Unfair dismissal.

dmg24

pinkshoes wrote: »

Personally I'd be tempted to take this public, and name and shame the company who can treat someone so badly, as you indeed running out of other options.

The very least the union should do is pay back all those years of contributions if they did jack sh*t to help!

Be careful with this. If you say one thing that is incorrect/ misleading, you could end up with a defamation case against you. I can understand the temptation to do it, but it could cause a great deal more stress (and potentially, ruin you financially).

LinasPilibaitisisbatman

uzzah wrote: »

I did write and complain to the Union high command but it took 7 months to look into it, for a 3 line report saying it was now to late; when in fact they had kept me waiting 7 months for a reply.
I know I have got to move on but I should have been entitled to a £120 pension for life but instead I am unable to work with the DHSS breathing heavy on my neck, I got my Income Capacity stopped for 4 months this year until I won on appeal; 4 months without money in no joke. One day soon I will have my IC stopped and still be unable to work.
When I joined the company it was partly because it had a good pension scheme; that if, god forbid you were taken ill they would pay you a pension for life. I know now that it was not worth the paper it was written on.

Thank you all for your thoughts and your concerns. Much appreciated.

But you didnt retire, you were dismissed due to incapacity, you didnt have a right to your medical pension thus

Considering you cannot work even now its quite clear their decision to dismiss you was entirely justified.

Its also not their fault you didnt have in place a suitable pension plan or contingency for such occurences

Its maybe not a nice chain of events but you have no legal recourse which is why the Unions/Solicitors cant help you

You clearly need to move on, also lets be honest their must be some sort of employment you can do, most likely why your IC is in doubt

Tabatha_Kitten

Two of close friends of mine were unfairly dismissed, took the case to tribunal & won. They went through over 12 months of hell but both say it was worth it in the end to clear their names.
One had some sort of legal cover through her house insurance which paid for a solicitor. The other went through the Citizens Advice.
The circumstances were different to yours but got to be worth checking out.
Good luck.

ceridwen

O.P. has been treated unfairly. Unfortunately though - he is now outside the legal time limit for bringing a claim - so, sad to say, I don't think there is anything he can do.

londondulwich

For a tribunal to hear a complaint, generally it must be presented before the end of the period of three months, beginning with the date of the act or failure to act upon which the complaint is based.

However, this three month rule is not strict, it is subject to the Tribunal's discretion.

Typically, the reason accepted for extending the three month period will be due to the inability of the claimant (yourself) to bring a claim. Perhaps because of health reasons or because they are posted abroad.

There is another line of reasoning used to extend the time-limit. This is where the employer or employees are continuing in the behaviour complained of. So the unfair treatment is still going on despite having started more than three months ago. In your case, the acts complained of are the unprofessional and disorganised handling of your appeal.

If the act or failure upon which the complaint is based is part of a series of similar acts or failures then the three month period runs from the last act or failure.

In Arthur v London Eastern Railway [2007] IRLR 58 the Court of Appeal stated that it was designed to cover a case which cannot be characterised as an act extending over a period (by reference to a connecting rule, practice, scheme or policy) but where there is some link between the acts which makes it just and reasonable for them to be treated as in time and for the claimant to be able to rely on them.

In order for the acts in the three-month period and those outside to be connected, the Court went back to the statutory wording that they must be part of a 'series' and acts which are 'similar' to one another. It held that a tribunal should hear evidence to determine whether acts or omissions form part of such a series and not rely on submissions alone. Potentially relevant considerations were described by the Court of Appeal as follows:

• ∙ it is necessary to look at all the circumstances surrounding the acts
• ∙ were they all committed by fellow employees?
• ∙ if not, what connection, if any, was there between the alleged perpetrators?
• ∙ were their actions organised or concerted in some way?
• ∙ why did they do what is alleged?
• ∙ it is not necessary that the acts alleged to be part of the series are physically similar to each other
• ∙ it may be that a series of apparently disparate acts could be shown to be part of a series or to be similar to one another in a relevant way by reason simply of them all being on the ground of a protected disclosure (Lloyd LJ disagreed on this point).

Employment tribunals have a discretion to extend the three month time limit. In most cases this is on the basis that it was not reasonably practicable to present the complaint in time. However in cases under the Part-time Workers Regs and Fixed-term Employees Regs the extension is available on the basis of what is just and equitable in all the circumstances
Statutory provisions state that where the employer's act extends over a period of time, then it is deemed to be done on the last day of that period and the three month time limit runs from that date.

For example in Tait v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council (UKEAT/0096/08) a disciplinary suspension was held to be an act extending over a period so that the last date on which the act of suspension was deemed to take place was the date on which the employee received notification that the suspension had ceased and the time limit ran from that date.

Did you get the answer from your employer more than three months ago?