Employment Tribunal Office Unresponsive...

greendollar

Googlewhacker wrote: »

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

Hi GW ,

Unlucky ?
Definately not , the respondants were asked to check their schedules to ensure that they would be available on certain dates .
You can't tell me that it slipped the area managers mind that his missus was due to drop around that time can you ?
Then at the abandoned Triibunal they were again asked if they would be available for the Sept dates , nods all around but as soon as the dates were confirmed the request for a postponement goes in and is granted .

mooks

Thank you - this is really helpful. I'll go through the points in turn...

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

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.

[edited out]

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

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.

[edited out]

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

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?)

I have indeed - my Index of Evidence was sent back in March, long in advance of the ET's deadline. Along with that I made the first offer to the Respondent of the evidence in electronic format on a DVD, which they subsequently ignored. When the Respondent sent their Index, it amounted to three or four corporate policies - all of which was already listed on my Index.

[edited out]

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

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.

I followed mine to the letter - Index of Evidence, Schedule of Loss, number of witnesses etc. The Respondent's deadline to subsequently provide the Bundle of Documents was the 1st of June, and [edited out] they've still not provided all of it in a Bundle - first of all they didn't provide anything until the end of July, and even then key documents have been missing each time they've sent revisions.

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

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.

I sent off the DVD with all of the evidence on it to the Tribunal in the middle of September, with the intention of providing evidence that I had made a reasonable effort to provide the Respondent with a clearly laid out evidence file. Just as with earlier correspondence though, I've received no response from the Tribunal office.

To date, the only letter they've responded to was my application to strike out the Respondent's ET3 response, and the deadline for response to that was [edited out]. The Respondent contested the application to strike out, but I've heard nothing since that date from the tribunal office themselves.

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

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

Will do - it's a logical step and again shows willing on my part to make things as straightforward as possible.

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

hth

Definitely... :A

zzzLazyDaisy

Okay, sounds like a plan - when you do that, you should enclose actual copies of any documents that you wish to rely on that are not already in your former employer's possession.

Any documents that are on your list that were addressed to, or originated from, your former employer should be available to them (and therefore to the solicitor). But if they are unable for some reason to locate their own copy of the relevant document, they can always print it off from the digital copy previously provided by you.

mooks

Thank you LazyDaisy - the letter will be going off to the Respondent tomorrow.

I've spent the past day or so trying to make my case watertight from a legislative perspective, and was hoping for some advice in terms of the unfairness of the redundancy.

The case itself is more complex than I'm putting it here, but I'm trying to keep things simple to start...

Firstly, I'm trying to understand how to present part of my complaint with a firm foundation in law. [edited out] My understanding is that the employer has to demonstrate that the process they followed that resulted in redundancy was fair - but even if they followed the statutory redundancy process to the letter (which I don't believe they actually did...), the process as a whole was inherently unfair because [edited out]

Is this for the Tribunal Panel to rule on, and it's simply a matter of my presenting the information to them, or do I have to specifically state where in legislation this conduct resulted in my being unfairly dismissed by way of redundancy?

Secondly - most of the case law and advice I'm coming across states that the redundancy is automatically unfair if the employer fails to follow the minimum statutory dismissal procedure or fails to follow a fair selection procedure. Can anyone tell me where this is enshrined in law? There's plenty out there on redundancy after protected disclosures, as a result of TU membership, working time directives etc, but I can't see anything that specifically refers to the above.

[edited out]

I really appreciate any help anyone can give me - while on paper, my redundancy was definitely 'unfair' on moral grounds, I want to make absolutely sure that I can present a strong case on legal grounds.

If anyone needs any clarification or extra information, please let me know. Sorry if all this comes across as confused - I've been reading the Employment Rights Act and other bits of legislation most of today, so my thinking's a bit muddled.

viktory

mooks wrote: »

Crikey...

What were the specifics of your case - if you don't mind me asking? Which Tribunal centre is this?

Our case was a straightforward unfair dismissal to be held at Bury St Edmunds.

mooks

viktory wrote: »

Our case was a straightforward unfair dismissal to be held at Bury St Edmunds.

I'm hoping now that I've essentially resolved the one thing that appeared to be holding the case up - while showing reasonableness at the same time - things might move on a little.

In reference to my last post, I do appreciate that the burden of proof is on the Respondent, but any case law or reference to statute would be incredibly useful...

Thanks again everyone for all your support.

zzzLazyDaisy

mooks wrote: »

Secondly - most of the case law and advice I'm coming across states that the redundancy is automatically unfair if the employer fails to follow the minimum statutory dismissal procedure.

Just so we can rule out any red herrings... the law relating to statutory dismissal procedures was repealed in April 2009, so if you were dismissed after that you can ignore anything you have read about statutory dismissal procedures.

That's not to say they weren't obliged to follow a fair prodecure, just that the statutory procedures that were for a short time enshrined in law (and proved for the most part to be unworkable/unenforceable) no longer apply.

mooks

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Just so we can rule out any red herrings... the law relating to statutory dismissal procedures was repealed in April 2009, so if you were dismissed after that you can ignore anything you have read about statutory dismissal procedures.

That's not to say they weren't obliged to follow a fair prodecure, just that the statutory procedures that were for a short time enshrined in law (and proved for the most part to be unworkable/unenforceable) no longer apply.

Thank you - these are exactly the kinds of things I need to be hearing. I don't want to get to the hearing and find I'm relying on outdated legislation.

[edited out]

Am I being too focussed? I mean, a rational, reasonable person can see that the way I was dismissed was unfair, and I know that you can't legislate for every eventuality, but is it enough to say [edited out] and leave it at that?

zzzLazyDaisy

mooks wrote: »

As I've said in an earlier post, I can prove that my employer engineered the entire redundancy process so as to ensure I was dismissed - the aim now is to ensure I have more than the moral argument to say that the dismissal was unfair.

You are very wise to be alert to the difference between 'morally unfair' and 'legally unfair' (many unrepresented claimants can't make the distinction, perhaps understandably, but it does make for a long and tedious hearing at times!)

First thing to be aware of is that if you are representing yourself, the Tribunal Judge has a dual role. He is there to make sure the law is followed when the panel make the decision on the facts, but he is also required to assist the claimant to present his case so that the legal points are covered. So he may ask you additional questions if the legal 'blanks' need filling in. Whereas if you are represented - even if it is your deaf old aunt suffering with dementia - he can't assist in the presentation of your case. So you are better off with no representative, than a rubbish one!

You are not required to give case references etc - you are not a lawyer, and (to lawyers at least) the law on redundancy isn't complicated - the Judge will be familiar with the law.

In simple terms, the respondent needs to show that:

1) there was a genuine redundancy situation - this may be that:

• your actual role within the company had ceased to exist; Or
• that the employer's need for the number of people to do particular work had ceased or diminished; Or
• that the workplace had closed down

2) that a fair procedure was carried out in selecting you for redundancy; (if there were a number of people at risk and a selection procedure was carried out, that must be fair and unbiased, and they must have given you the opportunity to comment on the outcome before making the final decision to make you redundant) and

3) that they considered all other alternatives, such as redeployment, offering you the opportunity to apply for other roles within the organisation, etc, before making the final decision to dismiss you.

So basically, that is how you need to structure your statement/evidence, so the tribunal can see where you are going with this.

Also, when they give their evidence, you will be given the opportunity to cross examine (you will have seen their statements before the hearing, so you will have a head start). If their witnesses say things that suggest they DID follow the above procedures, and you do not agree with them, you should question them (unemotionally, just make the point and move on - for the most part they are not going to agree with you, but you need to make the tribunal aware of the points that you differ on). If you have documents that contradict what they are saying, that's great - you just ask them to turn to page (??) of the bundle point and ask them to explain how this fits in with what they have just told the tribunal (or words to that effect).

We can deal with how to run the tribunal hearing later - but do bear in mind that Tribunal hearings are open to the public - if you have some free time, I very much recommend taking a trip to the tribunal and asking the clerk if you can sit in on an unfair dismissal claim - if it relates to redundancy so much the better, but really any unfair dismissal claim will give you a fair idea (though avoid a constructive dismissal claim as the order of evidence is different, and it would probably confuse you).

hth

PS - the above notes are a VERY potted summary.....

mooks

Ok - this is definitely helping...

I can go into more detail if needs be, but the situation that led to my redundancy was a restructure. [edited out]

[edited out]

This is where my concern from earlier posts comes into play - I can find no legal precedent that says that you cannot manipulate a restructure and regrading so as to ensure an employee is made redundant - even though such conduct would prejudice the entire process.

My question is, even if the Tribunal accepts my claim that the entire process was rendered unfair by this conduct, what are the legal grounds for such a claim? To allow the Respondent's claim that the redundancy was fair would be to set a dangerous precedent, in that an employer could simply manipulate a restructure so as to dismiss whomever they want.