Help! my Employment Tirbunal case is a mess

Dontmuckabout

I saw some threads about Employment Tribunals as I was trawling the web for help, I see some of you guys know your stuff and I desperately need help!

Short story - Worked for a construction company - got cancer - they didn't help me with sick pay/ support / or implement OT report. Grievance and appeal went against me and I put and ET1 in - my case goes to court on the 18/5/17 - 2 weeks. :eek:

I spent all my money on a solicitor (Slater Gordon DON'T GO THERE!!) and a barrister for the Pre-Hearing. Received Court Management Summary and my harassment claims had been left off. The point is I always thought can prove harassment.

I fired my solicitor but it still cost me 10k, and I now have to represent myself. Got no job (wasn’t fired) but can't get legal aid because of the equity in my house. No response from FRU or others.

I requested a revision based on my ET1 to reinstate my harassment claims on my line manager but ET said no/ out of time. I will have to take them to the Ombudsman … but that can wait for now.

My Question -
I have been reading everything I can on ET case law and I understand that they must hear all the evidence, because I cannot put in another ET1. Honestly, I couldn’t go through this again.

Is there some way to argue that the evidence I have is relevant ? will the respondents just shout me down?

Please help!

Takeaway_Addict

Dontmuckabout wrote: »

I saw some threads about Employment Tribunals as I was trawling the web for help, I see some of you guys know your stuff and I desperately need help!

Short story - Worked for a construction company - got cancer - they didn't help me with sick pay/ support / or implement OT report. Grievance and appeal went against me and I put and ET1 in - my case goes to court on the 18/5/17 - 2 weeks. :eek:

I spent all my money on a solicitor (Slater Gordon DON'T GO THERE!!) and a barrister for the Pre-Hearing. Received Court Management Summary and my harassment claims had been left off. The point is I always thought can prove harassment.

I fired my solicitor but it still cost me 10k, and I now have to represent myself. Got no job (wasn’t fired) but can't get legal aid because of the equity in my house. No response from FRU or others.

I requested a revision based on my ET1 to reinstate my harassment claims on my line manager but ET said no/ out of time. I will have to take them to the Ombudsman … but that can wait for now.

My Question -
I have been reading everything I can on ET case law and I understand that they must hear all the evidence, because I cannot put in another ET1. Honestly, I couldn’t go through this again.

Is there some way to argue that the evidence I have is relevant ? will the respondents just shout me down?

Please help!

With so little information no one will really be able to help.

Dontmuckabout

Thanks for answering Takeaway, and I see your point.
Fact is I'm drowning in witness statements and trying to do a crash coarse in employment case law, after 2 years of hell.
I cant write all of this again, so how do I explain something so complicated?
I just gotta hope that the Judges are reasonable and let me tell my whole story, because my employers lawyers are very good. They're going to try and exclude all the Harassment claims, which after what I went through, burns like hell.
My argument is going to be that if my line manager, did nothing to help me, nothing to support me, took work away, denied me extra sick leave when he knew that I was getting into financial problems and then didn't bother to talk to me for 5 months, isn't that harassment?
"Harassment is unwanted or unwelcome behavior which is meant to or has the effect of either: violating your dignity, or. creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment."
So why has that been ignored in the Case Management Summary and if its been excluded, how do I get it back in again?

Undervalued

Dontmuckabout wrote: »

My argument is going to be that if my line manager, did nothing to help me, nothing to support me, took work away, denied me extra sick leave when he knew that I was getting into financial problems and then didn't bother to talk to me for 5 months, isn't that harassment?

Sorry to be blunt but it could be argued to be good management.

Obviously I know noting about the case but, in general terms, your manager is not there to help you or to take account of your financial problems. His job is to manage the resource (you) to the firm's best advantage. Obviously he needs to do that within the law but his first duty is to the company and not to you.

