ET1 - employement tribunal - tape conversation- help!

DVardysShadow

SarEl wrote: »

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

No, I was replying to yours, #23. Even you did not have the benefit of #27 when you wrote #23. You set out to completely demolish the value of the tape without having the benefit of #27. I don't really care about #27 for this particular issue. Something can still crop up in this where the tape could have value.

You are completely misrepresenting my understanding of the potential value of the tape - and rather than it being a case of me nitpicking on you, it is a case of me disagreeing with you, over the potential value of the tape - regardless of the fact that you are a professional, and I'm thinking you don't like me not giving deference to you as the professional..

SarEl

DVardysShadow wrote: »

No, I was replying to yours, #23. Even you did not have the benefit of #27 when you wrote #23. You set out to completely demolish the value of the tape without having the benefit of #27. I don't really care about #27 for this particular issue. Something can still crop up in this where the tape could have value.

You are completely misrepresenting my understanding of the potential value of the tape - and rather than it being a case of me nitpicking on you, it is a case of me disagreeing with you, over the potential value of the tape - regardless of the fact that you are a professional, and I'm thinking you don't like me not giving deference to you as the professional..

This is getting quite out of hand again. Is this about giving the OP advice - or about your continuing insistence on feuding with everything that I say? I disagreed with Uncertain's point, and still do, not because I had misunderstood it but because (a) the frist disciplinary isn't in the jurisdfiction of the tribunal (and I said that) and (b) because the tape in question was not simply unlawful - it was illegal! I see no reason whatsoever for you to spring to Uncertain's "defence" - Uncertain has been on these boards a long time; we have both agreed and disagreed many times over the months, and Uncertain has never particularly struck me as someone requiring a defence from anybody, never mind you. He or she was capable of responding themselves if they thought ity was required.

We both know that this is yet again not about the OP or the subject of the thread - it is about this - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2713385

and it is becoming somewhat wearing. For a variety of reasons I have not been around to post for several weeks and I realise that my turning up again must be a sore disappointment.

Can I suggest again that it would be to everyones benefit if you and I did not have further converse - stick to the problem of the OP's. There is no need to quote me if you wish to add a point, whether we are in agreement or not; and I will be quite satisfied to provide my advice without any reference at all to you - as I have done for several months since the last time we had this "little discussion".

Now can we please concentarte on trying to help the OP with their problem and not on giving the OP more problems with the thread than he had with his employer?

no-oneknowsme

SarEl wrote: »

For a variety of reasons I have not been around to post for several weeks and I realise that my turning up again must be a sore disappointment.

Just wanted to say SarEL that not everyone feels this way...I for one am over the moon that you are back..:o I just typed (and then deleted ) "I missed you" but what I meant was that I missed your posts !:o

DVardysShadow

SarEl wrote: »

This is getting quite out of hand again. Is this about giving the OP advice - or about your continuing insistence on feuding with everything that I say? I disagreed with Uncertain's point, and still do, not because I had misunderstood it but because (a) the frist disciplinary isn't in the jurisdfiction of the tribunal (and I said that) and (b) because the tape in question was not simply unlawful - it was illegal! I see no reason whatsoever for you to spring to Uncertain's "defence" - Uncertain has been on these boards a long time; we have both agreed and disagreed many times over the months, and Uncertain has never particularly struck me as someone requiring a defence from anybody, never mind you. He or she was capable of responding themselves if they thought ity was required.

We both know that this is yet again not about the OP or the subject of the thread - it is about this - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2713385

and it is becoming somewhat wearing. For a variety of reasons I have not been around to post for several weeks and I realise that my turning up again must be a sore disappointment.

Can I suggest again that it would be to everyones benefit if you and I did not have further converse - stick to the problem of the OP's. There is no need to quote me if you wish to add a point, whether we are in agreement or not; and I will be quite satisfied to provide my advice without any reference at all to you - as I have done for several months since the last time we had this "little discussion".

Now can we please concentarte on trying to help the OP with their problem and not on giving the OP more problems with the thread than he had with his employer?

It is OK for you to disagree with Uncertain, but when I disagree with you, it is nitpicking. And when I make clear the basis of my disagreement, you have a go at me for derailing the discussion.

Just leave it out, I don't mind whether you post or not, I don't mind if you accuse me of nitpicking. But you are playing the humbug card if you think that I should not reply for the sake of the OP.

Go on, call me an insane little troll again. I don't mind.

SarEl

To everyone else - I am sorry. I have done my best to bury this and stop this from getting in the way of the best interests of the Forum. It clearly isn't working. This has been going on for months and months - I leave it to others to decide.

