Advice about dismissal - please

jdturk

Ewarwoowar2 wrote: »

If the witness is key to your case, you can ask the tribunal to order that he must attend to give evidence.

Or what will happen? not alot I guess

jobbingmusician

Ewarwoowar2 wrote: »

If the witness is key to your case, you can ask the tribunal to order that he must attend to give evidence.

This is true, but is generally not an advised course of action, as the witness may carry a grudge and say anything. IMHO Amber has an excellent case without this witness.

In considering whether to call this additional witness, she will want to consider whether she can demonstrate personal disadvantage (additional costs etc) due to the case being delayed. If she cannot, there is a slight risk that the tribunal could view this additional matter (employer being accused of lying to delay the hearing) as an attempt by the employee to act maliciously against the employer by alleging misconduct which cannot be proved (if witness changes story, blah blah).

Again, I reiterate that I am only commenting as an employer, not as a legal expert!

HTH -JM

Amber07

Ewarwoowar2 wrote: »

If the witness is key to your case, you can ask the tribunal to order that he must attend to give evidence.

Hi - I don't think it would benefit us in the long run. Sure, it would make the other side look bad but in all honesty - they are pretty much achieving that by themselves

Amber07

jobbingmusician wrote: »

This is true, but is generally not an advised course of action, as the witness may carry a grudge and say anything. IMHO Amber has an excellent case without this witness.

In considering whether to call this additional witness, she will want to consider whether she can demonstrate personal disadvantage (additional costs etc) due to the case being delayed. If she cannot, there is a slight risk that the tribunal could view this additional matter (employer being accused of lying to delay the hearing) as an attempt by the employee to act maliciously against the employer by alleging misconduct which cannot be proved (if witness changes story, blah blah).

Again, I reiterate that I am only commenting as an employer, not as a legal expert!

HTH -JM

Very true points there (as always) thank you

Amber07

Not too much been going on, except OH's current employers now know that he is taking his ex employers to tribunal.

Basically - a guy at work came up to him and said 'I hear you are taking **** to a tribunal?' He had been at **** and mentioned that they had an ex employee of their working with him.

The manager there fed him stories about how OH tried to attack (!) a junior employee and had to be physically restrained in the office etc (for those who havent followed this thread there are NO allegations like this in ANY statements) ...OH's workmate did say that he couldn't believe they were talking about the same person (which is why he told OH) and his manager even offered to appear as a character witness if OH needed one, which I thought was really nice of him.

OH is so angry about it all and is wondering just who else they are bad mouthing him to. He has a job just now, albeit on much lower pay, but has been finding it difficult to get back into management, and with all of this he has been finding it really difficult to cope and is now being treated for depression It's horrible seeing him go through all this, and it has knocked his confidence so much.

Amber07

On the more positive side, we have had the provisional Schedule of Loss from our solicitor. I don't want to broadcast figures on an open forum, mainly cos I don't want to get my hopes up (!) but they would have been better off settling in Jan (would have been WAY less than their legal costs alone)

Anyway it consists of:

BASIC AWARD
Automatic Unfair dismissal

COMPENSATORY AWARD
Past wage loss
Performance bonus
Future wage loss (26weeks)
Plus Bonus

Loss of Statutory Rights

Deduct Earnings and Jobseekers allowance since Feb 09

Plus 50% uplift for failure to comply with the statutory disciplinary and dismissal procedure



We are bearing in mind that any award could be reduced (the Polki reduction) if it is proved that OH contributed to his own dismissal. They are requesting it be reduced by 100% but the main judge has already 'suggested' to them that they consider asking for a 50% reduction instead (which they would be more likely to get tbh)

It is pretty obvious that we have an unfair dismissal (and the judges have noted this, mainly the total absence of the step one letter and asked why it had even been brought this far)

But no...they want to take it all they way and try and not give him a penny, so we just need to prove he was unfairly dismissed now.

firesidemaid

are you able to claim for the fact that that he has now developed depression?

i would also document the conversation with the colleague, and the 'allegations' (false) that the company have made, just in case you can get them for slander too;)

take care and keep up the good work x

jdturk

Amber07 wrote: »

(would have been WAY less than their legal costs alone)

Not neccersarily true if they have paid a HR company a membership for a advice they get all their fees paid for if they follow the advice correctly and only have to pay for the fine if there is one.....However they don't sound like they have done

Uncertain

jdturk wrote: »

Not neccersarily true if they have paid a HR company a membership for a advice they get all their fees paid for if they follow the advice correctly and only have to pay for the fine if there is one.....However they don't sound like they have done

You are very fond of this concept (you don't run such a company do you?). However, as far as I aware this type of setup is used in only a tiny minority of cases.

There are probably lots of small businesses that would be well advised to go down this route but I suspect the vast majority don't. Maybe they consider it AFTER they have a bad experience.

Most larger organisations do it in house IME.

In the OP case it seems to be a small business fuelled by arrogance and ignorance!

The sad thing is that they often get away it. OK, in this case they have run into a determined Amber (who is to be much admired) but many would have shown far less resolve.

The other problem is that the penalties for ignoring most aspect of employment law are not really a deterrent. As I have said before there are many companies that work on the principle of "we will do what we like and if all else fails pay up". Compound this by the fact that something like 40% of awards are never paid (hence the new change in enforcement procedures).

Also, the VAST majority of awards are a few thousand - not the odd headline grabbing figure. Many successful businesses will think this is a chance worth taking.

Unless we move to public hanging for directors who step out of line and, at the very least flogging for any HR person that is not 100% neutral then this will continue! :rotfl: :mad: :T

jdturk

Uncertain wrote: »

You are very fond of this concept (you don't run such a company do you?). However, as far as I aware this type of setup is used in only a tiny minority of cases.

There are probably lots of small businesses that would be well advised to go down this route but I suspect the vast majority don't. Maybe they consider it AFTER they have a bad experience.

Most larger organisations do it in house IME.

In the OP case it seems to be a small business fuelled by arrogance and ignorance!

The sad thing is that they often get away it. OK, in this case they have run into a determined Amber (who is to be much admired) but many would have shown far less resolve.

The other problem is that the penalties for ignoring most aspect of employment law are not really a deterrent. As I have said before there are many companies that work on the principle of "we will do what we like and if all else fails pay up". Compound this by the fact that something like 40% of awards are never paid (hence the new change in enforcement procedures).

Also, the VAST majority of awards are a few thousand - not the odd headline grabbing figure. Many successful businesses will think this is a chance worth taking.

Unless we move to public hanging for directors who step out of line and, at the very least flogging for any HR person that is not 100% neutral then this will continue! :rotfl: :mad: :T

I knew sooner or later you would try and connect me with one of these companies but the truth is that I do not own one of these companies, however the company I work for does use one of these companies and IMO they are well worth joining for the following reasons

1) You are less likely to make mistakes procedure wise
2) If you follow their instructions your costs stay down
3) It is akin to an employee joining a union, it is there for the protection of the employer
4) If you as a company do make a mistake you are less likely to be one of these companies that pay out the big payouts

I agree the company in this thread probably hasn't joined this company but they really should!

And I'll agree with the public flogging of HR people if employees that swing the lead get the same treatment