Document disclosure advice required - appears there could be some fabrication.

Nassy

Hi,

I am contesting a redundancy on grounds of "unfair dismissal" The case is quite complex but a core part of the case is that myself and another team member were made redundant from 5 team members, on the grounds that we weren't seen as "senior". Originally they left 2 of the so-called "senior" members out of the pool and promised scoring meetings for the 3 (including myself) who had been put "at risk". Out of the blue, my former employer then announced that 1 more person was also now "senior" after all (title had been changed to senior to better reflect role). On that basis, I was swiftly made redundant (decision made same day) and scoring was scrapped.

The core issue that underpins my case (selection error and other issues asige) is that I was never aware of the fact that the 2 employees originally protected from the pool were "senior" when they joined until the consultation process itself. The fact is that my role ie duties I performed was no less senior to any existing team member when I joined. Before raising a claim I also asked to see contracts (I asked on 2 occasions) but this was turned down. :eek:

Finally now I get to see photocopies of the contracts of the so-called "senior" members and see that the 2 employees originally protected from the pool have exactly the same contract as me but with "senior" in the title and a few other clauses.

However there is something odd going on. I have spotted the following:

1. 1 of the "senior" members joined under a different company, transferred to my former employer by way of TUPE but the original contract is not provided
2. There is no signature sheet for the above member for the new contract (ie when employee was transferred) and also signature sheet also missing on another of the contracts.
3. The terms of conditions paperwork for another of the "senior" members contains "correct" details in terms of details, position, name and home address but says "Dear Mark" as opposed to the correct individuals name (ie a completely different name)!!!
4. The photocopy of my terms and conditions sheet is missing a signature whereas the original I hold has a signature on it.

1 and 2 I can address through further disclosure. However 3. and 4. worry me and I know if I mention them I am going down the route of suggesting there is "fabrication". It is not just this that makes me worry though. I am very suspicious about the identikit nature of the contracts. When I received my own contract, it was sent with tracking all over it and I had to send it back - suggesting there was no template!! It seems wierd then that contracts produced over a period spanning years, with different directors etc would all be so homogonenous in feel.

Not totally sure what to do. I feel I can possibly undermine the relevance of the "seniority" in individuals contracts on a number of counts (ie fact there was a selection pool error ie former employer was not intially sure about who was "senior" or not, fact that everyone was doing same role but only 1 member given the option of a title change, fact that there was no transparency on any of this etc). I also think may be I can cross-examine on some of the documentation anomalies. However the other side are not wanting to bring in any of the witnesses relevant to any of this part of the case (ie none of the "senior" team members, any of the line managers in charge when the contracts were drawn out).

Any advice on what I should do?

Nassy

SarEl

I am hugely surprised - and frankly more than a little shocked - that the employer has given you copies of other people's contracts. This is blatently against the law! The Data Protection Act protects people's private information, and other employees contracts are personal data and should not be disclosed to a third party. In the shoes of the other employees I would not only refuse to give evidence at your tribunal but I would be seeking an order to rescind the evidence as not in the public domain. Which probably doesn't help you at all, but I can't help but point out that what the employer has done in releasing this information is entirely inappropriate.

However, I am unsure what benefit you think is to be obtained from the other staff or managers appearing as witnesses - they are simply going to confirm the employers version of events, and I do not see how you will get them to change their story. This is a tribunal, and not Perry Mason! The simplest way to evidence that jobs are exactly the same is not through people's contracts - it is through job descriptions. For a variety of reasons, people may be on the same pay, or grade, or conditions, and still have different jobs or job titles. So what the contract says, or doesn't say, really isn't relevant to very much - it is the content of the job that is relevant, and the difference that the employer claims exists which justifies these posts not being included in the pool.

Nassy

Thanks. I didn't realise this. On a side note I also note that the other 'non senior' member's contracts has XXXX marked instead of dates. Clearly I am not getting copies of the original documents, but the computerised templates.

When I joined the content of our jobs was the same and I can prove this. However a few months before I was put "at risk", 2 out of the 3 "senior" members of my team were given "supervision duties" and were also initially put in charge of planning systems and processes, which is work I had also previously been involved in (so in effect it was just assigned to someone else).
The announcement that these 2 team members would supervise was made verbally in a 5 minute conversation, with little explanation given. I am certain they had no payrise/ contractual change as a result as this was admitted by the 2 members later. As time went on, these duties became less relevant as they were never enforced and I simply did not require supervision as I was getting better and better at what I was doing.

I made complaints (about fact there were no performance reviews, fact my previous work and role had been overlooked etc) but by this stage I was low in confidence and had no idea I could get made redundant based on "seniority". I later found out from the Redundancy appeal meeting that when 2 team members were given "supervisory duties", redundancies were actually already being considered as a possibility.

None of this links all 3 "senior" members hence why my former employer is may be now putting such emphasis on their claims that "seniority" is based on contracts. But even then this does not escape the fact that my former employer did not know which team members were "senior" (by their own definition) until a letter was found at the back of a car during the redundancy consultation process. This letter simply said a third team member was entitled to use "senior" in their title as the content of their role was the same (I have seen the letter). Even though he was never assigned "supervisory duties" that was enough to get this individual taken out of the pool and for me to swiftly get made redundant.

My view is that using this logic I could have saved my job by simply asking for a title change based on the fact my role was the same when I joined. The reality was that there was zero transparency of this concept of "seniority" (if it did exist and the state of the contracts and t&cs makes me still very wary) when I joined so I would never have known it was something to raise.

My plan now is to go and see a solicitor to get a few hours of advice and work out how best to proceed. I had initial input but I think now is a good time to make a gamble and get advice on the best and weakest arguments and also an idea of my chances at this stage. :cool: