disciplinary help please - SUSPENDED!!!

SarEl

T800 wrote: »

But I was in the same situation - and I phoned up on the morning saying I was too unwell to attend and not to bother me until my Doctor says I am better. I told them that I have been signed off unfit to work - and attending a disciplinary meeting is work. It requires cognitive ability. which someone who is work related stressed and depressed surely, by that definition would not be able to accomplish.

And "reasonable minded person" is a test that is used frequently in law.

my lawyer at the time did make it clear to me NOT to arrange appointments in future (as I previously did) and then risk having to cancel them. Which is why I told them I wont be doing anything until im better, and not to even contact me, because speaking to them is also work.

I am sorry, and don't wish to be argumentative, but you are wrong. The fact that this worked for you is great. It also might work for the OP's gf - but it also may not. Being signed off sick from your NORMAL work does not mean that you are also signed off sick from attending disciplinaries or grievances. Very few people do these things as their "normal work"! Theer is sufficient case law to show that refusing to attend such a meeting whilst signed off sick may actually loose you your tribunal claim. It all depends on the circumstances - and although it should not, it also depends on the people hearing the case because "reasonable" doesn't mean the same thing to everyone.

It is a fact that the majority of ET claimants loose their claims, and depending on the category of claim, the chances are anything from somewhat less than 50% for unfair dismissal, much lower for discrimination cases (which this case may involve), and for constructive dismissal, so negligible that it's hardly worth the ink on the claim form. So to maximise your chances of ever making a claim that wins you must dot every i and cross every t on your own side of the case. If you do not you are leaving a door open to loose it. So if you are signed off sick, then you must get your GP to explicitly state that you are not fit to attend disciplinary or grievance meetings, or if you could but need some adjustment, to recommend that this is done.

Even if you get this, as I stated before, this is not a free pass. If the sickness continues and you cannot participate, or the adjustment is not reasonable, then the employer can simply notify you that they are going ahead. If they do, they take a risk of opening a door for you - but it is fair in law to do this and such cases have been upheld on a repeated basis.

The term "reasonably minded person" is not a phrase used frequently in law. It is a term used in some aspects of employment law. Where it is used it is the bane of a solicitors/barristers life. Because as I said - what is reasonable differs from person to person. We recently saw another post on here where a claimant won an automatically unfair dismissal (on process) and got a 100% Polkey reduction for the alleged theft of £10. I can cite you another tribunal that found that a dismissal of someone who had stolen (and admitted it) £100's (and possibly more - nobody knew how much was involved exactly) was ruled unfair and not "reasonable". Want to tell me again how you define "reasonable"? Because what you think is reasonable and what a tribunal may rule as "reasonable" are not the same things.

Giving advice is always useful. But simply because your employer let you do this is not to say that what they did is the law, nor that every employer will do so. It is a possibility, and no more. Your employer could have taken a very different stance and still remained within the law. They could have, for example, after attempting to arrange a few meetings, have notified you that they were going ahead and that they would do so without you but that you could make written submissions. This is lawful. And there is certainly no law that allows you to refuse to have any contact with your employer because they have other legal duties towards you, such as OH referrals if you are off sick. You were lucky that your employer played it this way (I assume you were anyway, and it was resolved to your satisfaction) - others will not.

T800

refer yourself to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person reasonably minded person is taken into consideration widely when it comes to the law.

T800

The rest of your post makes interesting readingn. From my own experience I have had three cases against separate employers taken to the tribunal route. All of which resulted in substantial settlements out of court. Perhaps I have been lucky? I do fully understand the need to cross every i and dot every t, it was a very long enduring road to make sure I had all the evidence gathered, and I did a great deal of work myself before finally paying a solicitor to take the baton and help me the rest of the way. I do not wish to sound argumentative either and grateful for your passing your knowledge and experience on SarEl.

SarEl

T800 wrote: »

refer yourself to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person reasonably minded person is taken into consideration widely when it comes to the law.

As a barrister, I don't use wikipedia to reference the law. I use law books and case law. It's what most of us use!

