disciplinary help please - SUSPENDED!!!

galaxy09

Thanks again for all the comments you have all made, can I just point out that I am going for a grievance hearing and not tribunal.

Uncertain

T800 wrote: »

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.

They can't do that. An ET can award costs (up to a certain limit) against a claimant but only in certain limited circumstances. In effect you would have to do far more than just lose. The ET would have to be of the opinion your case had no merit and should not have been brought or was malicious. Less than 5% of employers who win are awarded costs.

For the reasons both SarEl and I have explained there can be all kinds of reasons why employers choose to settle and the merits of the case may not be anywhere near the top of the list.

You may have had a very good case or maybe they just took the cheaper option?

Uncertain

galaxy09 wrote: »

Thanks again for all the comments you have all made, can I just point out that I am going for a grievance hearing and not tribunal.

At the moment..... !

Googlewhacker

T800 wrote: »

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.

There is a differant between a rogue trader and a company that makes a mistake, I suspect that you would pounce on any company however good they had been to you if they made a mistake.

It's a bit like that thread the other week that had someone trying to take their employer to an ET because they had not had a contract given to them in the 8 weeks alloted time. Now the OP even admitted that the company had been good to them but still thought it morally right to try and wrangle some extra money out of them.

People like that disgust me, I am all for people standing up for their rights if the employer has been a bad employer but when they are decent or make an honest mistake then it's disgraceful.

As for why they settled, there are many reasons, for example whether they win or lose it may cost more money to defend.

T800

Googlewhacker wrote: »

There is a differant between a rogue trader and a company that makes a mistake, I suspect that you would pounce on any company however good they had been to you if they made a mistake.

It's a bit like that thread the other week that had someone trying to take their employer to an ET because they had not had a contract given to them in the 8 weeks alloted time. Now the OP even admitted that the company had been good to them but still thought it morally right to try and wrangle some extra money out of them.

People like that disgust me, I am all for people standing up for their rights if the employer has been a bad employer but when they are decent or make an honest mistake then it's disgraceful.

As for why they settled, there are many reasons, for example whether they win or lose it may cost more money to defend.

That was, er, me actually.

Fact is, they havent been "good to me" to deprive me of my legal rights. It shows that they have little regard for the law. They expect high productivity and standards from me, yet double standards prevail where they dont abide by their legal expectations on the other hand. When "we" (employees) make mistakes, many employers pounce on that and initiate disciplinary (formal legal) measures that can affect that person life long ability to get employment. They have no conscience when it comes to this.

T800

galaxy09 wrote: »

Thanks again for all the comments you have all made, can I just point out that I am going for a grievance hearing and not tribunal.

Make sure you take a voice recorder. Contrary to popular thought - it is admissable as evidence should you need it!

Googlewhacker

T800 wrote: »

That was, er, me actually.

Fact is, they havent been "good to me" to deprive me of my legal rights. It shows that they have little regard for the law. They expect high productivity and standards from me, yet double standards prevail where they dont abide by their legal expectations on the other hand. When "we" (employees) make mistakes, many employers pounce on that and initiate disciplinary (formal legal) measures that can affect that person life long ability to get employment. They have no conscience when it comes to this.

I thought whilst i was writing it that it may have been you, I stand by what I said then and now.

When employees make mistakes you will find more often than not that a simple word to the employee is all that happens rather than the montrous disciplinaries that you seem to believe happens whenever an employee steps out of line.

Legally you may be correct but morally you most likely won't have been, and if it has not stunted your progression through your career I would be amazed.

Googlewhacker

T800 wrote: »

Make sure you take a voice recorder. Contrary to popular thought - it is admissable as evidence should you need it!

This is all dependant on the right to privacy vs the relativeness of the recording and there is no guarantee that it would be used as evidence

T800

Googlewhacker wrote: »

I thought whilst i was writing it that it may have been you, I stand by what I said then and now.

When employees make mistakes you will find more often than not that a simple word to the employee is all that happens rather than the montrous disciplinaries that you seem to believe happens whenever an employee steps out of line.

Legally you may be correct but morally you most likely won't have been, and if it has not stunted your progression through your career I would be amazed.

"may be correct"

lets set that straight, under law im 100% correct.

Morals are relative in this world and have no place really in this discussion im not sure why you insist in casting moral judgements tbh.

T800

Googlewhacker wrote: »

This is all dependant on the right to privacy vs the relativeness of the recording and there is no guarantee that it would be used as evidence

Perhaps, but that doesnt detract from my advice to take one. Surely it is better to obtain the evidence in the hope it will be accepted, than to advise someone NOT to TRY.