Employment Tribunal Office Unresponsive...

greendollar

mooks wrote: »

I saw that one too - it'd be funny if it wasn't so serious...

What I don't understand is why the service itself seems to be such a soft touch. Say you're applying for a job - if you miss the deadline, unless you have a *very* good reason for missing it, then that's it. Why not the same with an ET?

It would more than likely reduce their claims backlog as well - weed out the chancers who sit in the system for years as well as the employers who are trying to hold things up as much as they can. Miss a deadline? Default judgement. Fail to present evidence? Default judgement. Fail to provide a reasonable justification for rearranging a hearing? Default judgement.


Having read case studies where a response was thrown out for being received something like 3 seconds too late, I don't understand how the same doesn't apply (in my case) to the Respondent failing to present a full bundle of documents four months after the deadline - and trying to excuse it by saying 'yes we're a little behind schedule, but it'll all be fine by the time this gets to a hearing'.

Hi mooks ,

I agree entirely ,

Failing to comply with an Order should carry severe consequences .

There are numerous examples of respondants just compiling bundles that omit all of the claimants documents ( as in my case ).

The respondant decides what documents are relevant to the case and ignores Orders to deliver the bundle within a specified time limit further delaying the process .
What happens ? The Tribunal has to conduct a CMD and then Order the respondant to compile a bundle that contains the documents that are essential to a fair hearing .

I was under the impression that both sides had to agree on the bundle NOT the respondant having to be forced to include the claimants documents .

The same applies to dates .
Both sides are supposed to agree/look at dates when both sides are available to attend the hearing .

In my case we've had 5 postponements .

1. the underwriters are busy with another case
2. witness on holiday
3. witness off with stress
4. witness on paternity leave
5. unavailability of witnesses

on top of that an abandoned tribunal due to them failing to comply with the judges Orders .

They've lied and disrupted the process at every stage and continue to get away with it . Very frustrating and must be costing them a fortune .
By now you'd think that the penny might of dropped and I'm not going away .

Googlewhacker

greendollar wrote: »

In my case we've had 5 postponements .

1. the underwriters are busy with another case
2. witness on holiday
3. witness off with stress
4. witness on paternity leave
5. unavailability of witnesses

Don't you think that you are just unlucky with the above or do you think the company have been playing games?

Yockie

zzzLazyDaizy - thank you for that. So, my suspicion was correct –once more logic escapes the ET :p:p At least what I’ve prepared will still be valid :T:money::T

greendollar - at least your Respondent’s bothered to come up with different excuses for the postponements! Mine have used the same trick for all the times they’ve asked for it – the main witness is on holiday! Imagine the audacity. And on top of that they’ve always been granted it – he isn’t incurring any expenses as he is simply visiting with friends/relatives in their homes. But, apparently that is good enough to drag on the whole process by many more months… :shocked::think::doh:

zzzLazyDaisy

Yockie wrote: »

zzzLazyDaizy - thank you for that. So, my suspicion was correct –once more logic escapes the ET :p:p At least what I’ve prepared will still be valid :T:money::T

Actually, it is logical that they should apply the law as it was then, and not the new law that has just been introduced.

Why? Because you are claiming that the way your employer treated you was unlawful. Put simply, the question is did the respondent comply with its legal obligations at that time, since an employer can only act within the law as it exists at the time of the incident complained of.

SarEl

Yockie wrote: »

zzzLazyDaizy - thank you for that. So, my suspicion was correct –once more logic escapes the ET :p:p At least what I’ve prepared will still be valid :T:money::T

greendollar - at least your Respondent’s bothered to come up with different excuses for the postponements! Mine have used the same trick for all the times they’ve asked for it – the main witness is on holiday! Imagine the audacity. And on top of that they’ve always been granted it – he isn’t incurring any expenses as he is simply visiting with friends/relatives in their homes. But, apparently that is good enough to drag on the whole process by many more months… :shocked::think::doh:

Colourful as it is - could you please write in a colour that we can all easily read? Off orange against a white screen is ridiculously hard for some of us to read!!

mooks

greendollar wrote: »

Hi mooks ,

I agree entirely ,

Failing to comply with an Order should carry severe consequences .

