Update following appeal.....

Uncertain

jdturk wrote: »

It does amaze me how the anti employer posters on here cannot just admit that a union rep made a mistake, not a massive one but a mistake all the same in following procedure and if it was the other way around you would all be jumping on the employer for making a mistake.

I don't think he made a mistake at all.

It could be argued that if, by working at the edges of what is allowed, he provoked the employer to behave badly then he did a very good job indeed.

After all, this is what lawyers do in court all the time. Make a point that is not really allowed and when the judge points it out says "I'm terribly sorry your honour, I will withdraw that question". If the judge fails to point it out then better still!

dickydonkin

Uncertain wrote: »

I don't think he made a mistake at all.

It could be argued that if, by working at the edges of what is allowed, he provoked the employer to behave badly then he did a very good job indeed.

After all, this is what lawyers do in court all the time. Make a point that is not really allowed and when the judge points it out says "I'm terribly sorry your honour, I will withdraw that question". If the judge fails to point it out then better still!

I have to agree.

Certainly when I represented colleagues, I would raise issues during hearings, and yes, there were many occasions when rattles were thrown out of the pram by management when they could not accept criticism or points that were raised that they did not agree with.

Certain members of staff had very abrasive management styles so on occasions, you had to fight like for like and knowing their weaknesses (usually it was an adverse reaction to highlighting their shortcomings in a disciplinary or redundancy hearing), you could gain a small victory when the manager or HR person 'lost it' which was a common occurence.

As Uncertain has hinted, that is the way it works (rightly or wrongly) and unless any ground rules are stipulated prior to any hearing, the employer cannot complain when he hears things towards the end of a hearing s/he doesn't want to hear from an employee's representative.

I have yet to be convinced any aspect of employment law has been broken as suggested earlier in this thread. I have looked at the TUC link provided earlier and although it stipulates that 'The law is clear' on what the representative can and cannot do, it seems a little vague to me.

There are many other facets of redundancy procedures that are mentioned by ACAS such as asking for volunteers as a means of avoiding redundancies, but that requirement is not stipulated anywhere in employment law as far as I know.

No legislation has been breached if an employer fails to adopt this however, I accept it is good practice but I believe it is not an absolute legal requirement, therefore it is reasonable to assume that the OP's rep has done nothing wrong in respect of employment law if there were no stipulations in force prior to the hearing commencing.

mariefab

Since the repeal of the statutory dispute resolution procedures, the ACAS code is guidance rather than an ACOP. But with the kicker that failure to follow the code can result in an uplift in any subsequent Tribunal award.

Although references to the statutory right to be accompanied and the role of the companion litter the web I can't find a recent legislative update.

All I can offer is the Employment Relations Act 1999.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1999/ukpga_19990026_en_1#pb3-l1g10

Uncertain

Which clearly confirms that the union rep (Dad) did not act outside the legislation!

Depending on which guidelines you read he was either well within them or, just possibly, a little close to the edge (although I maintain that the chairman not telling him to be quiet amounts to permission for these purposes - even if he needed it)!

Weirdlittleman

Uncertain wrote: »

Which clearly confirms that the union rep (Dad) did not act outside the legislation!

Depending on which guidelines you read he was either well within them or, just possibly, a little close to the edge (although I maintain that the chairman not telling him to be quiet amounts to permission for these purposes - even if he needed it)!

Why?
Would you say the OP not saying no to breaking WTD, no breaks, no holiday pay etc would be permission?

You cant have two different standards

You also need to consider whether a breach of the guidelines leading to an uplift in compo could also been a reduction in compo.

Overall the dad should of shut up and I dont think the OP has done themselves any favour here as they are yet to confirm what their appeal argument was, how it was presented and so on.

To me it sounds like the OP appealed but didnt produce any valid argument or evidence to support it hence had no chance of winning in the first place.

dickydonkin

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

Why?
Would you say the OP not saying no to breaking WTD, no breaks, no holiday pay etc would be permission?

You are being silly now.

Using your analogy - do you agree that when an employee has not been issued a contract of employment or a contract has been varied and that employee continues to work those conditions for a prolonged period of time - does that become a legal implied contract?

