ET1 - employement tribunal - tape conversation- help!

turbulent

Hi,
I have just been dismissed by my employeer after 5yrs.
A very large motor dealers.
I had a new boss start who started piling work on that i could not cope with doing.He sent me a disiplinary letter.
I taped the disiplinary meeting; but left it running by accident (true).
It was held in my office, my boss asked to use the office after to write the letter.
It recorded him using a lot of 'F' words and 'C' words to discribe me to his boss; the man i had to appeal to.
It also recorded him offering my job to a colleague.
This was after the 1st disiplinary, before i was dismissed.
Problem; how do I introduce the tape and get it allowed in a the ET1 and the following tribunial??

any one out there got legal advise???

jazzyman01

You do not state whether you taped the disciplinary hearing with/without the agreement of your boss. If you did have his permission, then I would suggest it was down to him to ensure that the taping ended when you left the office. After all, it would have been in plain view?

November5th

Hello, I am going through a tribunal and using a recording of a meeting. In my research I found that I could only use a recording where I was present, so the recording after you left the room will not be admissible to the tribunal.

However, it may contain useful bits of information to help you build your case?

DVardysShadow

Write up the conversation from memory. Obviously, your memory is not going to be different from the tape.... Don't do a transcript but do make sure you have a few memorable quotes.

Submit your notes as evidence, state that a tape is available and how this came about. The other side will have difficulty calling you a liar, particularly if you have toned it down rather than succumb to the temptation to beef it up.

But double check this suggestion with what people who have court experience have to say.

Edit: You weren't there? OK, I would go for a narrative that you heard the tape when you got home and discovered ....

southendwill

This may be relevent

www.thomasmore.co.uk/ImageLibrary/Inpractice_APorter.pdf

SarEl

This is a very grey area, and in employment tribunals there is no consistant policy. Some will accept transcripts and others will not, so the only way to find out is to try. But at this moment in time the legal position is that they should not unless the evidence is "in the public interest" (which this clearly isn't) - although as I said, the practice is inconsistant and there are no guarantees either way, Be aware also that taping someone without their permission for anything other than your own use and not for disclosure to a third party is also unlawful and a breach of human rights legislation. It isn't often that someone is sued under these provisions - but you could be. And the "accidentally" recording someone in a room where you "accidentally" left your recording device (funny how often I come across these sorts of accidents) - this is a very serious breach of the law because it is "bugging" (it's not your office - it's the employers office!). I also find it a bit odd that your boss used "your office" to not only write the letter, have a conversation with his boss and offer a collegaue your job. He must have borrowed it for a long time.

Oh, and since this all accidentally happened after your first disciplinary - and therefore presumably not when you were dismissed - what were you dismissed for, and did you do it? Because it does sort of matter! There is potentuially a lot of water under the bridge between 1st disciplinary and dismissal, and we have not yet established, despite what you have said, that the employer was not justified in disciplining you or dismissing you. Please understand - not everyone is innocent - and I have, on a rare few occasion, had employees who could reduce me to swearing in private! So what you were alleged to have done and whether you did it (not just in your opinion, but in law) is relevant. The tape recording may not be!

Uncertain

Keep in mind that the employer is unlikely to have SarEl's depth of legal knowledge!

Employers are not unknown for "enhancing" their evidence and putting a particular slant on notes of meetings (i.e. lying).

Whether or not the tape is admissible at a tribunal doesn't change the fact that, if they lie there, they commit perjury. That is a criminal offence for which they could go to prison. Knowing that a tape exists will concentrate their minds!

SarEl

Uncertain wrote: »

Keep in mind that the employer is unlikely to have SarEl's depth of legal knowledge!

Employers are not unknown for "enhancing" their evidence and putting a particular slant on notes of meetings (i.e. lying).

Whether or not the tape is admissible at a tribunal doesn't change the fact that, if they lie there, they commit perjury. That is a criminal offence for which they could go to prison. Knowing that a tape exists will concentrate their minds!

I agree - but don't forget my last paragraph, which the OP does need to clarify. If this "accident" occurred at the first disciplinary, it does matter what happened at the others that came afterwards, and whether the OP did what is alleged (or the employer can show reasonable belief that they did).

zzzLazyDaisy

More information is needed to ascertain whether what happened at the first disciplinary is even relevant.

It might be that the eventual dismissal was wholly unrelated to the first disciplinary. For all we know, that first disciplinary might have lapsed by the time OP came to be dismissed, or at least have been many months ago. In that case the tribunal will not consider the facts surrounding that disciplinary unless it is being argued that the warning procedure was a sham and the decision had effectively been made at that hearing to dismiss OP. So the time line could be very important.

joeypesci

Even if the tape can't be used, I'm sure any lawyer working for you would want to hear it and try and find a way of using it. If these aren't allowed as evidence them how come newspapers etc get away with taping people and then releasing it without being sue? The Vince Cable incident comes to mind. Genuinely curious on that.

MrRedundant

Give Andy Coulson a call.