Going to an employment tribunal - advice needed.

lazarus888

Emmzi wrote: »

I've always arranged for ergonomic chairs to be moved if the employee reminds me. People have a resposnsibility to look after themselves.

However. Are you sure the policy was not followed? OccHealth is not automatic in law. What steps does the policy say MUST happen, and SHOULD happen, and which then happened?

im not sure what the policy is because ive never been given a full copy of it. which is another thing - with not having a copy of it how am i supposed to challenge it?

same thing with the reason why i was dismissed - they havnt produced any evidence to support it so how am able to challenge it?

goes against every principle of fairness and natural justice.

SHIPSHAPE

I'd ask for your claim to be heard by a panel of three rather than just an Employment Judge.

tomjonesrules

SHIPSHAPE wrote: »

I'd ask for your claim to be heard by a panel of three rather than just an Employment Judge.

Because?

...

intandem

An employer has to prove that they have acted fairly when deciding to dismiss an employee under any of the 5 fair reasons for dismissal.

A Tribunal will evaluate whether the company has followed its on procedures and if not, why not.

You are entitled to a letter from your employer confirming the reasons for dismissal and when this dismissal takes effect.

You are entitled by law to an appeal hearing - have you been given this right? If not, write to your employer asking for an appeal hearing, for a Tribunal pre-hearing may enforce this before any full hearing can take place.

SHIPSHAPE

tomjonesrules wrote: »

Because?

...

Because...the OP appears to be representing themselves so one would hope by requesting the panel to sit at least one would have actual experience of an office environment or, even better, be a union official.

In my experience, you are given a much better hearing.

There is always the danger the Employment Judge has no work experience whatsoever (other than work being at a tribunal) and can give rather short thrift as they proceed how they wish.

SarEl

SHIPSHAPE wrote: »

Because...the OP appears to be representing themselves so one would hope by requesting the panel to sit at least one would have actual experience of an office environment or, even better, be a union official.

In my experience, you are given a much better hearing.

There is always the danger the Employment Judge has no work experience whatsoever (other than work being at a tribunal) and can give rather short thrift as they proceed how they wish.

Wow. Amazing. Well since when three judges sit one is always a union nominee, I suppose that is a pretty likely outcome. Although whether they will actually be any good is anyones guess - having experienced hundreds of them I wouldn't neceassarily rate them for one second over a judge who actually knows the law. Nor would I assume they have any work experience outside the union, or not for a very long time!. And and employment law judge proceeds according to the law - as all judges must whatever their background - and not their own wishes. Of course, insisting on the full panel also means you include a judge nominated by employers! And that if you are wasting the time of the tribunal you are more likely to have costs awarded against you.

SarEl

intandem wrote: »

You are entitled to a letter from your employer confirming the reasons for dismissal and when this dismissal takes effect. When I was in law school, which admittedly was a very long time ago since I have been in chambers for 30 years, they taught us to listen to what people say and read what the evidence is in front of us before opening our mouths. So the fact that the employer has already provided a written reason for dismissal and has refered to it several times has no relevance?

You are entitled by law to an appeal hearing - have you been given this right? If not, write to your employer asking for an appeal hearing, for a Tribunal pre-hearing may enforce this before any full hearing can take place. Really? Since when and under what power would they enforce this? Because since the repeal of the statutory disciplinary and grievance procedures in 2009, Employment Tribunals do not have any such power. The only power they have, if an appeal is unreasonably refused, is to reduce the amount of the award, where one is given. The only circumstances in which this does not hold true is where the claim is constructive unfair dismissal (which is clearly not the case here) where an employee is expected by the courts to exhaust the employers internal procedures before making a claim.

I notice from one of your other two posts that you are a "qualified employment lawyer". I have often had cause for concern about what they turn out of law schools these days.

It will be so pleasant when the children go back to school and the trolls to work.

PS - I can't think of many qualified employment law lawyers who have time to sign up for rewardtv vouchers https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3705131=

Or describe things as a swizz.

But I suppose there is always a first time. Personally I read the terms and conditions of anything I sign, evaluate it, and sue if they don't deliver. Being a lawyer and all!

moremore

As far as I can remember a friend of mind put in ET1 and he got a call from ACAS first and had to wait for his employer to make contact with ACAS. Is this any help.

SHIPSHAPE

SarEl wrote: »

Wow. Amazing. Well since when three judges sit one is always a union nominee, I suppose that is a pretty likely outcome. Although whether they will actually be any good is anyones guess - having experienced hundreds of them I wouldn't neceassarily rate them for one second over a judge who actually knows the law. Nor would I assume they have any work experience outside the union, or not for a very long time!. And and employment law judge proceeds according to the law - as all judges must whatever their background - and not their own wishes. Of course, insisting on the full panel also means you include a judge nominated by employers! And that if you are wasting the time of the tribunal you are more likely to have costs awarded against you.

What a load of crap.

Don't try a cut & paste job on me, I clearly suggested a 'union official...with office environment experience.'

Rather than a union official with experience from elsewhere.

And I have seen many a time one sitting judge giving a litigant in person a hard time, often cutting them off mid-sentence, telling them to move on etc etc

Yet at a full panel I have seen this behaviour stopped by the wing member/s who have stated they wish to hear what another doesn't want to.

If you have never seen this, having experienced hundreds of them, then I don't believe you.

Nice try, better luck next time.

Caroline_a

Ouch. *sits back, reaches for popcorn*