ET1 - employement tribunal - tape conversation- help!

DVardysShadow

SarEl wrote: »

.... And besides which - there is no evidence here that the tape shows the employer has lied. About anything.

Oh, quite, but it is not the point. Even Uncertain probably thinks they have not lied. That would be because their lips have not moved. Yet.

SarEl

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Oh, quite, but it is not the point. Even Uncertain probably thinks they have not lied. That would be because their lips have not moved. Yet.

Yet again, in your rush to pick up an isolated comment from me out of context and nit-pick, you have missed the entire point.

It doesn't matter whether they lie about something or not. The 1st disciplinary is in no way under the jurisdiction of the employment tribunal, so truth or lie, anything at all to do with that will not be relevant to the tribunal. And if the OP proves (which I very much doubt that they will get the opportunity to) that they lied about something at the 1st disciplinary, which was held at sometime in the past, it will in no way speak to whether they have lied in the dismissal. To hold that past behaviour is proof of present or future behaviour would be like me saying that you will always indulge in senseless nit-picking of parts of my posts out of context, simply because that is what you have done so many times in the past. It is impossible to construe that the employer lied in the dismissal even if proof of a previous lie were available.

zzzLazyDaisy

Just to play devil's advocate...

If the first disciplinary took place (say) six weeks before the dismissal, rapidly followed by second, then a third at which point Op was dismissed, then the whole shebang would come under scrutiny. The argument would then be that the whole disciplinary procedure was a sham with the sole purpose of getting rid of OP.

Despite requests, OP hasn't come back to confirm the time line. Until he does, we are all just guessing at the facts, which seems to me to be a waste of everyone's time.

SarEl

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Just to play devil's advocate...

If the first disciplinary took place (say) six weeks before the dismissal, rapidly followed by second, then a third at which point Op was dismissed, then the whole shebang would come under scrutiny. The argument would then be that the whole disciplinary procedure was a sham with the sole purpose of getting rid of OP.

Despite requests, OP hasn't come back to confirm the time line. Until he does, we are all just guessing at the facts, which seems to me to be a waste of everyone's time.

Yes, I agree. Which I think is why we have been asking for this. But of course it doesn't get us around the fact that this portion of the tape was clearly obtained illegally (even if by accident) rather than a slightly "greyer" taping a conversation which he was party too. I would, in the scenario you suggest, and given that this appears to be a performance issue, be happier depending on "insufficient time frame to improve", "lack of employer training or support" and other clearly legal strategies, which do not introduce areas which may backfire. Competancy processes are clearly laid out in terms of what is expected of employers, and are much easier targets. As I am sure you would agree.

AnonymousForObviousReason

AnonymousForObviousReason wrote: »

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.

To clarify the above should have said unfair dismissal. The advice to get legal help still stands.

turbulent

Hello,
Thank for all the opinions, and i understand the words 'advise'.
The basic time line would be;

.received a disiplinary letter

.4 days later disiplinary meeting (the taped 0ne)
-given 6 weeks to turn figures round, i unfortunatly had a pre-booked 1 week holiday in the middle.
offered weekly reviews. -(never happend as boss never there)

. I appealed the decission.

.my 2nd boss from head office made an appointment to see me, took me off site to McDonalds. He told me that I was 'wanted out' and spent an hour encouraging me to hand in my notice before the 2nd disiplinary meeting.- yes i did tape this covertly and intentional this time. -(believe it or not the 1st tape was by accident!)

.5 weeks after the 1st I received invite to 2nd disiplinary, 6 weeks to the day from the 1st, came by email with no attachments that were mentioned.-never got the attached info. My computer was used by other people as well, it had already been opened and read by someone else.

.attended this 2nd disiplinary and dismissed there.

.2 days received answer to the "appeal for the 1st disiplinary",dated the day after i was dismissed- agreeing with the decision of a warning and 6 weeks to turn the figures around.

In the 1st disiplinary he refered to a disiplinary that i received over 12 months before, this was 'spent',- on the 'tape' he admits to being 'naughty as he knew he should not have mentioned it'
This old disiplinary was actualy very positive; from that my then boss and I put together agood action plan that worked and helped me to manage both myself and team better, and from then on I acheived the quartly targets set, and received an amount of praise from my boss for doing so. that was all OK, until the change in management and the new boss being absent over 1/2 the time ( he was running 2 dealerships) and my secetary leaving and not being replaced.
From then on the work was piled upon me so I could not do my own job as i should be allowed.
Hence the figures went down.
I believe that him speaking about my position to one of my team was an incitemnt for her not to support me, as i relied on her to help me reach my targets. She was not tempted by the offer of moving up if I left, but it did upset her enough, that she was 'off the ball' for a while.
Having a demotivated team member only made my job even more difficult.

hope this helps to clarify a little.

wantsajob

Is it a big business? If so suggest an accidental transfer to PC and the internet Use audacity (free) to copy, edit it, and bleep out personal details. It will probably have more of an affect on the business that way.

