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 3
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 4th Oct 17, 12:14 PM
    • 1,269 Posts
    • 1,031 Thanks
    Comms69
    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.
    Originally posted by matlof


    Offering an employee who isn't happy a chance to leave, with a settlement package is NOT victimisation. It is also not unlawful!


    Just because she's pregnant or whatever race, doesn't mean they cant sack her. and certainly doesn't mean they cant offer a settlement package!


    Perhaps they felt her grievance was malicious or vexatious. They are entitled to make such decisions, as long as they follow their own policy.


    I don't believe for a second a hospital would promote either a culture of racism or pregnancy discrimination given that nurses are predominantly women and many come from outside the UK!
    • FBaby
    • By FBaby 4th Oct 17, 12:15 PM
    • 16,122 Posts
    • 40,022 Thanks
    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.
    But what are accusing them off? They are entitled to have communication with NMC and share their views. I expect that not only is that is not illegal but even more, it is likely that this is what they are expected to do. According to you, they didn't even say that she didn't meet the requirements any longer, but they had doubt that she would.

    If you contact your neighbour because you thought they were dealing drugs, you would be doing the right thing. If the neighbour confronted you and you said that you hadn't reported them, it wouldn't be illegal and they couldn't sue you for having done so. This is very similar in principle.

    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.
    As stated before, proposing a settlement for resignation is not illegal and is not sacking. Your wife had the power to refuse. Are you saying though that the email explicitly says that they want to resign her only because she raised grievances? They would be very silly to write it as such!
    • matlof
    • By matlof 4th Oct 17, 12:46 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    matlof
    But what are accusing them off? They are entitled to have communication with NMC and share their views. I expect that not only is that is not illegal but even more, it is likely that this is what they are expected to do. According to you, they didn't even say that she didn't meet the requirements any longer, but they had doubt that she would. Yes but when you know what are the requirements and still raporting the reson of doing that was to harm the nurse. My wife meet all requirements. They also should disclose that information that they sent something to NMC, and they didn't . They also denied it in witness statement. Do you belive that general manager of hospital will not know the requirements before he raport the nurse? Why he is hiding that?

    If you contact your neighbour because you thought they were dealing drugs, you would be doing the right thing. If the neighbour confronted you and you said that you hadn't reported them, it wouldn't be illegal and they couldn't sue you for having done so. This is very similar in principle.


    As stated before, proposing a settlement for resignation is not illegal and is not sacking. Your wife had the power to refuse. Are you saying though that the email explicitly says that they want to resign her only because she raised grievances? They would be very silly to write it as such
    Yes she wrote that. I think that she didn't think it is something wrong and it was in comunication with legal advisor so probably she thought thet this will not be disclose. But that e-mail was also cc to others managers and grievance managers so previlage doesn't work and I asked them to disclose all comunication with legal advisors if it was copied to other. They also disclose that after we exchange witness statements and after they confirmed to employment tribunal that they alredy dislose all comunication between management !
    Originally posted by FBaby
    They disclose right now about 20 new e-mail. Some not relevant but from few it will be easly prove that they lied in witness statement
    • FBaby
    • By FBaby 4th Oct 17, 12:52 PM
    • 16,122 Posts
    • 40,022 Thanks
    FBaby
    Yes but when you know what are the requirements and still raporting the reson of doing that was to harm the nurse
    Or protect patients. You won't prove that they meant harm to her by this action, especially when they express doubts rather than certitude.

    Yes she wrote that.
    I think you would need to post what was actually written to comment accurately as your interpretation of correspondence might be in question (as for instance above, you're not distinguishing doubts with accusations).

    Once again, even if it's proven that they lied doesn't mean you will win your case. They can get a slap on the wrist for having done so, but there is a -large- gap between telling a lie and breaking the law.
    • matlof
    • By matlof 4th Oct 17, 1:04 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    matlof
    I think that from what they did is obvius that they lied to harm the employee. All management work togather during grievance proces.They have lied so many times that they are not credible at all. They explanation in witness statement is so embarrassing and impossible to believe
    I don't think that I can post document what was disclose to me so I am not going to do that at least till hearing.
    Last edited by matlof; 04-10-2017 at 1:08 PM.
    • Pricivius
    • By Pricivius 4th Oct 17, 1:27 PM
    • 589 Posts
    • 980 Thanks
    Pricivius
    If you have not taken legal advice, and it looks as though you haven't, please do so.


