife has more than 450 hours, she had more than 2000 and they were not telling true about requirements. They were thinking that after that threats my wife will resign.
    They were lying but during grievance they made my wife looking like the liar. Before they said that they consider as she will not be safe for the patients so how she could come back to that work place?
    • FBaby
    • By FBaby 30th Sep 17, 5:56 PM
    • 15,943 Posts
    • 39,733 Thanks
    FBaby
    OP, you are making the most common -and potentially very costly- error many are making. You are assuming the legal process is about justice for being treated wrongly and letting your anger drive your case.

    It doesn't work like this at all and your case is so weak, it's heading straight into the bin.

    For a start, you are confusing what it is she is taking them to court for. Is it for race discrimination, discrimination due to pregnancy, or constructive dismissal? Because you've thrown all three into the same basket and that is not going to go in your favour as it comes across that you are just trying anything to get justice rather than what really deserves justice.

    To start with the race discrimination, it sounds like she raised a grievance, that's good. What happened afterwards? Did she get a response? If so, wasn't it unsatisfactory, and if so, did your wife officially write to say that it wasn't and stating clearly what she was expecting the company to do to resolve the matter? If not, she hasn't dealt with the matter properly herself.

    Pregnancy discrimination. That doesn't make sense since it would seem that she was encouraged to give her notice after she had a baby, not when she was still pregnant. Had she gone back from maternity leave? If so,how can it be pregnancy discrimination?

    Finally, constructive dismissal, ie. she had no choice whatsoever but to leave the place. No choice because if she hadn't what would have happened? Her health was affected? If so, why didn't go off sick, go to her GP and get treatment?

    What would have happened if she remained but that she might have ended up being disciplined? That's not a reason to claim constructive dismissal.

    As for their lies, you don't appreciate at all that not only it isn't so much relevant to your claim (as above), but you are going to find it nil to impossible to prove it. You might know for sure that they have, but the judge won't.

    Your statement that they told her that she didn't meet NMC requirements to renew her nursing registration. Imagine the exchange of conversation:
    Judge: The claimant states that you told her she would lose her nursing registration.
    Respondent: No, my honour, I told her that in my view, it was a possibility that she could struggle to get it renewed due to her limited working hours in the last 12 months.
    Judge: You're entitled to share your opinions.

    I'm not a solicitor, no direct experience of the legal system, but I know enough to know that very few such cases as yours win in court, that every word your wife says will be challenged by an experience lawyer who will relish at destroying such an easy target, and that your arguments are not arguments of the law, but expression of frustration, anger and a need for revenge. As Judge J says, she is a lawyer, not a psychologist.

    Please seek legal advice, if only a free 1/2 session.
    Last edited by FBaby; 04-10-2017 at 9:44 AM.
    • matlof
    • By matlof 4th Oct 17, 8:44 AM
    • 20 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    matlof
    FBaby thanks for your answear.
    I know that in that thread I have wrote about that case a litle unclear but in preparation to employment it looks much better.
    I am taking respondant to tribunal because of victimisation, as my wife was treated worst since she mage first grievance, she was treated worst than she was pregnant and it also pregnency discrimination and her origin contributed to employer behavior so it is also race discrimination and whole employer behavior leed to constructive dismissal.
    I have many very good evidences to prove that employer deliberately lied to put preasure,
    and I am sure that we have very big chance to win the case and show to other how this organisation work, that they promote discrimination.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 4th Oct 17, 9:38 AM
    • 486 Posts
    • 358 Thanks
    Comms69
    FBaby thanks for your answear.
    I know that in that thread I have wrote about that case a litle unclear but in preparation to employment it looks much better.
    I am taking respondant to tribunal because of victimisation, as my wife was treated worst since she mage first grievance - I doubt that is actually illegal unless the treatment itself was illegal.... , she was treated worst than she was pregnant and it also pregnency discrimination - not from what you've said and her origin contributed to employer behavior so it is also race discrimination - not from what you've said and whole employer behavior leed to constructive dismissal. - that's just not true
    I have many very good evidences to prove that employer deliberately lied to put preasure, - lying? or making a mistake? think what a judge will believe
    and I am sure that we have very big chance to win the case and show to other how this organisation work, that they promote discrimination.
    Originally posted by matlof


    Honestly this will not go that far. If they haven't offered a settlement, you are not going to win.
    • FBaby
    • By FBaby 4th Oct 17, 9:52 AM
    • 15,943 Posts
    • 39,733 Thanks
    FBaby
    Sorry matlof, maybe you're right and you have a decent case, but if that's the case, it won't be on the basis of anything you've written here. Everything you've cited on this thread is weak.

