disciplinary help please - SUSPENDED!!!

Googlewhacker

T800 wrote: »

"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.

Well legally you were not correct were you in trying to take them to an ET over that situation when you could not and we do not know whether you were correct in taking your previous employers to tribunal as they settled out of court and you were making assumptions yourself that they were in the wrong when it has not been proven either way.

Morals go along way in business and peoples careers but obviously we will not agree on this so that will be last word on this.

Googlewhacker

T800 wrote: »

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.

I defiantely agree with this and yes you may as well record it and be told it is inadmissable than not record it at all.

However if the employer finds out they are being recorded they can refuse to carry the ET on.

Also I want to change my statement on disgust, your ethics disgust me but as a Human being I am guessing you probably are a fine person:D

T800

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Well legally you were not correct were you in trying to take them to an ET over that situation when you could not and we do not know whether you were correct in taking your previous employers to tribunal as they settled out of court and you were making assumptions yourself that they were in the wrong when it has not been proven either way.

Morals go along way in business and peoples careers but obviously we will not agree on this so that will be last word on this.

not to take them to an ET, but i am correct that they have broken employment law not to have given me one, which, could eventually lead to potential claims (should I be victimised for example).

My lawyer told me that by settling out it can be seen as an admission of guilt.

I didnt disagree that morals go along way, I simply said "morals are relative" which means that your idea of morals is different from mine.

T800

Googlewhacker wrote: »

However if the employer finds out they are being recorded they can refuse to carry the ET on.

Also I want to change my statement on disgust, your ethics disgust me but as a Human being I am guessing you probably are a fine person:D

Thats why I used to suggest to my clients that they keep it hidden, take out a pen and paper and say "mind if i take some notes for my records" when employer sees just pen and paper they say "of course", at which point your recorder is on and they have legally consented to you recording them. :A

SarEl

Uncertain wrote: »

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.

Certainly, and I did make reference to reasons why employers might prefer to settle. But one has to be cautious about assumptions on any statistics which do not reflect tribunal cases. "Settled" does not mean the employer made a pay out. It means "settled". Nobody knows how many of these may, in fact, have been settled in the "employers favour" because as soon as ACAS become involved then any decision not to proceed, by either side, counts at a "settlement" (rather than a withdrawal).

But you are certainly right to point out that a proportion of cases may be settled before tribunal. The best chance of getting one that is favourable to the employee is to ensure that the case is solid before it gets there. And unfortunately, many employees know so little about the law and their rights at work, that they make glaring errors of judgement or omission - not through any fault of theirs but merely because they don't know any better and too many of them have no union advice (or sometimes, poor union advice).

SarEl

T800 wrote: »

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.

I suggest that you read your potted law again. It does correctly state that the reasonably minded person is used in criminal law - most often, as it says, in negligence rather than general criminal law (although it's a long time since I studied criminal law!). But the idea that it is frequently used is simply untrue, and it does not apply to many areas of law. I correctly stated that it applies to certain aspects of employment law. But it comes to play in only a small range of actual legal processes. There are huge swathes of law, employment law included, to which it is a test that simply does not apply. It is therefore extremely unsafe to assume that simply because you think something is unreasonable that the law, or judges, will too - or even have a choice in the matter.

SarEl

T800 wrote: »

Thats why I used to suggest to my clients that they keep it hidden, take out a pen and paper and say "mind if i take some notes for my records" when employer sees just pen and paper they say "of course", at which point your recorder is on and they have legally consented to you recording them. :A

Whilst there is conficting case law around whether you can or cannot admit secretly recorded transcritions (and it is only the transcriptions that are admitted), I would certainly suggest that this strategy is more likely to make the claimant look duplicitous. Permitting someone to take notes IS NOT giving legal consent to make a secret recording of them. And one of those "reasonably minded people" might just agree. Making a recording in secret you might just get away with in claiming you didn't know it was wrong. Doing so whilst simutaneously drawing attention to the fact that you are making notes (and not mentioing that you are recording it) is lying bu omission and doing so knowingly - why mention that notes if you know you are recording it. If a claimant appears duplicitous over one thing, then the judges may query just what else they are being duplicitous about. And impressions like this can damage your case.

If you are going to do it (and I neither suggest you do or don't) just do it - don't start making up fictions about it.

