Employment Law Solicitor

ohreally

What was the case against you?

Saphire23

I work for the Civil Service and there were inaccuracies on my partner's side, which I did not know about concerning our joint family tax credit claim. I only found out about it when there was a family tax credit enquiry when I asked for his records. It resulted in an overpayment over 2 years of 4k. My partner suffers from chronic depression, and I have submitted the medical papers to Internal Investigations. However, Internal Investigations then deemed my case as gross misconduct. I just had the Disciplinary Hearing, which went badly. He introduced a new piece of evidence. I was completely panic stricken by it. I managed to explain it only when I phoned my partner in the requested break. The Union rep never pulled up the Decision Manager and just said that it completely undermined my case in the break. The Internal Investigation factfinding report did mention that there is mitigation to consider and the Decision Manager did say he would consider it. However, the way he conducted he interview I am not hopeful of the outcome, which is why I want to line up an Employment Solicitor.

Saphire23

Wow harsh words. I don't really want to go into anymore details suffice to say that I really did not know about the changes in circumstances.
This forum was recommended to me from another forum for constructive advice.

After I managed to research what happened at short notice literally during the break when the new evidence was introduced; My union rep actually said that he did not think what happened constituted a breakdown of trust between employee and employer.

It's just the union rep was not helpful during the disciplinary hearing.

Another_not_new_user

You appear, on the basis that my previous comments were removed, to not understand what helpful or constructive means. It does not mean telling you what you would like to hear. As I told you, a tribunal and a lawyer are very expensive things, and that is assuming that you can even make a claim. They are both things that are likely to tell you a lot of things that you do not want to hear. And a lawyer is no way to guarantee that you have a case. It is a way of guaranteeing that you spend a lot of money. It as easy, as has been seen on many an occasion, for a lawyer to tell you what you want to hear without telling you a lie - or telling you the truth either. For as long as you pay the bills.


If you genuinely thought that pointing out that mitigation is not a defence (and that the employer doesn't need to accept it), or that your own union said that you had undermined your case (your words, not mine), or that you may not even be able to claim, or that in a joint claim your partners mental illness is not an explanation for what you term as inaccuracies, then you really aren't prepared for the harsh world of a tribunal. You clearly don't understand that a tribunal does not rehear the case and decide whether the employers decision is right or not. They only decide whether the employer has a reasonable belief that you did what you are accused of. And whether dismissal is within the sanctions range that an employer might use. A very different, and for you much harder, test than you appear to think.


Any lawyer that does not tell you everything I told you, and a lot more, isn't doing their job. That is what helpful and constructive means.

Saphire23

Another not new user I did not remove your comments, I don't know how to do so and thank you for constructive comments.

lakes17

I agree with the advice on what a number of users have quoted. You need to stick with your Union and go along with any advice they give. If they think you have a strong case for a tribunal then they will provide a solicitor who is an expert in the field of employment law free of charge. If they don't feel you have a case then they will tell you that and my advice would be to accept that, even though it is not what you want to hear.


Yes you would probably find a solicitor willing to act for you at an exorbitant cost, not because they think you have a strong case but because they see it as easy money.


If you end up losing your job could you justify spending thousands of pounds on solicitor fees plus £1,200 tribunal fee?


Instead you should accept the advice of your union even of the advice is not what you want to hear, as the Union will have you interests at heart and not see you as a money making machine with no hope of success. You then need to put a line under the whole episode and move on.

PHILANTHROPIST

Re crown servants employment law restrictions- is the OP either a Police officer or a member of armed forces ? No need to specify which.

Re length of service (applies if ET route is in fact an option ...if ultimately deemed necessary) - how many yrs of continuous employment does OP have ?

Re Union - tend to disagree with positve vibes articulated for Union reps. Call me a cynic, but based on my experience Unions currently cherry pick and their input can be variable. Nobody can stop a party from seeking pro bono input from likes of a solicitor (eg first hour free) for a second opinion. You don't have to tell the Union that you've sought a second opinion, assuming one were in fact required.

Phil

Another_not_new_user

PHILANTHROPIST wrote: »

Re crown servants employment law restrictions- is the OP either a Police officer or a member of armed forces ? No need to specify which.

Phil

They do not need to be either. OP is a civil servant, and many civil servants, including people at quite low grades, are Crown Servants. I have routinely come across Crown Servants in the lower echelons of the DWP, HMRC and other government departments. That is how the Civil Service routinely gets around obligations under employment law.

PHILANTHROPIST

Ok Another. Does this then mean that a civil service worker, such as a ACAS helpine advisor falls outwith conventional UK employment protection rights ?

PHILANTHROPIST

Whist awaiting a reponse from ANNU I came across these apparently authoritative articles which appear to in part uphold ANNUs views and in part contradict what the member claims.

1) What is a Civil Servant ? -

http://www.policy.manchester.ac.uk/resources/civil-servant/information/definitions/

2) Can Civil Servants be dismissed ? -

http://www.policy.manchester.ac.uk/resources/civil-servant/information/cancivilservantsbedismissed/

HTH ... or otherwise lol
Phil