Update following appeal.....

Uncertain

claire0710 wrote: »

No, it was only on Friday so I was going to wait until the end of this week for any contact.
I left on 13th May and got my final payslip and payment in the bank on same day as appeal.
I asked ACAS about what I would do if they offered me my job back (highly unlikely!) and they said it would be reasonable to refuse on the grounds that the trust and working relationship has been destroyed and therefore it's an intolerable situation. It wouldn't affect my chances of claiming at an ET either.
Lets see what next week brings...!

Excellent!

Uncertain

I would be amazed if the small print doesn't let them take over and settle the claim if they choose. Otherwise, if you think about it, you could have a situation where the client company insists they do large amounts of work and incur huge costs defending a tiny claim to the bitter end.

I would be very interested to know more about how (and how well) these type of setups work. Often when you see claims of high success rates in court / tribunal cases, this is because they only let the ones that they are almost certain of winning get that far!

The average ET award is around £5K (and is is only the odd exception that makes the headlines). Also, employers are awarded costs in less than 10% of lost claims (and even then this is capped and normally a token amount). You really do have to wonder how, in business terms, it makes sense for most claims to be allowed to get that far.

Weirdlittleman

I agree with JDTurk re the rep. They have no right to speak other than the initial address and as such if they wish to do so further need to request permission. Dependent on this the process can be argued to be different hence the company may have held it in a different way or different people.

As for the OP - I think your overall argument is flawed. If the company has managed to see the opportunity to eliminate your role and get the work done by someone else this doesnt mean you are not redundant. It simply means the company couldnt justify a role for just your work and could roll it up elsewhere.

Dependent on the circumstances for this depends on whether a pool should exist. If they simply felt the work could be rolled up to a current employee in addition to their own job (be they senior or junior) then I would argue unless this person was doing the same job then their thinking was correct; companies cant be expected to maintain full time roles that the work doesnt exist for.

You say someone else now does your job? who does their old job? If the answer is as I expect they still do it then I think a redundancy does exist and that given you dont have the same job title etc justification and the pool would be quite easy to do.

The directors behaviour isnt acceptable but you arent going to win an ET just because he shouted at you.

dickydonkin

The directors behaviour isnt acceptable but you arent going to win an ET just because he shouted at you.

Nobody is suggesting that - but the reality is that there has been a dismissal by means of redundancy and the correct procedures have to be adopted to avoid retribution.

The appeal itself is a sham - and not just because the Director raised his voice!

Uncertain

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

I agree with JDTurk re the rep. They have no right to speak other than the initial address and as such if they wish to do so further need to request permission. Dependent on this the process can be argued to be different hence the company may have held it in a different way or different people.

Sorry, but I think you are both making far too much of this point. Suppose he began his remarks "If I may I would just like to make the following points......" or "With your permission Mr Chairman........." or "Perhaps I can help us here......" then you can argue that, unless he was clearly told no, he has obtained permission! At the end of the day these are just figures of speech and there are plenty of others to the same effect.

The fact that the director behaved so badly at the end of the meeting could be argued to suggest he didn't conduct the meeting properly and was prejudiced.

Weirdlittleman

Uncertain wrote: »

Sorry, but I think you are both making far too much of this point. Suppose he began his remarks "If I may I would just like to make the following points......" or "With your permission Mr Chairman........." or "Perhaps I can help us here......" then you can argue that, unless he was clearly told no, he has obtained permission! At the end of the day these are just figures of speech and there are plenty of others to the same effect.

The fact that the director behaved so badly at the end of the meeting could be argued to suggest he didn't conduct the meeting properly and was prejudiced.

As I said I dont agree.
Employment law states that representatives shouldnt speak throughout without permission therefore I would expect them to seek permission if they were to contravene this like with every other part of employment law that allows opt out etc on the employees behalf.

Quite clearly in this case it wasnt welcome and would have been declined therefore I fail to see why the company should have to reiterate their legal rights before every hearing just to ensure they are entitled to them, the employee doesnt.

dickydonkin

Employment law states that representatives shouldnt speak throughout without permission.

It would be interesting to know what part of employment law states this, although I do accept that many company policies adopt the 'permission' stance. Is it a requirement stipulated under employment law or just guidance?

I stand to be corrected, but I was under the impression that a companion may address the hearing to put your case, sum up your case or respond on your behalf to any view expressed at the hearing.

He or she may confer during the hearing but does not have the right to answer questions on your behalf or address the hearing if you do not want him or her to do so, or prevent anyone, including you, from making his or her contribution to the hearing.

But if the whole procedure has been a sham from the onset, the arguments relating to the appeal will transpire to be irrelevant in any case.

getmore4less

claire0710 wrote: »

....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:

Looks to me that the rep was just confering and not addressing the meeting.

Perfectly reasonable to point out to the person you are accompanying that there may be a process issue THEY might want to discuss further.

If those in the meeting happen to hear that it is your choice

Can be effective.

mariefab

16. The companion should be allowed to address the hearing to put and
sum up the worker’s case, respond on behalf of the worker to any views
expressed at the meeting and confer with the worker during the hearing.
The companion does not, however, have the right to answer questions on
the worker’s behalf, address the hearing if the worker does not wish it or
prevent the employer from explaining their case.

^ From the ACAS code of practice.

dickydonkin

mariefab wrote: »

16. The companion should be allowed to address the hearing to put and

sum up the worker’s case, respond on behalf of the worker to any views
expressed at the meeting and confer with the worker during the hearing.
The companion does not, however, have the right to answer questions on
the worker’s behalf, address the hearing if the worker does not wish it or
prevent the employer from explaining their case.

^ From the ACAS code of practice.

So, is it guidance, an ACOP, or specifically stipulated in employment law as suggested earlier?

Does the employer have any way of raising a grievance against this rep?

I would suspect that any inappropriate behaviour from the union rep during any part of a redundancy process would be frowned upon by a tribunal and dealt with the same way as the employer would be in similar circumstances.

There is also the option of the employer placing a grievance or complaint to the General Secretary of the union involved, but I would imagine that will have the same effect as an employee raising a grievance with an employer.

From experience, usually with little or no response or a denial that anything has been untoward.