    If you are not prepared to do so, please go back to basics. You need to look up the law on each of the claims you have made. Go to www.legislation.gov.uk and find the Equality Act 2010 and the Employment Rights act 1996. Look up exactly what you need to show to convince the Judge that there has been discrimination because of race, because of pregnancy/maternity, victimisation and constructive dismissal.


    Lying is not enough. Being a bit rubbish is not enough. Being inefficient is not enough. Late documents is not enough. Pressure is not enough. Being treated poorly after bringing a grievance is not enough.


    I would also question your point on legal privilege, but I will leave that to the other side's lawyers and the Tribunal panel.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 4th Oct 17, 1:30 PM
    • 1,269 Posts
    • 1,031 Thanks
    Comms69
    If you have not taken legal advice, and it looks as though you haven't, please do so.


    If you are not prepared to do so, please go back to basics. You need to look up the law on each of the claims you have made. Go to www.legislation.gov.uk and find the Equality Act 2010 and the Employment Rights act 1996. Look up exactly what you need to show to convince the Judge that there has been discrimination because of race, because of pregnancy/maternity, victimisation and constructive dismissal.


    Lying is not enough. Being a bit rubbish is not enough. Being inefficient is not enough. Late documents is not enough. Pressure is not enough. Being treated poorly after bringing a grievance is not enough.


    I would also question your point on legal privilege, but I will leave that to the other side's lawyers and the Tribunal panel.
    Originally posted by Pricivius


    I believe the OP can act as Lay Rep as long as his wife is present at the tribunal
    • Undervalued
    • By Undervalued 4th Oct 17, 1:43 PM
    • 3,175 Posts
    • 2,893 Thanks
    Undervalued
    I believe the OP can act as Lay Rep as long as his wife is present at the tribunal
    Originally posted by Comms69
    Yes, unlike most courts, you do not need to be legally qualified to represent somebody at an employment tribunal.

    Whether it is wise to do so is another matter!
    • lincroft1710
    • By lincroft1710 4th Oct 17, 4:11 PM
    • 10,037 Posts
    • 8,096 Thanks
    lincroft1710
    I hate saying this, but I think the OP may harm his wife's case by representing her, she needs someone who can put her points across clearly and concisely.

    Which brings us to the second problem, what precise evidence does she have that shows her employer has broken employment law?
    • Undervalued
    • By Undervalued 4th Oct 17, 4:32 PM
    • 3,175 Posts
    • 2,893 Thanks
    Undervalued
    I hate saying this, but I think the OP may harm his wife's case by representing her, she needs someone who can put her points across clearly and concisely.

    Which brings us to the second problem, what precise evidence does she have that shows her employer has broken employment law?
    Originally posted by lincroft1710
    Based on this thread, none at all! Sadly though the OP seems to be the only person that can't see that.
    • Cyclizine
    • By Cyclizine 4th Oct 17, 5:34 PM
    • 28 Posts
    • 36 Thanks
    Cyclizine
    Is she a union member and has she spoken to them? I'm guessing not.
    • FBaby
    • By FBaby 4th Oct 17, 6:05 PM
    • 16,122 Posts
    • 40,022 Thanks
    FBaby
    I think I watch to much of Judge Judy

    I think that from what they did is obvius that they lied to harm the employee.
    I can hear her telling 'don't tell what's obvious, what obvious to you is not obvious to me'.

    OP, please appreciate that very clever people don't go to law school for many years to learn what you seem to think you can learn better in a few weeks.

    Do you really think that you would get so many posters telling you that your case is going nowhere if indeed you were showing to have a strong case?
    • pioneer22
    • By pioneer22 5th Oct 17, 12:02 AM
    • 419 Posts
    • 158 Thanks
    pioneer22
    When is her NMC Revalidation date? When did she go on maternity leave?

    Exactly how many prep hours has she done in total and can you evidence this?

    To be clear she has to of done 450 in the last 3 years has she done 450 hours in the last 3 years in total?
    • Pricivius
    • By Pricivius 5th Oct 17, 1:55 PM
    • 589 Posts
    • 980 Thanks
    Pricivius
    I believe the OP can act as Lay Rep as long as his wife is present at the tribunal
    Originally posted by Comms69


    I think we are at cross purposes. I completely agree that anyone can represent anyone at the ET. I have seen many a "car crash" unfold in this manner.


