Update following appeal.....

claire0710

....following on from my previous threads I thought I would update you on my appeal hearing yesterday.
It went really badly but I am hoping it will work in my favour! The director who carried out the appeal was like a fish out of water, he had no idea what he was doing. He had no real answers to my questions but did admit that my job was 'being done by someone else so it has gone'! I said that I should have been assessed against this person and said I was - by the 2 directors - but there is no evidence to support this at his own admission.
Towards the end of the meeting he got quite agitated when my union rep suggested that the process had been carried out poorly and was flawed - he took that as a personal criticism and told my rep to 'keep his mouth shut' then he stormed out of the meeting room into the office full of people and shouted back at me that I was 'a professional p**s taker'!!

I was so shocked at his outburst but then I realised that in actual fact he has incriminated the company somewhat by admitting that the job is still there and they have no proof that an assessment was carried out.

I have received the minutes from the note taker and it is all there in black & white - I hope this means I have a stronger case for an ET now!:rotfl::rotfl:

claire0710

I understand what you're saying about the rep - however it wasn't really meant to be a criticism, he never really got to finish what he was saying in that it was clear from a union point of view that the correct process had not been followed but he was interupted before he could finish.
Rep's are allowed to address the hearing in order to sum up the workers case - this is what he was doing really, he was simply stating that I thought the selection process was unfair.

Another interesting point in the notes is that the director states that he and '****' were involved in making the decision about my redundancy but that '****' was now doing my job! As far as I am aware this is not allowed.

Anyhow, I will wait for the letter from the company to see what they have to say. The person taking the minutes was a trainee solicitor working for the company's solicitors so I guess they will be advising them in due course.

reech

A union rep can only advise based on policy and procedure. They were quite entitled to say that a policy had not been followed properly, and that it was flawed. It's something I've pointed out at the place I work when things haven't run as they should have done (for both company AND member!).

Policies for assessment, redundancy and dismissal are there to protect the company from action against it, and make sure that the person it is being applied to at least have understanding of why it happens. When things don't go right, it can be useful the rep pointing out flaws, to help fix and repair and move things along. But with someone having a hissy fit and storming off - well, at least it wasn't *you* doing that!

claire0710

Exactly - my rep was actually trying to help him out by stating (or at least he would have done if he had chance to finish) that unless the appeal process is followed correctly and they prove the redundancy process has been followed they are leaving themselves open to an ET.
However, for the director to have such a hissy fit and actually take it out into the office just demonstrated how unprofessional he has been during the whole process.
My rep and I stayed in the conference room to make sure the notes were completed and the outburst noted then I passed on my e-mail address for her to send the minutes - all the time he was in the office ranting and raving and calling me a 'p**s taker' - I just kept my cool, thanked the minute taker and left, what more could I do??!! Madness!

ceridwen

Thanks for the update and look forward to further updates as this progresses.

As you say - at least you "kept your cool" and had the nous to get the minutes completed and hissy fit noted.

Uncertain

jdturk wrote: »

What can your companion do at the hearing?

Again, the law is clear on this. The companion may make an opening address on your behalf at the beginning of the hearing. After that they cannot address the hearing again unless your employer agrees. However you may confer at any time, and they can take detailed notes of the hearing which will be very useful if your case ever goes to appeal or ends up in an Employment Tribunal or other court.

http://www.tuc.org.uk/tuc/rights_alone.cfm

It says they can only make the opening address so was this the case?

It could be argued that unless the employer tells them not to speak the moment they open their mouth then the employer has agreed. Also, if what they said is in the minutes and there is no record of the employer asking them to be quiet then this is further evidence of agreement.

OP, I would file an immediate grievance against the director for his abusive outburst in front of witnesses. You could take legal advice if this amounts to slander.

If they behave like this I would pile the pressure on and screw them for every last thing you can.

Uncertain

jdturk wrote: »

As far as I am aware your Union Rep (your dad wasn't it) was only there to make notes and be eyes and ears, not to criticise how things had been going.

So whilst you have not showered yourself in glory it does sound like they have not either. If everything you have said is true then yup I think they have put themself in big trouble. They should have said there were differances in the job and then it would have made the decision for you harder.

If they had a solicitor I would suspect they would be now telling the bosses to have a compromised agreement depending on how damning the minutes are

I don't see why the OP has "not showered herself in glory". The director was running the meeting and should have run it properly. Ignorance is no excuse.

As I said in an earlier post they must have absolutely hated the fact that they were legally obliged to have the OP's Dad present (as he happened to be an accredited union rep)!

Still, given that they were in a hole you would have thought they would have had the common sense not to keep digging.

sagalout1954

Surely whether or not the rep was allowed to speak depends on what meeting you're at! In this case I would say the rep should not ask or answer questions of behalf of Claire, but certainly should not be told to "keep his mouth shut" when pointing out the proceedings were flawed. Though I would wonder why he waited until the end to say it assuming he meant that specific procedures had not been followed.

claire0710

My rep has been attending hearings such as these for 15 years so I presume he knew exactly what he could and couldn't say and at what moment. Really that is not what is at issue here - the main point is that the director has admitted that the person now doing my job was involved in the redundancy process clearly making it fall into the category of unfair dismissal. For a redundancy to be genuine the work has to stop, in this case my job is still there and being done by someone else.
I think I have a good case to take this further and his unprofessional outburst has done him no favours and just shows how out of depth he was in dealing with the whole process.
Acas have advised me to consider their pre-claim conciliation service before at ET as often this resolves things quicker. Will keep you posted.

Uncertain

claire0710 wrote: »

Acas have advised me to consider their pre-claim conciliation service before at ET as often this resolves things quicker. Will keep you posted.

Yes, this has to be well worth a try.

I would expect (well at least hope) the firm will see some sense once the dust settles and look towards a settlement. They will know that this will cost them quite a lot if this goes to an ET even if they somehow manage to win (which seems most unlikely)! Come what may this won't be amongst the 5% of cases where the employer is awarded some costs! So from the employer's point of view they are looking at cutting their losses.

Arguably therefore you should be looking for a settlement of MORE than you might expect an ET to award.

Best of luck.

Uncertain

jdturk wrote: »

I agree and I have said in previous posts that the company have not done the correct thing and I do think they will need to pay out.

However I was just showing that if procedures need to be followed then they need to be followed on both sides and it does not sound like they were done by the OP's rep.

The OP hasn't showered themselves in glory if their rep cannot obey procedure....however the point in the scheme of things seems minor and the company sound like they are in the wrong.

Uncertain, the company are using Peninsula who pay for all costs attributed to the employment tribunal (as long as the company have followed Peninsula's instruction) so it could be that if it goes to the ET the company will only pay the fine if there is one.

I doubt if Peninsula's instructed the director to storm out of the meeting shouting abuse in front of other staff!

Also, based on what we have been told, I fail to see that the union rep (Dad!) failed to act properly. If the director didn't want him to speak (and felt he had the legal right) then he should have politely asked him to be quiet. If he ignored this request THEN I would agree with you. The rules that you quote don't say he must not speak after his opening statement, just that he does not have the legal right to insist on doing so.