SarEl

turbulent wrote: »

Hello,
Thank for all the opinions, and i understand the words 'advise'.
The basic time line would be;

.received a disiplinary letter

.4 days later disiplinary meeting (the taped 0ne)
-given 6 weeks to turn figures round, i unfortunatly had a pre-booked 1 week holiday in the middle.
offered weekly reviews. -(never happend as boss never there)

. I appealed the decission.

.my 2nd boss from head office made an appointment to see me, took me off site to McDonalds. He told me that I was 'wanted out' and spent an hour encouraging me to hand in my notice before the 2nd disiplinary meeting.- yes i did tape this covertly and intentional this time. -(believe it or not the 1st tape was by accident!)

.5 weeks after the 1st I received invite to 2nd disiplinary, 6 weeks to the day from the 1st, came by email with no attachments that were mentioned.-never got the attached info. My computer was used by other people as well, it had already been opened and read by someone else.

.attended this 2nd disiplinary and dismissed there.

.2 days received answer to the "appeal for the 1st disiplinary",dated the day after i was dismissed- agreeing with the decision of a warning and 6 weeks to turn the figures around.

In the 1st disiplinary he refered to a disiplinary that i received over 12 months before, this was 'spent',- on the 'tape' he admits to being 'naughty as he knew he should not have mentioned it'
This old disiplinary was actualy very positive; from that my then boss and I put together agood action plan that worked and helped me to manage both myself and team better, and from then on I acheived the quartly targets set, and received an amount of praise from my boss for doing so. that was all OK, until the change in management and the new boss being absent over 1/2 the time ( he was running 2 dealerships) and my secetary leaving and not being replaced.
From then on the work was piled upon me so I could not do my own job as i should be allowed.
Hence the figures went down.
I believe that him speaking about my position to one of my team was an incitemnt for her not to support me, as i relied on her to help me reach my targets. She was not tempted by the offer of moving up if I left, but it did upset her enough, that she was 'off the ball' for a while.
Having a demotivated team member only made my job even more difficult.

hope this helps to clarify a little.

Now this is a much better basis for a claim than a tape that you shouldn't have! My advice would be to forget the accidentally taped stuff - it may, as I said before, explode in your face. I accept that you may have done it accidentally - but utterly nobody is going to believe it! But there are very clear guidance about dismissals on competancy grounds, and since these are ACAS guidelines tribunals use them as the measure for fairness.

To dismiss on competancy grounds the employer must go through the individual stages of the process, setting clear targets, and providing support, training and so as as appropriate (you can find the guidance on the ACAS site). Failure to do would render the dismissal unfair. I would attempt (bearing in mind what I said before about tape recordings) to have a copy of the transcript of the conversation at McDonalds - this is much safer territory than the other tape, and frankly, far more damning that anything covertly recorded when you were not in the room and weren't supposed to be there. Obviously, I cannot guarantee that they will accept the transcript - but whilst this conversation is very helpful to your case, it is much less controversial should they accept it, which may tip teh balance in your favour. As a measure of what I mean - the "McDonalds tape" is one which I would try to get admitted into evidence; the other tape I would have to advise you that "if that tape existed I could not represent you because you had obtained evidence by illegal means" - so it really is that big a difference!

Since there is also evidence that they included a disciplinary which was no longer on the record to get to the final stage early, that would almost certainly swing the decision in your favour. Failure to provide the agreed meetings is also in your favour, as is settinga six week period to turn targets around knowing that you had a weeks leave booked.

Where you advised of your right to be accompanied?

DVardysShadow

SarEl wrote: »

Yet again, in your rush to pick up an isolated comment from me out of context and nit-pick, you have missed the entire point.

It doesn't matter whether they lie about something or not. The 1st disciplinary is in no way under the jurisdiction of the employment tribunal, so truth or lie, anything at all to do with that will not be relevant to the tribunal. And if the OP proves (which I very much doubt that they will get the opportunity to) that they lied about something at the 1st disciplinary, which was held at sometime in the past, it will in no way speak to whether they have lied in the dismissal. To hold that past behaviour is proof of present or future behaviour would be like me saying that you will always indulge in senseless nit-picking of parts of my posts out of context, simply because that is what you have done so many times in the past. It is impossible to construe that the employer lied in the dismissal even if proof of a previous lie were available.

Oh dear, you seem to be quite paranoid about this. It is not me missing your point either, it is you missing Uncertain's point. No one is saying that you can construe that the employer is lying in one situation from proof of a lie in another. What is being said is that the evidence is of value should the employer start to lie about things which can be proven otherwise by the tape.

LazyDaisy is right, we need a timeline. Until we have one, we cannot say what value the tape actually has. But until then, we cannot dismiss its potential value either.

SarEl

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Oh dear, you seem to be quite paranoid about this. It is not me missing your point either, it is you missing Uncertain's point. No one is saying that you can construe that the employer is lying in one situation from proof of a lie in another. What is being said is that the evidence is of value should the employer start to lie about things which can be proven otherwise by the tape.

LazyDaisy is right, we need a timeline. Until we have one, we cannot say what value the tape actually has. But until then, we cannot dismiss its potential value either.

You did read posts #27 and #29 before nit-picking - didn't you??