Constructive dismissal

DVardysShadow

Ashles wrote: »

.... Here is an extremely experienced employment law barrister advising on the subject:

No names no pack drill

Ashles

ohreally wrote: »

Doesn't mean they're right.

Well obviously it means they are far more likely to be right than a lay person.

But if you think she's wrong, why not visit that forum and take it up with her directly?

In the case above, the appellant appointed an experienced employment law barrister - she lost to a lay rep.

I'm unclear what that supposed to demonstrate? Tribunals can get the decisions wrong. Experienced barristers can make mistakes. Tribunal chairmen and women may make mistakes. And of course lawyers can be hired to take on cases, even when the case is unlkely to be won.
It clearly doesn't demonstrate barristers are somehow less likely to be correct on the subject of law than a lay person.

As someone who has been in tribunals I will bet on experienced barristers having a far better chance of winning a tribunal than a lay person.

In terms of the recording, it's not the making of the recording that is the legal issue, but the playing it back to a third party without everyone's permission.

This solicitor seems to agree with SarEl http://www.justanswer.com/uk-law/6jk74-colleague-mine-secretly-recorded-conversation-work.html in that playing the conversation to a third party strictly speaking is illegal, but you may get away with it. Or it may cause you more problems in the long run.
But as I say above, if you feel this advice is incorrect then take it up with SarEl not me - I am simply passing on the advice of a legal expert who has advised hundreds of people (and unions) on tribunals.

Uncertain

Ashles wrote: »

This solicitor seems to agree with SarEl http://www.justanswer.com/uk-law/6jk74-colleague-mine-secretly-recorded-conversation-work.html in that playing the conversation to a third party strictly speaking is illegal, but you may get away with it. Or it may cause you more problems in the long run.
But as I say above, if you feel this advice is incorrect then take it up with SarEl not me - I am simply passing on the advice of a legal expert who has advised hundreds of people (and unions) on tribunals.

You seem to be getting mixed up between illegal and unlawful, they are not the same thing.

As I explained earlier it is not illegal to secretly record a conversation you are party to. By that I mean you cannot be arrested and prosecuted for doing so because you have committed no crime.

If you "publish" that recording to a third party then, depending on the circumstances, the other persons in the secret recording may possibly have a civil claim agains you. If they found out you were intending to publish it they may possibly be able to seek an injunction to prevent publication. Publish, in this context, means playing the recording to one or more persons.

Despite what is said in your link, it remains my understanding that recording a conversation when you are not present (i.e. bugging) may be a crime for which you could (in theory at least) face a criminal penalty.

There are many example of where transcripts from such recordings have been allowed as evidence in tribunals and civil courts. Equally there are examples where they have been excluded. It is not clear cut either way.

As I also mentioned, if the recording proves that somebody has lied under oath then it becomes evidence of a crime and would almost certainly be admissible in any later prosecution.