Zazen999

T800 wrote: »

The rest of your post makes interesting readingn. From my own experience I have had three cases against separate employers taken to the tribunal route. All of which resulted in substantial settlements out of court. Perhaps I have been lucky? I do fully understand the need to cross every i and dot every t, it was a very long enduring road to make sure I had all the evidence gathered, and I did a great deal of work myself before finally paying a solicitor to take the baton and help me the rest of the way. I do not wish to sound argumentative either and grateful for your passing your knowledge and experience on SarEl.

3 cases of tribunals against employers? :eek:

I think perhaps you are unlucky rather than lucky.....

SarEl

T800 wrote: »

The rest of your post makes interesting readingn. From my own experience I have had three cases against separate employers taken to the tribunal route. All of which resulted in substantial settlements out of court. Perhaps I have been lucky? I do fully understand the need to cross every i and dot every t, it was a very long enduring road to make sure I had all the evidence gathered, and I did a great deal of work myself before finally paying a solicitor to take the baton and help me the rest of the way. I do not wish to sound argumentative either and grateful for your passing your knowledge and experience on SarEl.

And whether you are lucky or not depends on your perspective - having three bad employers wouldn't be amongst my definitions of lucky.

But there are different "rules" applied to out of court settlements. I can't comment on the specifics of your case(s), but we would all prefer to settle out of court if it can be achieved. It's better for everyone. But it isn't exactly the same thing as a win (talking theoretically here) - employers often settle the cases that they may well win too because it is cheaper than their legal costs for a tribunal. Often substantially so. You reallly can't begin to believe how much a tribunal may cost an employer (not that I represent employers, I hasten to add). Even a generous settlement can be cheaper! For many employers the cheapest "win" is the one that costs less - few are litigatious in principle (although some are).

So you never go to court unless you have to - and when you must you make sure there isn't a loophole to fall through if you can.

Uncertain

SarEl wrote: »

It is a fact that the majority of ET claimants loose their claims, and depending on the category of claim, the chances are anything from somewhat less than 50% for unfair dismissal, much lower for discrimination cases (which this case may involve), and for constructive dismissal, so negligible that it's hardly worth the ink on the claim form. So to maximise your chances of ever making a claim that wins you must dot every i and cross every t on your own side of the case. If you do not you are leaving a door open to loose it.

What these statistics mask are the number of settlements that come about as a result of starting a claim.

In most cases defending an ET claim is a lose, lose situation for an employer. They have very little chance of being awarded costs if they win and even less chance of actually getting them. Even if costs are awarded the are capped at (I think) £8 to £10K. This still doesn't count the substantial internal costs of mounting a successful defence.

For this reason many employers choose to settle cases that they are entitled to win.

Some of course have a policy of seldom (or never) settling, feeling it is the best way to deter other claims in the future regardless of the short term cost. Others are scared of any bad publicity and rush to a CA with a confidentiality clause at the first sigh of trouble.

T800

SarEl wrote: »

As a barrister, I don't use wikipedia to reference the law. I use law books and case law. It's what most of us use!

Then you are surely aware that many statues make reference to the "reasonably minded person" proviso. Especially Criminal law - which, as your aware, has a higher burden of evidence required than civil law.

Googlewhacker

T800 wrote: »

The rest of your post makes interesting readingn. From my own experience I have had three cases against separate employers taken to the tribunal route. All of which resulted in substantial settlements out of court. Perhaps I have been lucky? I do fully understand the need to cross every i and dot every t, it was a very long enduring road to make sure I had all the evidence gathered, and I did a great deal of work myself before finally paying a solicitor to take the baton and help me the rest of the way. I do not wish to sound argumentative either and grateful for your passing your knowledge and experience on SarEl.

Lucky maybe, Sure you're not bringing trouble on yourself and playing the system if you have had 3 tribunals with three seperate employers

T800

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Lucky maybe, I can't help think that you bring trouble on yourself if you have had 3 tribunals with three seperate employers

well they didnt get to tribunals, they got settled for many thousands of pounds before. Way I see it is that if I was in the wrong, they would have went to court, won, and claimed their fees against me in a counter claim. They chose not to. I see that as an indicator of guilt, and perhaps, my good preparation and experienced high regarded counsel.

I think if more people were aware of the law, they would also take steps to enforce it against rogue employers.