Or not?

claire0710

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

Why?
Would you say the OP not saying no to breaking WTD, no breaks, no holiday pay etc would be permission?

You cant have two different standards

You also need to consider whether a breach of the guidelines leading to an uplift in compo could also been a reduction in compo.

Overall the dad should of shut up and I dont think the OP has done themselves any favour here as they are yet to confirm what their appeal argument was, how it was presented and so on.

To me it sounds like the OP appealed but didnt produce any valid argument or evidence to support it hence had no chance of winning in the first place.[/QUOTE]

The appeal arguement was that the work I was doing is still there. I went on maternity leave and the work was covered by 2 members of staff. Since I returned the 'bookkeeper' has had her work took off her and given to the accountants making the major part of her job redundant (not mine) - they have now given the major part of my role to her and the supervisory part is being carried out by the director. My arguement is since both of our jobs have changed and what remains is one full time role we should both have been assessed for this position. This is clarified further in a letter from the director stating the office is being restructured which further supports my arguement that everyone involved in that type of work should have been 'at risk' and therefore assessed for the job remaining.
There was no redundancy process or criteria in writing- during the appeal the director said that he and the other director went through the 'process' and assessed me but there is no evidence to support this. Also the directors involved in the redundancy 'process' should not have been involved in the appeal hearing so it is immediately flawed.
I was also asked to put forward proposals for avoiding redundancy - which I did - myself and another colleague offered to job share, I offered to reduce my hours also but none were given consideration. I believe these were fair proposals and why ask for them if there is no intention to consider them?
I have discussed my case at length with ACAS and also with an employment law specialist who genuinly believe I have a good case against the company.

Weirdlittleman

You are missing though the fact companies can restructure. Your appeal should of focussed on why there should have been a selection pool and criteria etc rather than just the fact your work still exists.

For example if they identified your work and hers could be combined and her job couldnt be done by you but she could do yours this would be reasonable. You should have focused on proving that it wasnt fair just to give the job to her (rather than just saying that)

As for the next bit. They only have to consider proposals. Can you prove they didnt.

As for your employment law specialist. Have they agreed to take on your case? What are the terms of the agreement to do so.

I personally think you didnt use your appeal properly and instead ranted without setting out the grounds of your appeal which will go against you as how could a company give consideration to an appeal that wasnt made properly...

claire0710

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

You are missing though the fact companies can restructure. Your appeal should of focussed on why there should have been a selection pool and criteria etc rather than just the fact your work still exists.

For example if they identified your work and hers could be combined and her job couldnt be done by you but she could do yours this would be reasonable. You should have focused on proving that it wasnt fair just to give the job to her (rather than just saying that)

As for the next bit. They only have to consider proposals. Can you prove they didnt.

As for your employment law specialist. Have they agreed to take on your case? What are the terms of the agreement to do so.

I personally think you didnt use your appeal properly and instead ranted without setting out the grounds of your appeal which will go against you as how could a company give consideration to an appeal that wasnt made properly...

* I did indeed bring up the fact that there was no selection criteria or pool. The director stated they discussed this but could not provide evidence to support this process.
* There is no mention in any of the subsequent letters or meeting minutes that any consideration was given to my proposals.
*The employment specialist has been allocated to me through my insurance company, I had to fill out assessment forms and send copies through of letters etc before they agreed to take on my case which they have now done.
* I fail to see how you can summise that I 'ranted' during my appeal. I was extremely calm and factual, looking at the minutes the director barely spoke more than 3 sentences one of which was to call me names.

dickydonkin

I personally think you didnt use your appeal properly and instead ranted without setting out the grounds of your appeal which will go against you as how could a company give consideration to an appeal that wasnt made properly...

And how can an employee consider not taking her employer to tribunal when a redundancy procedure 'wasn't made properly'?

If it transpires that the total procedure from the onset was flawed, the appeal will be of little significance as it will deemed a sham in any case.

The quality or structure of an appeal would not detract from the fact that if the OP has been unfairly selected for redundancy, a tribunal will find in her favour irrespective of an appeal that "wasn't made properly".