You mention sick leave. All firms will have a policy regarding what, if any, sick pay they offer over and above SSP. The vast majority of such schemes are "discretionary" which means there is not actually a hard and fast contractual entitlement to anything. Discretion can be very wide indeed and about the only legal constraint is that it is not applied "perversely". Your financial need is not a relevant factor. Another employee may have substantial personal means but that does not mean he is entitled to less sick pay!

When does firm and robust management become harassment? That is a complex area that really requires specialist legal advice. You say your lawyers let you down and didn't include this part of your claim? Maybe you are right or maybe there are good reasons and their actual failure was not communicating them properly to you?

I am sorry for your situation but I doubt anybody here can be much help without a huge amount more information.

lincroft1710

Your solicitor probably thought your harassment claim was unconvincing or your employer's actions did not in fact constitute harassment. Including unconvincing or erroneous claims can seriously weaken a case and divert attention from its major points.

Dontmuckabout

Undervalued wrote: »

Sorry to be blunt but it could be argued to be good management.

Obviously I know noting about the case but, in general terms, your manager is not there to help you or to take account of your financial problems. His job is to manage the resource (you) to the firm's best advantage. Obviously he needs to do that within the law but his first duty is to the company and not to you.

You mention sick leave. All firms will have a policy regarding what, if any, sick pay they offer over and above SSP. The vast majority of such schemes are "discretionary" which means there is not actually a hard and fast contractual entitlement to anything. Discretion can be very wide indeed and about the only legal constraint is that it is not applied "perversely". Your financial need is not a relevant factor. Another employee may have substantial personal means but that does not mean he is entitled to less sick pay!

When does firm and robust management become harassment? That is a complex area that really requires specialist legal advice. You say your lawyers let you down and didn't include this part of your claim? Maybe you are right or maybe there are good reasons and their actual failure was not communicating them properly to you?

I am sorry for your situation but I doubt anybody here can be much help without a huge amount more information.

Dear Undervalued
You have no idea what your talking about. I would strongly suggest that you familiarise your self with The Equality Act 2010 and and specifically - guidelines for Discrimination, Protected Characteristics and Reasonable Adjustments, before you post anything further in this section of the Forum. This information in available to you on gov.uk website.

If your British you need to understand the Laws that are in place to protect you from your self, and abuse of those laws by employers.

Ozzuk

Lol now you are firing the person trying to give you advice. There is nowhere near enough information for anyone to be able to help you - and just because you see something as harassment doesn't mean it is. Equally though, it could well be.

The only advice I will give is the aside from the gulf of experience, your lawyers won't be looking at this emotively, you will, that can make it difficult to separate fact from opinion or even see how strong your own arguments are. Put yourself in the shoes of your 'opponents', try and think how they would view your case/argument.

I wish you luck, sounds like a horrible situation, sometimes its better to move on with life though but I hope you get the result you want.

Undervalued

Dontmuckabout wrote: »

Dear Undervalued
You have no idea what your talking about. I would strongly suggest that you familiarise your self with The Equality Act 2010 and and specifically - guidelines for Discrimination, Protected Characteristics and Reasonable Adjustments, before you post anything further in this section of the Forum. This information in available to you on gov.uk website.

If your British you need to understand the Laws that are in place to protect you from your self, and abuse of those laws by employers.

I suspect I know a great deal more about it that you!

So far you have fallen out with your employers, a large and well known firm of solicitors (I would love to hear their side of all this....) and now experienced volunteers wasting their time try to help you. Maybe, just maybe you are the common denominator in all this?

And finally, it is not up to you to tell me or anybody else where they can and cannot post on this forum.