    What I was referring to was legal privilege. A lawyer's advice to his client is generally covered by legal privilege in that it is not disclosable to the other side or the Court/Tribunal. Otherwise what's the point seeking advice? OP was suggesting that legal advice from legal advisors to the employer was disclosable as it was copied to other people. This does not waive legal privilege to my knowledge, but obviously I only know 3% of the story here so suggested leaving this to the employer and their lawyers to argue.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 5th Oct 17, 2:10 PM
    • 1,269 Posts
    • 1,031 Thanks
    Comms69
    I think we are at cross purposes. I completely agree that anyone can represent anyone at the ET. I have seen many a "car crash" unfold in this manner.


    What I was referring to was legal privilege. A lawyer's advice to his client is generally covered by legal privilege in that it is not disclosable to the other side or the Court/Tribunal. Otherwise what's the point seeking advice? OP was suggesting that legal advice from legal advisors to the employer was disclosable as it was copied to other people. This does not waive legal privilege to my knowledge, but obviously I only know 3% of the story here so suggested leaving this to the employer and their lawyers to argue.
    Originally posted by Pricivius


    Apologies I see what you mean. When you said the other side questioning it - I simply assumed you meant in regards to being heard.


    I see exactly what you mean
    • matlof
    • By matlof 5th Oct 17, 3:42 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    matlof
    When is her NMC Revalidation date? When did she go on maternity leave?

    Exactly how many prep hours has she done in total and can you evidence this?

    To be clear she has to of done 450 in the last 3 years has she done 450 hours in the last 3 years in total?
    Originally posted by pioneer22
    she had over 2000, yes I can evidence this.
    • polgara
    • By polgara 5th Oct 17, 4:34 PM
    • 325 Posts
    • 274 Thanks
    polgara
    2000 in 3 years??? That's a very high figure - has she been studying full time? What is that made up with?
    • steampowered
    • By steampowered 5th Oct 17, 7:17 PM
    • 1,951 Posts
    • 1,824 Thanks
    steampowered
    I believe the OP can act as Lay Rep as long as his wife is present at the tribunal
    Originally posted by Comms69
    Yes, unlike most courts, you do not need to be legally qualified to represent somebody at an employment tribunal.

    Whether it is wise to do so is another matter!
    Originally posted by Undervalued
    A point of clarification.

    In the Employment Tribunal, there are no restrictions. Anyone can represent anyone.

    In the county courts small claims track only, a lay rep can represent if the person is present.

    In other courts, lay people can't represent.
    • Manxman in exile
    • By Manxman in exile 6th Oct 17, 12:41 AM
    • 1,030 Posts
    • 720 Thanks
    Manxman in exile
    When is her NMC Revalidation date? When did she go on maternity leave?

    Exactly how many prep hours has she done in total and can you evidence this?

    To be clear she has to of done 450 in the last 3 years has she done 450 hours in the last 3 years in total?
    Originally posted by pioneer22
    She has "to of done...". I think OP has enough problems expressing themselves in English without being confused further.


    Is that really making things clear?
    Last edited by Manxman in exile; 06-10-2017 at 12:43 AM. Reason: add
    • pioneer22
    • By pioneer22 6th Oct 17, 8:45 PM
    • 419 Posts
    • 158 Thanks
    pioneer22
    2000 in 3 years??? That's a very high figure - has she been studying full time? What is that made up with?
    Originally posted by polgara
    It's not.

    37.5 hours X lets say 40 weeks a year = 1500 hours a year

    1500 x 3 - 4500 hours in 3 years.

    Has she got 35 hours of CPD?

    So, why are they saying they can't revalidate her then? What are their exact reasons?

    8. Can I choose my confirmer to sign off my revalidation?
    Yes, though the NMC strongly recommends that this should be your line manager, even if they are not an NMC-registered midwife/nurse. If there is no line manager, wherever possible, choose an NMC-registered individual as your confirmer. The NMC says that, if there is no line manager and no access to an NMC registrant, another regulated healthcare professional would suffice. This might be a dietician, social worker, or occupational therapist. If this is not possible, a confirmer could come from a list of other professionals that includes a judge, MP, barrister, and fi re service official. But the NMC warns that if a confirmer is chosen from this list (see ‘More information’ box for a link to a list of appropriate confirmers), you are more likely to be required to provide further information as part of the verification process. The five reflections must be discussed with an NMC registrant.


    What have the NMC said?
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

4,103Posts Today

7,909Users online

Martin's Twitter