DVardysShadow

SarEl wrote: »

To everyone else - I am sorry. I have done my best to bury this and stop this from getting in the way of the best interests of the Forum. It clearly isn't working. This has been going on for months and months - I leave it to others to decide.

That is you have done everything apart from let me disagree with you on the basis of discussion. From where I stand, it looks like you want the right to post here without being challenged over what you say by me. This post really is humbug.

chalkiesalem_2

turbulent wrote: »

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???

Sorry I can offer you any advise on this, however i wanted you to know I understand how upsetting it can be to find people are saying these things behind your back whilst trying to make you lose your job.
The company i work for had to make the majority of the workforce redundant last year. Its a very !!!!!y environment and i knew the boss wanted me out as I wasnt one of her 'gang' (sad i know, but thats the way it is here). She had another lass ready to take my position. Meanwhile my boss sent an email to the owner of the company basically telling him a that I was lazy, had been given warnings and that the other lass had trained me up to do my job. None of which was true. When the owner emailed back wanting to know why they where keeping such a usless person he copied my manager into the email. Well i open and print of all my managers email's for him (he cant use a computer) and so i got the email. Needless to say I was rather upset and I confronted my boss regarding this. Anyway to cut a long story short I still work here and the other lass does not.

zzzLazyDaisy

SarEl wrote: »

the frist disciplinary isn't in the jurisdfiction of the tribunal

Just to clarify this point for those who are not familiar with the workings of tribunals.....

In order for a dismissal on the ground of capability (in this case performance) to be fair it must be dealt with in accordance to ACAS guidelines. Which, depending on whether it is a small business or not, will be a minimum of one verbal warning, a written warning and then a dimissal. The object of the exercise is to give the employee an opportunity to improve, and so hopefully s/he won't move to the next warning stage. Each warning must be preceded by a meeting at which the employee has a fair chance to explain things from their point of view, and the employee's representations must be taken into account in making the decision. The employee must also be informed if their right to be represented, and also of their right to appeal the decision.

In normal circumstances, at the point of dismissal, the earlier warnings and the way they were conducted are irrelevant and outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.

However if the time-line is so short - in this case 6 weeks from first warning to dismissal, then I would certainly seek to introduce the first warning and the way it was conducted. Not because I want the tribunal to rule on whether or not that first warning was fair in law (that is outside the tribunal's jurisdiction) but as evidence that a fair procedure (which includes the warnings process) has not been followed in relation to the decision to dismiss, and therefore the dismissal is unfair.

So to that extent the first discipinary, and everything that came after it is relevant towards the procedural fairness of the decision to dismiss.

I don't think SarEl will disagree with this summary, but sometimes it is difficult for people who are not familiar with employment law to follow the nuances of the argument.

SarEl

No not at all - I said as much in post #27. This is why I argued that It is better to forget the accidentally and illegally taped stuff, because there is a process and the timeline subsequently provided indicated that there was a strong argument in law on that - something which tribunals will appreciate much more than being drawn into controversy over taping private conversations to which one is not a party. The first disciplinary, from an objective veiwepoint (although it woud appear that the employer is trying to treat it as a second disciplinary, which is clearlkly not acceptable) however, in itself, appears to have done "the right thing" by setting targets and a support system to assist the employee to meet them. So the crux of the argument is about the space of time between one and the other (and how reasonable this is); the lack of delivery of the "support" by the employer; and the attempt to "persuade" the OP to resign. This is sound employment law, and there is no need to muddy the water with extraneous matters which may not be in the interests of the OP.

turbulent

Hello,
up date for anyone interested;After a lot of good advise from here;
I spoke seperatly to 3 different solicitors and a barrister, to get a selection of opinions before going a head with the ET1. All on given the details thought I had a sensible and strong case and it was worth while pursuing.
ET1 was submitted with the aid of a solicitor.
ACAS have contacted me, they have also contacted my previous employeer.
My previous employeer has at this stage not been willing to speak to ACAS.
One of the solicitors I spoke to had knowledge of how the company work.
He has told me that they 'through every case at a tribunal' even if they know they are wrong.
He said its a numbers game to them, and many people will give up and back down even if they are in the right before it ever gets to the tribunal.
He said they work on the basis that ; people get new jobs etc, dont need the hassell as it is stressful enough being sacked, and life takes over again, many can not find either the time in there lives or the money; especialy if they have been out of work, to pursue the case.Many will be scared off by the cost involved and drop a 'ligitimate' case.
It save the company money at the end of the day, as they have so many possible cases fall by the way side before ever getting to a tribunal. Its a numbers game to them.
I will not drop this. - just have to wait and see what happens next!