There are numerous examples of respondants just compiling bundles that omit all of the claimants documents ( as in my case ).

The respondant decides what documents are relevant to the case and ignores Orders to deliver the bundle within a specified time limit further delaying the process .
What happens ? The Tribunal has to conduct a CMD and then Order the respondant to compile a bundle that contains the documents that are essential to a fair hearing .

I was under the impression that both sides had to agree on the bundle NOT the respondant having to be forced to include the claimants documents .

The same applies to dates .
Both sides are supposed to agree/look at dates when both sides are available to attend the hearing .

In my case we've had 5 postponements .

1. the underwriters are busy with another case
2. witness on holiday
3. witness off with stress
4. witness on paternity leave
5. unavailability of witnesses

on top of that an abandoned tribunal due to them failing to comply with the judges Orders .

They've lied and disrupted the process at every stage and continue to get away with it . Very frustrating and must be costing them a fortune .
By now you'd think that the penny might of dropped and I'm not going away .

My experience has been very similar.

The Respondent has put forward (if memory serves) at least 6 witnesses - 3 of whom are directors with the rest being section heads. What are the chances that all of them will be available at the time when the ET finally sets a date? These people aren't necessarily relevant to my case for unfair dismissal, simply that they were involved in grievances and disciplinaries that showed that the Respondent has form when it comes to not following procedure.

It's been the same story with the Bundle of Documents - when the Respondent first sent a draft bundle, they had conveniently omitted an e-mail that showed my former line manager requesting advice from HR on how to conduct a job evaluation in such a way as to ensure I wasn't automatically assimilated into a new post. I'd supplied the Respondent with all of this information, but it appeared they were being <ahem> selective about what evidence they were including.

The Respondent then sent a handful of documents to add to the Bundle, with yet more documents still missing - before requesting that I withdraw my application to have their ET3 struck out.

The cheek of it... Let's ignore for a second that they still haven't supplied the full Bundle - they still missed the stated deadline by more than three months...

@Yockie - I agree with what's been said so far about your case. Appropriately enough I used to work in equality. If I can be of any help, please feel free to ask or message me.


All the above being said, I'm starting to wonder whether it's worth pushing ahead. If my redundancy was a simple matter of failing to follow procedure, I probably wouldn't have pushed as hard as I have, but my evidence shows that my redundancy was part of a conscious and premeditated effort by the Respondent to either force my resignation or to remove me from my post. I was a high earner (in the £50k+ bracket) but if the likely award will be around the £5k (as other threads have suggested), is it really worth pushing on, when my costs have been more than that?

I can go into more detail about my case if needs be - but thank you in the meantime for all your help.

Googlewhacker

mooks wrote: »

My experience has been very similar.

The Respondent has put forward (if memory serves) at least 6 witnesses - 3 of whom are directors with the rest being section heads. What are the chances that all of them will be available at the time when the ET finally sets a date? These people aren't necessarily relevant to my case for unfair dismissal, simply that they were involved in grievances and disciplinaries that showed that the Respondent has form when it comes to not following procedure.

It's been the same story with the Bundle of Documents - when the Respondent first sent a draft bundle, they had conveniently omitted an e-mail that showed my former line manager requesting advice from HR on how to conduct a job evaluation in such a way as to ensure I wasn't automatically assimilated into a new post. I'd supplied the Respondent with all of this information, but it appeared they were being <ahem> selective about what evidence they were including.

The Respondent then sent a handful of documents to add to the Bundle, with yet more documents still missing - before requesting that I withdraw my application to have their ET3 struck out.

The cheek of it... Let's ignore for a second that they still haven't supplied the full Bundle - they still missed the stated deadline by more than three months...

@Yockie - I agree with what's been said so far about your case. Appropriately enough I used to work in equality. If I can be of any help, please feel free to ask or message me.