T800

SarEl wrote: »

Whilst there is conficting case law around whether you can or cannot admit secretly recorded transcritions (and it is only the transcriptions that are admitted), I would certainly suggest that this strategy is more likely to make the claimant look duplicitous. Permitting someone to take notes IS NOT giving legal consent to make a secret recording of them. And one of those "reasonably minded people" might just agree. Making a recording in secret you might just get away with in claiming you didn't know it was wrong. Doing so whilst simutaneously drawing attention to the fact that you are making notes (and not mentioing that you are recording it) is lying bu omission and doing so knowingly - why mention that notes if you know you are recording it. If a claimant appears duplicitous over one thing, then the judges may query just what else they are being duplicitous about. And impressions like this can damage your case.

If you are going to do it (and I neither suggest you do or don't) just do it - don't start making up fictions about it.

You ask the employer if you can take notes, they say yes, you activate your recorder. Its not your fault if they did or didnt know you meant your voice recorder. The police do this all the time, and they are in CRIMINAL courts, where evidence must be of an even higher standard.

being canny is not the same as being dishonest.

You dont need legal consent, as a private individual, to record someones voice.

Shame I have to tell a so called barrister this.

SarEl

T800 wrote: »

You ask the employer if you can take notes, they say yes, you activate your recorder. Its not your fault if they did or didnt know you meant your voice recorder. The police do this all the time, and they are in CRIMINAL courts, where evidence must be of an even higher standard.

being canny is not the same as being dishonest.

You dont need legal consent, as a private individual, to record someones voice.

Shame I have to tell a so called barrister this.

This is complete and utter **** balderdash. And I take offence at your insinuations about my professional skills. You seem to enjoy getting personal whenever anyone (and not just me) points out that you are talking rubbish. You are telling people to do things that are your opinion based on potted internet articles, and passing them off as law. This is not helping anyone. Your opinion is vaild as your experience. Your opinion does not constitute fact and you are misleading people to insist that it is.

The police do not and cannot secretly record people all the time. They require warrants or other enabling instruments under specific statutes in order to make secret recordings of anyone. It is a specific breach of human rights to secretly record others, either visually or aurally. Yu do not even have to know the law to know this - a dose of any criminal drama on TV tells you this. Outside the specific circumstances where surveillance is permitted in law, the police must follow strict guidelines for the recording of evidence, and the recordings must be done openly. I would also point out that the OP's gf is not a member of the police force - why on earth, even if it were true, would what the police do justify her doing it?

Giving permission to take notes is not the same thing as "can I secretly tape record you?". Any "reasonably minded person" - and you like them! - knows that notes are written with a pen and paper. Secret tape recordings are not notes - to argue that they are and that giving permission for notes is to give permission for secret tape recordings is twaddle. It is deliberate doshonesty to knowingly argue this.

You do not need permission to record someone else provided that the recording is for your own personal use and not for distribution or replication for any third party. Case law has extended this law in certain specific circumstances, but case law cannot overule law - it simply adds to it. There have been instances were some courts have accepted transcripts, but not the recordings, of evidence obtained in this way, but it certainly not the general rule. This is why I said that any evidence collected in this way must be a matter of personal decision. Even if it is admitted that does not prevent a particularly litigatious or hell-bent employer from suing the individual for breach of human rights. Plus, if you screw up and get caught doing it, it becomes a further disciplinary charge. People should therefore make such decisions in an informed way knowing the risks that they take.

Uncertain

T800 wrote: »

You ask the employer if you can take notes, they say yes, you activate your recorder. Its not your fault if they did or didnt know you meant your voice recorder. The police do this all the time, and they are in CRIMINAL courts, where evidence must be of an even higher standard.

being canny is not the same as being dishonest.

You dont need legal consent, as a private individual, to record someones voice.

Shame I have to tell a so called barrister this.

I'm sorry but I think your remark directed at SarEl (who's advice is excellent) is totally out of order.

Some of what you say is correct but, with respect, out of context. Also you are putting two and two together and making something other than four.

You are correct that you are not committing any crime by recording, even covertly, any conversation you are party to.

I would also agree that in any difficult meeting having such a recording (providing you don't get caught making it) is better than not having one in that you can decide later whether to reveal its existence.

There is however a strong feeling among many "reasonable" people that this is somehow not cricket. A lot of people are outraged to find out that they have been secretly recorded.

Also, as SarEl correctly points out, whether or not a piece of evidence is admitted is up to the judge (within certain guidelines). I agree entirely with her that the judge will not look kindly on any suggestions of duplicity or dishonesty. He may take the view that two wrongs do not make a right.

SarEl will know better than me but I do not think this has been tested high enough to set a binding precedent in ETs.