disciplinary help please - SUSPENDED!!!

T800

SarEl wrote: »

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.

You seem quite easily rattled. I thought barristers were supposed to be calm and collected people?

Second, I havent told anyone to do anything. I have told them what I have done, anecdotal experience, and also advice my own lawyer gave, all of which ultimately made me win my settlements.

If I said to the employer, "you dont mind if I make a record of this interview to help my memory" and then hold out in front of them a pen and paper, they then say "yes of course".

You then, surreptitously, switch on the recorder. Consent has been given.

In any event, I dont even need their permission - It is preferable but not essential.

Surreptitous recordings have been used in tribunal as evidence against employers with success.

T800

Uncertain wrote: »

Also, as SarEl correctly points out, whether or not a piece of evidence is admitted is up to the judge (within certain guidelines).

Nearly everything is up to the judge, but if the evidence is admissable there is little reason for the judge not to accept it.

SarEl

T800 wrote: »

You seem quite easily rattled. I thought barristers were supposed to be calm and collected people?

Second, I havent told anyone to do anything. I have told them what I have done, anecdotal experience, and also advice my own lawyer gave, all of which ultimately made me win my settlements.

If I said to the employer, "you dont mind if I make a record of this interview to help my memory" and then hold out in front of them a pen and paper, they then say "yes of course".

You then, surreptitously, switch on the recorder. Consent has been given.

In any event, I dont even need their permission - It is preferable but not essential.

Surreptitous recordings have been used in tribunal as evidence against employers with success.

You really go out of your way to be offensive don't you? You are simply trolling this thread to boost your own ego, and have little interest in whether what you tell people to do is correct or going to get them into even deeper water. When you cannot sustain your assertions you resort to personalised comments to win. Sad really.

But you say you haven't told anyone to do anything - what did you mean then when you said "Make sure you take a voice recorder. Contrary to popular thought - it is admissable as evidence should you need it!" That sounds incredibly like telling someone to do something.

But I see that your interest isn't really in helping anyone here, so I won't be responding further other than to correct any information which is wrong. Unfortunately it would appear that this is frequently the case.

T800

SarEl wrote: »

But I see that your interest isn't really in helping anyone here, so I won't be responding further other than to correct any information which is wrong. Unfortunately it would appear that this is frequently the case.

Most lawyers (and i bundle you into this grouping) will always tell people the most safest - worst case scenario option because they dont want the client coming back if something goes wrong.

There is no valid reason you have given to NOT take a voice recorder. Googlewhacker also agrees that it is worth trying.

Googlewhacker

T800 wrote: »

Most lawyers (and i bundle you into this grouping) will always tell people the most safest - worst case scenario option because they dont want the client coming back if something goes wrong.

There is no valid reason you have given to NOT take a voice recorder. Googlewhacker also agrees that it is worth trying.

It should be noted that I am not a trained lawyer and also I said it was worth taking incase it was admissable but I would not be happy to find out I was secretly being recorded.

I personally would not do it myself as to me it is immoral

longwalks1

people, not wanting to break up a fight, but is there any advice for tomorrows GRIEVANCE meeting in London, not tribunial?

T800

britishboy wrote: »

people, not wanting to break up a fight, but is there any advice for tomorrows GRIEVANCE meeting in London, not tribunial?

write down what points you want to bring up. do not be afraid to bring this in and refer to it. Its important you use this opportunity to give every detail you can. Secretly voice record the meeting, refer to my previous information. In all 3 grievance hearings the written version of events I was provided differed in places to what actually was said. You may be asked to sign pages of the transcript, take aslong as you want, ensure everything is correct - including small things such as date and time. Make sure there is no blanks - score these out so nothing can be written in between the remaining text and your signature. Bring preferably a trade union official, failing that another member of staff.

Im not a lawyer bound by professional code of practice, which means that im not bound by the rules and can freely give you my advice on what I think is best to do. It is entirely your choice whether to accept it or not.

This comes from personal experience as an employee - aswell as having been an adviser for a wide range of legal issues with the general public.

SarEl

I broadly agree with the previous advice. You have been warned of the possible consequences of secret recordings and the legal position. I have neither advised for or against this - you make your own decision.

Do not be afraid to ask for an adjournment if you need one - if only for a short break. Make sure any such request, granted or not, is in the notes of the meeting.

Ocasionally employers may try to spring new evidence on you - definitely ask for an adjournment at least - a postponement if you need more time to go through it.


My advice is based on giving people the full range of options available and the possible consequences of those options. The decision as to what to do is the theirs. I am not bound by "rules" other than profesional ethics which are not to mislead or lie to people, or impose my opinion over theirs, or masquerade my personal opinion as fact.

Googlewhacker

I understand where T800 is coming from but I would not be for doing it myself as I would find it immoral.

But as Sar says you have been given the options and it is upto you which way you go

longwalks1

Thanks again people, right another update

Had 1st grievance meeting, then asked to return a week later for the final outcome, and was basically told the company wont be upholding the grievance, the area manager has done nothing wrong.

Interesting point was though, new manager who carried out the grievance (if you can call it that) said they may drop the disciplinary when gf returns to work (if she does), im thinking they know she shouldnt of been suspended in first place, and they're trying to drop the disciplinary in return for dropping the grievance. Doesnt help tho, gf's reputation has obviously bee neffected and doesnt want to work for the same area manager now, can my gf appeal against them throwing the grievance out?

Thanks again everyone, realise this is dragging on loads