Urgent help required Unfair Dismissal

SarEl

No doubt the OP is posting here because he is getting the responses he likes rather than the ones he has obtained elsewhere.

To save everyone the ongoing debate about terms and conditions, or half the story, or other red herrings.

There is only one relevant fact at this point, and that was in the OP's first post. The tribunal has ruled that the reason for dismissal was fair. If that has happened, then the tribunals view is the only relevant view. The OP can only appeal on a point of law - and this is not a point of law, so there is no right to appeal. Not agreeing with the tribunal is not a valid cause for appeal.

Emmzi

SarEl, I got the feeling the ET is ongoing today as well? So no final decision.

DVardysShadow

bobajob_1966 wrote: »

The employer could argue that the above refers to a legal person i.e. the company as a whole.

It appears that you are completely out of your depth. You really need to seek legal advice before proceeding further.

The employer's argument needs addressing

AlfonsoM wrote: »

The bank requires each user of a company bank account to register and sign up for an access.

This suggests that Alfonso was not being entirely unreasonable in the face of a situation where the roles of the employee and the employer are confused as to who is 2nd party. I would say that the situation is very much of the bank's making in that they should not be directly imposing conditions upon the employee and should be instructing the employer to impose those self same conditions instead.

But it is not a good place to get to. Alfonso would have done better to come here while the confrontation was developing. I think that the right thing to have done would have been to set out the reasons for not complying and how the company could get the new employee on to the system, but offer to comply with a written instruction to hand over details. And then notify the bank formally in writing.

SarEl

Emmzi wrote: »

SarEl, I got the feeling the ET is ongoing today as well? So no final decision.

And that would be why I said if the tribunal has ruled to this effect. And also why I said that if the tribunal had ruled the reason fair, then in law it is. I did not assume a final decision as it did appear that the hearing is ongoing. My comments were based on the facts presented by the OP - not on speculation about facts not in evidence.

daggy

Could you not have logged this person in and then overseen them as they used your details?

You could have also changed your password afterwards.

I agree that it is unreasonable to expect you to give your details over and even allowing someone to access your account is dubious, but it may have been a reasonable compromise.

If you have given a full description of the situation, then I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't win the ET.

I'd think that the bank have to give you a copy of the contract you signed?

Emmzi

no update OP?

AlfonsoM

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you all on my case. This is due to an ongoing celebration as I won my case!

The ET judge said this case was ths worst example he has seen of the ACAS code being abused and that I would get my award uplifted by 25%. He did say also before issuing his written judgement the panel would meet again to discuss two points in detail.

1. To establish if my contract with the bank did indeed prevent me from sharing security details.

2. My employer changed my working hours from 5 days per week to 3 days without agreement with me or amending my employment contract.

In summary my employer and their solicitors screwed up and will pay the price for making stupid errors.

Thanks again to all.

Jarndyce

AlfonsoM wrote: »

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you all on my case. This is due to an ongoing celebration as I won my case!

The ET judge said this case was ths worst example he has seen of the ACAS code being abused and that I would get my award uplifted by 25%. He did say also before issuing his written judgement the panel would meet again to discuss two points in detail.

1. To establish if my contract with the bank did indeed prevent me from sharing security details.

2. My employer changed my working hours from 5 days per week to 3 days without agreement with me or amending my employment contract.

In summary my employer and their solicitors screwed up and will pay the price for making stupid errors.

Thanks again to all.

If they haven't made a finding of fact on these points yet, how on earth could you have won your case? It sounds like they are saying you may well have been technically unfairly dismissed, but have every chance of getting zero compensation because of your contributory fault. Celebrations a little premature methinks.

Uncertain

Jarndyce wrote: »

It sounds like they are saying you may well have been technically unfairly dismissed, but have every chance of getting zero compensation because of your contributory fault.

If the OP is correctly quoting the judge then I would have thought there is little or no chance "of getting zero compensation".

Jarndyce wrote: »

Celebrations a little premature methinks.

I would be more inclined to agree here as the award may well not be as much as the OP would hope or expect.

AlfonsoM

The judge did say I had won my case for unfair dismissal but the written judgement and the amount of the award would be decided after the two points in question had been resolved when the panel meets next week.

Right now I am trying to establish how I can get a definitive answer if I was correct in not disclosing my login details. I have written to The Clydesdale Bank twice and they have refused to let me have a copy of the form.

Any suggestions on how I can get a copy of the actual agreement I signed with the bank?