ET1 - employement tribunal - tape conversation- help!

danothy

MrRedundant wrote: »

Give Andy Coulson a call.

No need, just leave yourself a voicemail on your own phone, he'll get it.

turbulent

Hi, thank you for your advise & thoughts. It was by accident that it recorded the rest, its a small machine with small buttons and I was flusted abit after our meeting,I did think it was off. He used my office as it is the only one in the building, all the rest are open plan work stations.
One thing I did not mention, it also recorded him saying he would "through me off a balcany" we have a mezzaney floor in the building.
I was dismissed for failing to meet targets; with the amount of work he forced upon me, I could not do my job properly. I did have a secetary who left and he refused to replace her, plus 2 other managers left in the period and I had to pick up some of there work etc.
I taped it as I know from sitting in on other peoples disiplinary meetings that notes I had taken were later re-written with a company 'slant' on them by the manager at the time.
Thankyou for your comments, I need to find a way to refer to this tape and introduce it if poss.

MrRedundant

I dont see the relevance of the recording or its evidentiary value on your dismissal.

You were sacked for not meeting targets. Your bosses opinion of you doesnt change your targets or performance achieved. Clearly you want it involved as its highly prejudicial against them character wise rather than case wise.

I cant see it being entered.

wantsajob

MrRedundant wrote: »

You were sacked for not meeting targets. Your bosses opinion of you doesnt change your targets or performance achieved. Clearly you want it involved as its highly prejudicial against them character wise rather than case wise.

I agree. However, the OP suggests they had taken on, at least in part, the work of 4 employees who left. Could that not be a case for constructive dismissal in itself? Targets are rather arbitrary constructs and if they stay the same difficult to achieve when taking on 4 ex-employee's work.

AnonymousForObviousReason

If you're going down the road of constructive dismissal get legal advise asap - it's not something you want to approach on your own.

Uncertain

MrRedundant wrote: »

Clearly you want it involved as its highly prejudicial against them character wise rather than case wise.

And why not? Wouldn't you in the same situation?

Used with care a recording like this could be a very effective way of extracting a settlement. This sounds like the type of firm that will "enhance" their evidence. If they do this, then become aware the OP has proof that they are lying they will be looking to settle.

SarEl

I think that we are getting somewhat carried away here. The dismissal (which had absolutely nothing at all to do with the tape or the 1st disciplinary) was for missing targets. Full stop. The reason why the OP missed the targets is totally irrelevant - tribunals will not intervene or interpret an employers targets because this is a business matter. So the OP had targets, they missed the targets, therefore the employer had a legitimate cause to discipline (in law).

So the only remaining questions are:

(a) - and both I and Lazy Daisy have now asked this and got no response - what is the timeline between the 1st disciplinary and the dismissal. How did the OP get to "dismissal" - since there are usually also final warnings after 1st (or 1st and 2nd) warnings and before dismissals.

(b) was the minimum standard for a disciplinary hearing/ process met - notice, representation etc

And I am not sure why we are talking constructive dismissal - since the OP didn't resign that clearly does not apply.

I would agree that unless there is a clear case for including this tape, it is not relevant and would not be included - so far the OP has provided no clear reason for doing so. The tribunal has no interest at all in the employers character (or the OP's) - they will operate on the basis of the law and nothing else. Whether it will be a way of "extracting a settlement" - well I doubt that very much. Since it is highly unlikely to even enter into evidence, it will never see the light of day. Even it it were - tribunals generally attract little media attention. And even if it did, well most employers don't care as it will be forgotten by the time the paper hits the chip shop. And there is no other way of it ever seeing the light of day - unless the OP attempted blackmail, which would clearly be a very stupid and illegal idea!

Uncertain

SarEl wrote: »

I would agree that unless there is a clear case for including this tape, it is not relevant and would not be included - so far the OP has provided no clear reason for doing so.

No, my point was that the tape only becomes relevant IF the employer lies and IF it proves that they have done so. If they stick to the facts then I agree it is little help.

However, they sound to me like the sort of employer who won't be able to resist gilding the lily. Once they do that then, used with care, it wouldn't surprise me if it became a useful bargaining tool.

SarEl

Uncertain wrote: »

No, my point was that the tape only becomes relevant IF the employer lies and IF it proves that they have done so. If they stick to the facts then I agree it is little help.

However, they sound to me like the sort of employer who won't be able to resist gilding the lily. Once they do that then, used with care, it wouldn't surprise me if it became a useful bargaining tool.

How does it become relevant? The tape is of events around the 1st disciplinary - which the tribunal have no interest in. The tribunal only have an interest in the dismissal (let's say this is, for the sake of the argum,ent, the 3rd disciplinary). So the facts of the 1st disciplinary have no bearing on the facts of the 3rd disciplinary. So if the employer lies at the tribunal about the 3rd disciplinary, evidence of a lie at the 1st rpoves nothing. A tribunal cannot infer that someone is lying about something based on evidence about something else which is not even in contention or jurisdiction at the hearing!

And besides which - there is no evidence here that the tape shows the employer has lied. About anything. The manager may have used ill-advised language, or even offered the sales job to someone else - none of this has, as far as we are being told, been denied; none of it is absolute evidence of any wrong doing - even the "offer of the job" is based on the OP's interpretation iof what he hears, and there is no evidence that the manager was not venting (yes, ill-advised but not unlawful) or saying that if a vacancy came up then the other person might have the job (after all - this was after the 1st disciplinary - not before the final one!). We still have no evidence (although it is highly unlikely to have any relevance at all to a tribunal) that even the 1st disciplinary was wrong in that it was unfair in law - the OP's employer may (fair in the eyes of the world or not) have had a perfectly justifiable reason for the disciplinary.

The tape contains private opinion and conversation which was, regardless of the "accident", unlawfully obtained by bugging - the OP was not in the room and I am afraid that no amount of "it was an accident" gets away from the fact that this was obtained illegally. And in this case - it is illegally and not unlawfully! The OP was not party to the conversation, did not have the recorder on their person, and was not using it to record a conversation in which they participated for their own use only. In other words, it is just about as far away from the "grey area" as you can get!

Don't get me wrong. The employer does not sound like a very nice person, based on what the OP has said. But unfortunately not being very nice in not unlawful - and the OP has demonstrated nothing here that would (a) get the tape included within evidence or (b) give them much of a chance of winning a tribunal. Much as I would like to be able to help out, I have to (a) point out that using this tape and its contents may get the OP into more trouble and (b) have something, in terms of the employment side of it, to work with!

Strider590

Sounds like the typical new manager looking for someone to stamp their authority on..... It's a sign of a very poor manager.