Employment Tribunal Advice Please

Converse20

lincroft1710 wrote: »

You seem to be contradicting yourself, have these practices stopped or not?

Not contradicting myself at all.

I reported wrongdoing to the regularitory body. I was dismissed as a result. It then transpired, during my wait for tribunal that what I had reported wasn't the only thing that they had done. Another manager reported something similar, and they were investigated and fined (a fine of sorts, they had to make a massive donation) 6 figures. I wouldn't be privy to information about my reports and what would happen following them but they are a vile company that put profits over people and the public and put lives in danger every day.

I am pursuing the employer for damages following my dismissal. However, to accept a settlement which is just what I've paid in fees wouldn't be favourable and would've made the whole thing pointless. In the case of this, yes, I would rather see it through and risk losing what I was prepared to lose by paying the fees anyway!

lincroft1710

I've asked you 2 questions, which required simple answers, yet you haven't directly answered them

lincroft1710 wrote: »

How much are you looking for?

lincroft1710 wrote: »

have these practices stopped or not?

KiKi

Be careful how much information you're putting in here, OP. It wouldn't be too hard to look at the list of FTSE 100 companies and work out who you're talking about.

steampowered

Converse20 wrote: »

Even if I got the same in tribunal (or less taking into account my expenses to date) I would have a moral victory as there practices would be out there.

Aren't the practices already out there given that the employer has paid a settlement to the regulator? Presumably that is public information?

But I have no further expenses now, I've spent what I've spent, even if the majority is time, and if all I get from this is there practices out there and staff and public to be safe, then I would be happy.

Yes, that is all very true. It is the employer that will suffer further expenses when their legal representatives have to start preparing for the hearing. That is when they are most likely to accept a settlement offer.

Converse20

The practices that they paid the fine for are only similar. Not actually related to my disclosures. I am not privy to information on what happened following my discolosures, only that it was investigated and that is where my dismissal came from.

I do not wish to answer the question of how much I would like. I don't think it's relevant to anything that I have asked and I don't see how it can help with answers to anything that I've asked. Sorry to sound rude if it comes across that way.

The practices that I reported were still taking place at the time of my dismissal, some time ago. As I obviously no longer work for them I do not know if they are still continuing although I assume not.

To put it into perspective. It's like a bank, being regulated by the FSA, and having conditions attached to protect customers for mortgage customers. But going against laws put in place. But to the extent that it's customers we're put at such a risk that they could lose their homes.

In the case's that were investigated and in which they were fined, they failed to protect certain customers which was reported to the regulator (say the FSA) who found that the customers had lost their homes directly due to planned acts by the company. This information is publically available but more so to those in the industry.

In my case, I had noticed a client was at risk of losing his home due to the company misselling to him. I informed all relevant people, put plans in place to stop it continuing and did everything I could to protect the business and client. I was told to keep my nose out and reprimanded. I spoken to the FSA (e.g.) for advice. Then I was called into a meeting and told in no uncertain terms that it wasn't for me to get involved and that it was going to continue. I was then suspended under Micky mouse allegations. I then made a full report to the FSA before being dismissed.

If I only I could say it without going round the houses and probably just watering it down. But the point is, they are in the wrong. I didn't deserve to lose my job and it caused me hardship. Yes as I have said, a big part of me would love for the company to be shunned and for all of the bad things they do to be brought to light.

In an ideal world, everyone would be honest and none of this would've happened. I loved my job and was very good at it.

steampowered

Fair enough, good luck to you.

Converse20

steampowered wrote: »

Fair enough, good luck to you.

Thanks. And thanks for all of your help and advice.

Savvy_Sue

Converse20 wrote: »

I do not wish to answer the question of how much I would like. I don't think it's relevant to anything that I have asked and I don't see how it can help with answers to anything that I've asked. Sorry to sound rude if it comes across that way.

I think that if you gave a figure, you'd be told how likely it was that you'd get that figure or anything like it. That's all. You've done some research yourself, so presumably your figure is in line with that. But as bugslet says, tribunals are funny things, can be unpredictable, and don't necessarily achieve the results you seem to be looking for.

lincroft1710

Converse20 wrote: »

But they really are a terrible company that have put, and continue to to put the safety of staff and public in danger.

Converse20 wrote: »

The practices that they paid the fine for are only similar. Not actually related to my disclosures. I am not privy to information on what happened following my discolosures, only that it was investigated and that is where my dismissal came from.

The practices that I reported were still taking place at the time of my dismissal, some time ago. As I obviously no longer work for them I do not know if they are still continuing although I assume not.

To put it into perspective. It's like a bank, being regulated by the FSA, and having conditions attached to protect customers for mortgage customers. But going against laws put in place. But to the extent that it's customers we're put at such a risk that they could lose their homes.

In the case's that were investigated and in which they were fined, they failed to protect certain customers which was reported to the regulator (say the FSA) who found that the customers had lost their homes directly due to planned acts by the company. This information is publically available but more so to those in the industry.

In my case, I had noticed a client was at risk of losing his home due to the company misselling to him. I informed all relevant people, put plans in place to stop it continuing and did everything I could to protect the business and client. I was told to keep my nose out and reprimanded. I spoken to the FSA (e.g.) for advice. Then I was called into a meeting and told in no uncertain terms that it wasn't for me to get involved and that it was going to continue. I was then suspended under Micky mouse allegations. I then made a full report to the FSA before being dismissed.

Sorry I'm confused again!

Were the company putting staff and public in physical danger, or just leading them into possible financial ruin

Converse20

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Sorry I'm confused again!

Were the company putting staff and public in physical danger, or just leading them into possible financial ruin

As I said. The bank analogy was an example to express what sort of a disclosure it was, it isn't concerning finances or homes.
For obvious reasons I can't go into what actually happened. It was putting staff and the public into physical danger.