All the above being said, I'm starting to wonder whether it's worth pushing ahead. If my redundancy was a simple matter of failing to follow procedure, I probably wouldn't have pushed as hard as I have, but my evidence shows that my redundancy was part of a conscious and premeditated effort by the Respondent to either force my resignation or to remove me from my post. I was a high earner (in the £50k+ bracket) but if the likely award will be around the £5k (as other threads have suggested), is it really worth pushing on, when my costs have been more than that?

I can go into more detail about my case if needs be - but thank you in the meantime for all your help.

See if you can speak to SarEl, the 5-10k normally relates to people that earn alot less than you and I would have thought your compensation (if you get any) would be more if you were earning more but as I said get some proper advice.

SarEl

The level of compensation depends on a lot of things - including financial loss. So higher wage earners would tend to get more (most of the high awards are higher wage earners - especially in unfair dismissal). The other things taken into account can include mitigation of loss - whether you have obtaned or made enough effort to obtain other employment; how serious a breach of law was made; and (sometimes) how !!!!ed off the tribunal is with the respondant.

The issues you are having with bundles are a hazard of representing yourself. It doesn't happen with legally represented claimants because we (the lawyers) make our own bundles. The idea behind making the respondant solcitors do the bundles is to take the pressure off the claimant who won't have access to photocopiers or resources to pay for copies (which can be large documents). It's a good idea in principle but it does lead to these problems.

mooks

SarEl wrote: »

The level of compensation depends on a lot of things - including financial loss. So higher wage earners would tend to get more (most of the high awards are higher wage earners - especially in unfair dismissal). The other things taken into account can include mitigation of loss - whether you have obtaned or made enough effort to obtain other employment; how serious a breach of law was made; and (sometimes) how !!!!ed off the tribunal is with the respondant.

The issues you are having with bundles are a hazard of representing yourself. It doesn't happen with legally represented claimants because we (the lawyers) make our own bundles. The idea behind making the respondant solcitors do the bundles is to take the pressure off the claimant who won't have access to photocopiers or resources to pay for copies (which can be large documents). It's a good idea in principle but it does lead to these problems.

Now this is getting very interesting for me - thank you again for being so supportive.

As far as I'm aware, the Respondent has not produced any documents that I do not or didn't already have in my possession. [edited out]

But be that as it may - the only reason I haven't printed my own Bundle of Documents is because of the Respondent's conduct.

[edited out]

If I were to compile an Index of Evidence that was clear where the Respondent's documentation was included, sent it to the Respondent and asked them to agree that this was to be the content of the final Bundle, if they agreed to this, would this close the chapter on the to-ing and fro-ing I've been doing regarding the Respondent's failure to provide the bundle?

I appreciate I've simplified things a great deal, but surely it would at least show I'm trying to support the process, and that this would be juxtaposed with the Respondent's obstinacy.

zzzLazyDaisy

Just to clarify, are the documents on your list ones that are already in the respondent's possession, even if they have chosen not to produce them?

If that is the case, then they are being unreasonable.

If these are documents that are only in your possession and they have never seen them then (as far as I know) you are obliged to provide paper copies if asked.

As SarEL says, you would not normally be expected to produce a paginated bundle, as that is normally the respondent's job, but you would normally be expected to provide an itemised list (it seems you already have done this?)

Your first port of call should be the Order for Directions that should have been issued by the tribunal seeting out the steps that each party should take and when.

If the above comments don't help you, I think I'd write to the tribunal with a copy of their letter and a copy of the DVD, and explain that you have provided copies of all your documents in electronic format for the respondent to print off, but the respondent has refused to accept them and/or to include them in the bundle and seek the tribunal's assistance in this matter. With a bit of luck the tribunal may just tell the respondent to get on with it.

EDIT - if you can compile an index to a bundle of documents incorporating both their docs and yours, then provided they do in fact have copies of all the documents, they should agree the bundle. So perhaps the first step would be to provide them with the index, remind them of the deadline for providing the bundle and ask them to forward the bundle within (say) seven days, failing which you will seek the assistance of the tribunal. Then write to the tribunal with teh copy correspondence as outlined above

hth