Going to an employment tribunal - advice needed.

SarEl

intandem wrote: »

kiki - I have an LLM and am a practising Lawyer. I am currently on Maternity leave - hence my presence on this site. I was missing the job and wanted to do something helpful whilst off on leave and whilst I was on the site, decided to help out with some guidance for the posters.

Well, no more.

This site is populated by some very unpleasant people.

Good bye and good luck.

An LL.M qualifies you neither to practice as a solcitor nor as a barrister. In fact, it doesn't make somebody a legal practitioner at all. Which a legal practitioner would know. Hence why none of us would say that is our qualification - it doesn't qualify us to practice law.

If you want to be helpful to people that is fine - jumping around saying I know what I am talking about because I am a lawyer, and then giving them inaccurate and plain wrong legal advice is dangerous, because some people believe anything they read.

intandem

To say that a contract can end without a dismissal or a resignation is plain wrong too. Frustration of contract can occur in extreme circumstances but in the case of one of the threads I have been commenting on, I would argue that the contract still exists.

mum2one

I sued my ex-employer for unfair constuctive dismissal, - at the time another manager was also suing the same company for unfair dismissal.

If the employer dismissals they have to prove their side of the case 1st, then you then go through yours.

I had legal aid as it was then, but that didn't pay for a solicitor to represent me at the tribunal, that part I had to do myself.

In my colleagues case, she won her case for unfair dismissal, but as she was particially responsible she lost 50% of the compensation that was awarded. Myself I took an out of court settlement with no liability.

You may win on a technacility, (excuse spelling) ie they didn't follow their own procedures, but you also need to ask youself that if you needed an adjustment fo daily working life, then why did you go on a 6/8 week internal course and not request the same alteations etc.

SarEl

intandem wrote: »

To say that a contract can end without a dismissal or a resignation is plain wrong too. Frustration of contract can occur in extreme circumstances but in the case of one of the threads I have been commenting on, I would argue that the contract still exists.

Please do not be patently ridiculous.

(a) to say that a contract can end without a dismissal or a resignation is not "plain wrong" - and you have gone on to exemplify one fuirther way in which a contract can terminate without either. Frustration of contract is hardly extreme or unusual.

(b) In the case of one of the threads you have been commenting on the employee had been off "sick" for over eight months, had failed to submit sick notes or to account for their absence from work for at least the final two of these months - a repudiatory breach of contractual terms.

(c) In another thread you have been commenting on you have displayed a total lack of knowledge of the most basic elements of disability discrimination - the legal definiation of a disability. On the same thread you then went on to advise that the OP may have a claim for constructive unfair dismissal despite the fact that the OP had clearly not made any case that any such repudiatory breach had occurred on the part of the employer.

(d) In another thread you have been commenting on you said that employment tribunals have the power to order a claimant to undergo an employers appeal procedure. This has not been the case since the repeal of the statutory disciplinary and grievance procedures in 2009. A tribunal may suggest this, and may reduce any award if the claimant refuses, but they cannot order it.

That is three threads on this board that you have been commenting on - the only three I believe - and you have made fundamental errors in law on all three. Anyone can make an error, but your record speaks for itself - the problem is not that you have made such errors but that on each and every occasion you have gone out of your way to claim to be an "employment lawyer" - in effect you have been saying "I am right, believe me, because I am an employment lawyer".

Because of these errors and the fact that you have claimed your advice is correct because you are an "employment lawyer" a number of us have asked you what kind of employment lawyer you are. You have never answered this question. Nor have you responded to my point that even if you hold an LL.M that does not qualify you to practice as a "lawyer". In fact you have been entirely evasive on the questions asked.

It doesn't take two seconds to look up a qualification in law on google and claim to hold it. Posting here doesn't require anyone to be a lawyer or have legal knowledge. But if you are going to claim special knowledge and professional expertise then you have an obligation to ensure that the advice you give in that field is correct - and yours has been anything but.

robpw2

is there any need for all the mud slinging , Sarl E what are you a barrister of ?
as for intandem what did you study before your llm ,? and when you say your a practicsing lawyer perhaps you could be more specific

SarEl

robpw2 wrote: »

is there any need for all the mud slinging , Sarl E what are you a barrister of ?
as for intandem what did you study before your llm ,? and when you say your a practicsing lawyer perhaps you could be more specific

There is no mudslinging unless your definition of mudslinging involves pointing out bad advice given by someone purporting to be a lawyer who is making basic errors in law; and doing to great lenths to "validate" their incorrect advice by saying they are a lawyer. That's not mudslinging - it is a fact.

Since you ask, I hold an LL,B, LL.M, M.Sc, and PhD - none of which qualify me to practice law. That required the BVC and pupillage being completed. And my area of expertise is employment law. None of which I labour, or append to my posts to "prove" my advice is right. There are many professionals on this board in all sorts of fields - none of them are running around saying that they should be believed because they are HR professionals, lawyers, or anything else. The quality of their advice stands for itself. Anyone on here could be anyone - or anything. It is easy to make claims. Intandem has posted on three threads, always labouring the point that she claims to be an employment lawyer, and on each occasion giving advice which is legally incorrect. That is also a record that stands for itself.

eamon

I like watching tennis. But that doesn't make me a tennis pro or commentator. Other posters have already said it and I'll repeat pay for some good proper legal advice between now and March. It could be money well spent.

lazarus888

Can I respectfully ask that certain posters take their arguments elsewhere amd that a mod cleans up my thread.

Many thanks.

Ive now got my employers ET3, it came in the post this morning.

the et3 states that there can be no covering letters. my former employers representatives have attached their legal document 'grounfs of resistence' to the back of the et3 and have input nothing other than 'please see grounds for resistence' on the et3 part 5.2. is this allowed or is the gfr not classed as a covering letter?

the gfr also makes mention of 'polkey v ae dayton services [1987] icr 142' in relation to my dismissal in that if the tribunal find that my dismissal was procedureally infair i would have been dismissed anyway. This seems like a contradiction?? can a previous tribunal result influence mine??

fuerther to the above, they have also said that as i have received a 'compensation payment' for leaving the pension scheme and being dismissed for unsatisfactory attendance and award of compensation (made by the tribunal) should be offset. is this an admission of liability?

they also havnt responded by way of explanation or defense to 18 of the points ive raised in the et1. i find this particularly odd as these points include not seeing supporting evidence of the reason given for my dismissal.

Emmzi

here's a summary of the case, which can indeed influence yours as it set a legal precedent.

http://www.emplaw.co.uk/lawguide?startpage=data/070.htm

they are arguing that even if the dismissal were not procedurally correct, you would have been dismissed anyway if the procedure had been correct, so the compensation awarded to you should be minimal/ nil to reflect that.

So they don't seem to be arguing that procedure wasn't followed, just that you are due no money.

once again - you need a solicitor.

Emmzi

ps the board guides etc do not read every thread. you need to email them to ask for a clean up. I'm not sure of they will if there isn't anything offensive or illegal tho, and this one is just annoying. up to you but they are busy folk!