    Your wife failed to take actions to show that she had raised her issues through the proper channels and that's what the judge will look at. They look at procedures, rules, processes and whether these were followed by both parties, way before they consider what was fair.

    If they can evidence they've done everything that is within the law and written in their procedures, they will score points. If your wife failed to do what she was supposed to do as written in the company policies (and yes, it will be deemed her responsibility to ask for them, not for them to share them), then the case will end at that.

    Why do you think so many people fail in court when it is obvious that they were treated unfairly?

    I feel sorry for your wife because it looks like you are misleading her in believing she has a case. She is the one who will have to stand there and answer the questions and she is going to find it a very stressful experience for nothing, or worse, she could be the one having to pay them compensation.

    You clearly mean well, but do you really think it is fair to let your sense of confidence take over without even at least seeking professional advice, especially when not one poster here has told you that you indeed have a good case?
    • matlof
    • By matlof 4th Oct 17, 10:09 AM
    • 20 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    matlof
    Honestly this will not go that far. If they haven't offered a settlement, you are not going to win.
    Originally posted by Comms69
    They didn't because we are not interested in settlement
    • matlof
    • By matlof 4th Oct 17, 10:27 AM
    • 20 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    matlof
    Sorry matlof, maybe you're right and you have a decent case, but if that's the case, it won't be on the basis of anything you've written here. Everything you've cited on this thread is weak.
    Originally posted by FBaby
    From thing I didn't wrote befor I know that employer raported my wife to NMC that he doubts she meets the requirements. When I asked them about any contact with NMC they said that they didn't contacted NMC, they confirmed that in witness statement, but I just received from NMC confirmation that they have in records comunications with my employer and also after the month they received anonymus referal about my wife.
    Also just today Respondant disclose aditional internal comunications, after before that confirmed that they already disclose all relevant comunications. In one of the e-mails sent to their legal advisors manager accused by my wife described they behaviour and explained that they proposed her setlement for resignation not because of her fitnes to practice but because she has rised grievance against other employees and she appealed the outcome. Part of that email was in manager's testimony diuring grievance but of corse not the reason of proposing the setlement.
    I am going to report late discloser to tribunal, and I am sure that they still didn't disclose all relevant informations.
    Do you know what tribunal can do about that?
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 4th Oct 17, 10:32 AM
    • 486 Posts
    • 358 Thanks
    Comms69
    From thing I didn't wrote befor I know that employer raported my wife to NMC that he doubts she meets the requirements. - Good! That's sensible behaviour. When I asked them about any contact with NMC they said that they didn't contacted NMC, they confirmed that in witness statement, but I just received from NMC confirmation that they have in records comunications with my employer and also after the month they received anonymus referal about my wife. - Yes ANONYMOUS! So could be anyone....
    Also just today Respondant disclose aditional internal comunications, after before that confirmed that they already disclose all relevant comunications. In one of the e-mails sent to their legal advisors manager accused by my wife described they behaviour and explained that they proposed her setlement for resignation not because of her fitnes to practice but because she has rised grievance against other employees and she appealed the outcome. - That's very sensible! Part of that email was in manager's testimony diuring grievance but of corse not the reason of proposing the setlement. - Irrelevant
    I am going to report late discloser to tribunal, and I am sure that they still didn't disclose all relevant informations.
    Do you know what tribunal can do about that?
    Originally posted by matlof
    Nothing. They wont do anything.


    Their case is looking so strong!


    This is going to cost you thousands, just stop and go speak to a solicitor!
    • Cyclizine
    • By Cyclizine 4th Oct 17, 12:01 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Cyclizine
    Was she a member of the RCN? It's too late now, but this is what unions are for. Something to think about next time.
    • matlof
    • By matlof 4th Oct 17, 12:07 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    matlof
    manager accused by my wife described they behaviour and explained that they proposed her setlement for resignation not because of her fitnes to practice but because she has rised grievance against other employees and she appealed the outcome. - That's very sensible!

    Comms69 Do you know what it is Victimisation? Maybe for you it is sensible but it is unlawful! My wife rised grievance because she was discriminated due to race and pregnancy and because of that she schould be protected but Employer admit that they wanted to get rid of her because of that grievance.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

208Posts Today

1,126Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LordsEconCom: On Tuesday Martin Lewis, Hannah Morrish & Shakira Martin gave evidence to the Cttee. Read the full transcript here: https?

  • Ta ta for now. Half term's starting, so I'm exchanging my MoneySavingExpert hat for one that says Daddy in big letters. See you in a week.

  • RT @thismorning: Can @MartinSLewis' deals save YOU cash? ???? https://t.co/igbHCwzeiN

  • Follow Martin