Employment Tribunal Advice Please

annandale

I think you should consider getting advice from a lawyer as to the prospect of your case winning v the offer your employer offered. Before you proceed any further.

You would probably be given advice not to accept the first offer but this was the third (and I totally get that the first one was ridiculously low).

I think you really do need more advice on this issue than anyone on this forum can give you.

It's important. Just because other people out there would hold out for more and costs paid doesn't mean it's necessary the best thing for you.

Lioness_Twinkletoes

Converse20 wrote: »

I wish it was all a lie, then I wouldnt have had 2 years of worry!!

I wish I could say that money isn't an issue and that £15k wouldn't come in very handy. They stated in the email that costs to them would be £25k for the 6 day hearing. And that they would be applying for that should I lose.

Really, would I be stupid not to take the money and to risk a hefty bill. I know how unlikely it is that costs would be awarded, but I really am sick of all of it now.

I would love to be able to say that I turned down the money and went all the way, won and that they changed their ways etc. But really, I'm a non legally trained person going against a massive company's fancy barristers with all of my boss's giving evidence. I would need to cross examine people that I stood on ceremony for as I deemed them so important.
Am I underestimating how difficult that would actually be?

But if they will pay £15k, weeks before the hearing, could that mean I have a good chance of winning and doing all of the above?

And yes. I know they offer money to get rid. But from £2k to £15k in such a short time?

It's a hard decision - and if you are anything like me, you'll spend the rest of your life questioning if you made the right decision.

My husband had a case against his former employer and I was dealing with it for him - his case was strong (in my opinion). Witnesses had changed their statements a number of times and we had strong evidence against them. However, he'd had enough of the stress and we settled for a handsome sum (half a year's pay) plus a neutral reference.

Was worth it to us although I'll always regret not getting the opportunity to cross examine!

Undervalued

annandale wrote: »

I think you should consider getting advice from a lawyer as to the prospect of your case winning v the offer your employer offered. Before you proceed any further.

You would probably be given advice not to accept the first offer but this was the third (and I totally get that the first one was ridiculously low).

I think you really do need more advice on this issue than anyone on this forum can give you.

It's important. Just because other people out there would hold out for more and costs paid doesn't mean it's necessary the best thing for you.

I totally agree and have said as much in earlier posts. I hope the OP heeds your advice.

steampowered

I imagine the employer would be likely to settle for 15k plus your Tribunal costs and a neutral reference, if you write back saying you'd be willing to accept that.

Otherwise, you could leave your existing offer on the table and let them sweat for a bit. When is the hearing? A few weeks before the hearing is when the employer really starts racketing up legal costs and may be inclined to revisit the offer.

Converse20

Thankyou all. I am looking into it today.

Can anyone help regarding the 2 year point.

Summary dismissal at 103 weeks and 1 day for gross misconduct. Do I have 2 years service for the right to not be unfairly dismissed?

jobbingmusician

'NOT AN EXPERT' DISCLAIMER..........

No, but I think your argument should be that they went for summary dismissal illicitly (this that a word?) to avoid the 2 year thing.

Undervalued

Converse20 wrote: »

Thankyou all. I am looking into it today.

Can anyone help regarding the 2 year point.

Summary dismissal at 103 weeks and 1 day for gross misconduct. Do I have 2 years service for the right to not be unfairly dismissed?

That is the difficult one.

One week's statutory notice counts towards your length of service but, if you were guilty of gross misconduct you can lawfully be dismissed with no notice.

But, are you not claiming that you were dismissed for making a protected disclosure? If so then there is no qualifying period.

Again this is all right on the edge and you need professional advice.

annandale

How prepared are you for the tribunal? Assuming it goes ahead. You mentioned something in your opening post about preparation of bundles. You'll prepare your own. And it can be quite time consuming.

You also need to make a decision about representation. If it goes ahead. Whether you are
going to represent yourself or if you know someone who will do it or whether you are going to use a lawyer.

Converse20

annandale wrote: »

How prepared are you for the tribunal? Assuming it goes ahead. You mentioned something in your opening post about preparation of bundles. You'll prepare your own. And it can be quite time consuming.

You also need to make a decision about representation. If it goes ahead. Whether you are
going to represent yourself or if you know someone who will do it or whether you are going to use a lawyer.

I am fully prepared for the hearing and to represent myself for automatically unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure.

Although I am currently sat in the library looking through books to ensure that I haven't missed anything vital.

The 2 year point, although I cannot do anything about this now as my Ordinary unfair dismissal claim was withdrawn, I want to highlight the respondents lies in this matter as they told the tribunal on 2 occasions in writing that I didn't have the relevant service.

More so, it may be useful leverage to negotiate a fair settlement.

An agreed shared bundle has been produced by the respondents legal team and I have my copy of this. Other than the witness statements, I'm done on the photocopying front.

Just trying to ensure that I'm fully prepared for 6 days of fighting!

steampowered

Converse20 wrote: »

An agreed shared bundle has been produced by the respondents legal team and I have my copy of this. Other than the witness statements, I'm done on the photocopying front.

If you've already received a bundle, the respondent's solicitors may have already spent a substantial amount of time preparing for the hearing.

If that is the case you may not get a better settlement offer. Your leverage to obtain a better settlement could reduce as further costs are spent preparing for the hearing. So it may be time to seriously consider the £15k offer (should be straightforward to get your Tribunal fees + a neutral agreed reference tacked onto that).

Converse20 wrote: »

Can anyone help regarding the 2 year point.

Summary dismissal at 103 weeks and 1 day for gross misconduct. Do I have 2 years service for the right to not be unfairly dismissed?

s97(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that, in relation to an employee whose contract of employment is terminated without notice, the effective date of termination is the date on which termination takes effect.

If the employer was entitled to dismiss you immediately for gross misconduct, then I would have thought you would not meet the 2 year minimum service requirement. Although if the employer was entitled to dismiss you for gross misconduct your unfair dismissal claim would have failed regardless of your length of service.

On the other hand, if the employer was not entitled to dismiss you immediately for gross misconduct, then I would have thought your employment contract would not come to an end until such time as you either accepted the employer's breach of contract in dismissing you or the minimum notice period would have expired, which would take you over the 2 year requirement. I am assuming that the employer's notice of termination of your employment did not seek to rely on a PILON clause in your employment contract.

Before getting to Tribunal you should probably read and attempt to understand the Supreme Court's decision on this point in Soc Gen v Geys, which is one of the key sources of law in this area: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/63.html.

Converse20 wrote: »

I want to highlight the respondents lies in this matter as they told the tribunal on 2 occasions in writing that I didn't have the relevant service.

I wouldn't spend too much time on trying to prove that the respondent or their solicitors were "lying".

Do remember that the Tribunal is there to decide whether you have been unfairly dismissed. It is not there to decide whether anybody was lying. Lying is generally not illegal anyway.

In any event I think it is stretching it to describe this as a "lie". The respondent and their solicitors are perfectly entitled to put forward a robust view of their legal position. They do not owe you any duty of care at all. If you disagree, it is up to you to take your own legal advice.