Advice about dismissal - please

jobbingmusician

Delighted that the handwritten version is so damning for the employer! :j

Amber07

Well, here's hoping the tribunal see it that way.

As our solicitor pointed out, there is the fact that the employee signed the new statement....but hopefully she can argue that he was concerned about keeping his job.

Uncertain

Amber07 wrote: »

OH isn't keen to settle, he said the most important thing is he wants the hearing to proceed so he can clear his name, if we settle, what has been the point of this past year - we would have been as well not bothering. I can see his point, and am prepared to accept his decision on what route we take on the day, after all it's his reputation which has been blackened.

Not long to go now, can't believe it's almost a year since all this begun - I won't forget THAT Valentine's day in a hurry!

I have been watching this thread since it started and very much admire your determination and attention to detail.

Rightly or wrongly it is important to understand that the main purpose of an ET (or any civil court) is to compensate losses, not to "clear names" or "unblacken reputations". OK, this can be an indirect benefit of a win but there are also plenty of examples of people who have "won" expensive libel cases and been awarded a penny in damages.

Accepting or rejecting an offer to settle is a very difficult decision, perhaps the biggest gamble you are ever likely to make. What I would suggest, should this be an option, is that you try to make this on purely financial grounds.

With the greatest respect to some of the excellent poster who have commented on this thread, they have not seen all the paperwork. Only you and your solicitor have this advantage. You are totally wrapped up in the situation and probably have very good reason to be angry. This leaves only your solicitor who can really advise. Maybe, just maybe she has reason to be cautious?

Very sadly "winning" will not in itself pay the bills. Only the amount of money will do this irrespective of how it is obtained.

Equally will "winning" rather than settling help your OH in future job applications? I know it is wrong but, frankly, I doubt it.

floss2

Amber07 wrote: »

.....OH isn't keen to settle, he said the most important thing is he wants the hearing to proceed so he can clear his name...

If they offer to settle, they are accepting that they are in the wrong, albeit not admitting it or being told that in the Tribunal.

We have just gone through similar (off work this week as we'd been given 11-14 Jan for OH's ET) and OH settled through ACAS for just under 50% of his schedule of loss (and was lucky enough to have got a new job & worked contract through the summer to reduce that), we have stuck 2 fingers up to his former employers & accepted that as a win by default.

floss2

Uncertain wrote: »

...Equally will "winning" rather than settling help your OH in future job applications? I know it is wrong but, frankly, I doubt it.

Depends how you phrase it...."reason for leaving - mutual agreement" or "reason for leaving - successful Employment Tribunal case"

Uncertain

floss2 wrote: »

If they offer to settle, they are accepting that they are in the wrong, albeit not admitting it or being told that in the Tribunal.

Although in this case that may be so, it doesn't always follow. There can be many reasons why cases are settled out of court. Few are as black and white as the participants like to think.

There is an element of brinkmanship plus, as the date gets closer, each side will have seen more of the others case. The chances of an employer being awarded costs are slim so they may well take the view that they are in a lose lose position.

Many large organisations will stall and push so far, in the hope that the little man will be intimidated and cave in. Once it is clear that this is not going to happen they may well decided to cut their losses, even if they think they are in the right.

Finally, by offering a compromise agreement they may be able to restrict what the former employee is able to say publicly.

Uncertain

floss2 wrote: »

Depends how you phrase it...."reason for leaving - mutual agreement" or "reason for leaving - successful Employment Tribunal case"

Well, even if you win at an ET, the first would not be true. Obviously this and an agreed reference could form part of any "out of court" settlement.

Although it is unfair, the second would put many potential employers off.

jdturk

floss2 wrote: »

If they offer to settle, they are accepting that they are in the wrong, albeit not admitting it or being told that in the Tribunal.

We have just gone through similar (off work this week as we'd been given 11-14 Jan for OH's ET) and OH settled through ACAS for just under 50% of his schedule of loss (and was lucky enough to have got a new job & worked contract through the summer to reduce that), we have stuck 2 fingers up to his former employers & accepted that as a win by default.

Not sure your employers will care either though

Amber07

Uncertain wrote: »

I have been watching this thread since it started and very much admire your determination and attention to detail.

Rightly or wrongly it is important to understand that the main purpose of an ET (or any civil court) is to compensate losses, not to "clear names" or "unblacken reputations". OK, this can be an indirect benefit of a win but there are also plenty of examples of people who have "won" expensive libel cases and been awarded a penny in damages.

Accepting or rejecting an offer to settle is a very difficult decision, perhaps the biggest gamble you are ever likely to make. What I would suggest, should this be an option, is that you try to make this on purely financial grounds.

With the greatest respect to some of the excellent poster who have commented on this thread, they have not seen all the paperwork. Only you and your solicitor have this advantage. You are totally wrapped up in the situation and probably have very good reason to be angry. This leaves only your solicitor who can really advise. Maybe, just maybe she has reason to be cautious?

Very sadly "winning" will not in itself pay the bills. Only the amount of money will do this irrespective of how it is obtained.

Equally will "winning" rather than settling help your OH in future job applications? I know it is wrong but, frankly, I doubt it.

Hi

I appreciate your comments and I do see what you are saying. While 'winning' can't exactly undo what has been done, or officially unblacken his name - being able to say he has won will go a long way to him being able to hold his head up high. We know what the truth behind it means to us. Hopefully future employers wont need to know about the tribunal, as he has had a job since then which he can get a reference from, albeit not in management.

Any agreement to settle would be made on financial grounds first. We're not daft, and his pride (as well as the insurance company) won't allow him to throw everything away just for the sake of having his day in court.

But they won't settle - we know they won't, ACAS has approached them already and been sent away.

Amber07

floss2 wrote: »

If they offer to settle, they are accepting that they are in the wrong, albeit not admitting it or being told that in the Tribunal.

We have just gone through similar (off work this week as we'd been given 11-14 Jan for OH's ET) and OH settled through ACAS for just under 50% of his schedule of loss (and was lucky enough to have got a new job & worked contract through the summer to reduce that), we have stuck 2 fingers up to his former employers & accepted that as a win by default.

Hi floss - glad to hear you got a settlement, I am assuming 50% was acceptable for you guys, which is great that ACAS was able to help you.

At least you got a settlement and you don't have to go through days of tribunal stuff.

xx