Sackable offence??

Ashles

ILW wrote: »

I think the difference in opinion here is the theory against what actually happens to small businesses in the real world. It should not be the case that a vexatious litigant can cripple a small firm - but it does happen.

Then having all the processes in the world will not prevent this.

In the above example, what if the female washing facilities were in fact inadequate?

What if they were?

She would have to demonstrate that the female washing facilities were distinctly inferior to the MEN'S washing facility.
She would also have to demonstrate that she had raised this as a concern to the manager at some point or when she left - which didn't happen.
And if the manager is a woman and using the same facilities how is that claim going to work anyway?

This is getting weird.
You are now making up your own imaginary discriminatory claims AND working on the assumption that they are true... and it STILL doesn't amount to a discriminatory case.

Uncertain

ILW wrote: »

And if the housekeeping/documentation had been properly kept and up to date the situation would not have arisen, or could have been proven false.

Oh for Heaven's sake :mad:

You just asked

"In the above example, what if the female washing facilities were in fact inadequate?"

How is your wonderful "housekeeping" going to prove it false if they were in fact inadequate?

I'm mighty glad you don't keep my house!

Give it a rest - please!

Ashles

ILW wrote: »

And if the housekeeping/documentation had been properly kept and up to date the situation would not have arisen, or could have been proven false.

So, if we IMAGINE that something specific that DIDN'T happen in this case actually HAD happened, different processes (hygeine procedures about which nothing has been mentioned) might have helped avoid it?

Well that certainly is useful advice.

I juts believe that by sticking to the letter of all the regulations, you are much less likely to get shafted.

And as has been explained many times, in this case, that belief is incorrect. The employer has nothing to fear from letting someone go in this instance. The employee has no genuine recourse for a tribunal, regardless of what processes were followed.
If the employee chooses to file a false claim then, obviously, processes become irrelevant as the clamant can make up whatever they like.

I also believe that once all the mis selling and motor insurance rubbish is tightened up on, there are going to be a lot of relatively low grade lawyers looking for work, and will be looking at sloppy small employers as a source of revenue.

This I think is the basic issue - your assumption that cheap lawyers are constantly looking for such cases on the hope they will get lucky.

But why would they?

No-win no-fee lawyers will know that in cases such as this they are unlikely to win. It would make no sense for them to waste their time on such cases. And with the relatively small payouts even in succesful cases (approx £7,000) there is no percentage to take on unlikely to win cases as the odds are, even if they get lucky on a few randomly, they will still be running at a loss.

Scruplulous lawyers will advise potential clients against continuing with cases they see are unliklely to win.

Unscruplulous lawyers may advise a client to continue with a case they are unlikely to win, but while this may cost the false claimant quite a lot of money, it would be unlikely to be seen by a tribunal (who, as mentioned previously do screen frivolous claims) or, if it was seen, would probably be resolved fairly quickly. And the employer may well be able to reclaim their costs anyway.

Tribunals are stressful and time-consuming. it really is generally not worth someone pursuing a claim they know to be false - it is probable they will come out of the process worse.

And companies should not feel paralysed to fail to act to rid themselves of poor staff, as long as they follow proper employment law and pay required notice periods. Worrying about imaginary discriminatory tribunals all the time would prevent any company from doing anything.

ILW

Ashles wrote: »

This I think is the basic issue - your assumption that cheap lawyers are constantly looking for such cases on the hope they will get lucky.

But why would they?

No-win no-fee lawyers will know that in cases such as this they are unlikely to win. It would make no sense for them to waste their time on such cases. And with the relatively small payouts even in succesful cases (approx £7,000) there is no percentage to take on unlikely to win cases as the odds are, even if they get lucky on a few randomly, they will still be running at a loss.

.

I truly hope you are right, but would point out that ten years ago, the insurance industry did not expect to be paying out on whiplash claims to anything like the extent they do. In fact they do not even bother defending anything under around £3000 as that is what the defense costs.

Also a fair few law firms went bust a few years ago encouraging people to claim that loans etc where unenforceable and to stop paying.

you seem to have a higher opinion of the legal profession than I do.