Dontmuckabout

No, you don't know what your talking about.
"robust management" :mad:
"Harassment as defined in the Equality Act 2010 is
Unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, which has the purpose or effect of violating an individual’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that individual.
Behavior that is considered bullying by one person may be considered firm management by another. Most people will agree on extreme cases of bullying and harassment but it is sometimes the ‘grey’ areas that cause most problems. It is good practice for employers to give examples of what is unacceptable behavior in their organisation and this may include:

● spreading malicious rumours, or insulting someone by word or behaviour
● copying memos that are critical about someone to others who do not need
to know
● ridiculing or demeaning someone – picking on them or setting them up
to fail
● exclusion or victimisation
● unfair treatment
● overbearing supervision or other misuse of power or position :T
● unwelcome sexual advances – touching, standing too close, display of
offensive materials, asking for sexual favours, making decisions on the
basis of sexual advances being accepted or rejected
● making threats or comments about job security without foundation
● deliberately undermining a competent worker by overloading and constant
criticism
● preventing individuals progressing by intentionally blocking promotion or
training opportunities."
Extracted from ACAS Bullying and harassment in the workplace a guide for managers and employers

I have a date with a judge and I'll let you know what she thinks, after.
TYVM

Guest101

Dontmuckabout wrote: »

No, you don't know what your talking about.
"robust management" :mad:
"Harassment as defined in the Equality Act 2010 is
Unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, which has the purpose or effect of violating an individual’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that individual.
Behavior that is considered bullying by one person may be considered firm management by another. Most people will agree on extreme cases of bullying and harassment but it is sometimes the ‘grey’ areas that cause most problems. It is good practice for employers to give examples of what is unacceptable behavior in their organisation and this may include:

● spreading malicious rumours, or insulting someone by word or behaviour
● copying memos that are critical about someone to others who do not need
to know
● ridiculing or demeaning someone – picking on them or setting them up
to fail
● exclusion or victimisation
● unfair treatment
● overbearing supervision or other misuse of power or position :T
● unwelcome sexual advances – touching, standing too close, display of
offensive materials, asking for sexual favours, making decisions on the
basis of sexual advances being accepted or rejected
● making threats or comments about job security without foundation
● deliberately undermining a competent worker by overloading and constant
criticism
● preventing individuals progressing by intentionally blocking promotion or
training opportunities."
Extracted from ACAS Bullying and harassment in the workplace a guide for managers and employers

I have a date with a judge and I'll let you know what she thinks, after.
TYVM

Here's the full section of the law (the bold bits are crucial)


HarassmentE+W+S
This section has no associated Explanatory Notes
(1)A person (A) harasses another (B) if—
(a)A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and
(b)the conduct has the purpose or effect of—
(i)violating B's dignity, or
(ii)creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.
(2)A also harasses B if—
(a)A engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, and
(b)the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b).
(3)A also harasses B if—
(a)A or another person engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature or that is related to gender reassignment or sex,
(b)the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), and
(c)because of B's rejection of or submission to the conduct, A treats B less favourably than A would treat B if B had not rejected or submitted to the conduct.
(4)In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each of the following must be taken into account—
(a)the perception of B;
(b)the other circumstances of the case;
(c)whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.
(5)The relevant protected characteristics are—

• age;
• disability;
• gender reassignment;
• race;
• religion or belief;
• sex;
• sexual orientation.
  

IAmWales

Dontmuckabout wrote: »

No, you don't know what your talking about.
"robust management" :mad:
"Harassment as defined in the Equality Act 2010 is
Unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, which has the purpose or effect of violating an individual’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that individual.
Behavior that is considered bullying by one person may be considered firm management by another. Most people will agree on extreme cases of bullying and harassment but it is sometimes the ‘grey’ areas that cause most problems. It is good practice for employers to give examples of what is unacceptable behavior in their organisation and this may include:

● spreading malicious rumours, or insulting someone by word or behaviour
● copying memos that are critical about someone to others who do not need
to know
● ridiculing or demeaning someone – picking on them or setting them up
to fail
● exclusion or victimisation
● unfair treatment
● overbearing supervision or other misuse of power or position :T
● unwelcome sexual advances – touching, standing too close, display of
offensive materials, asking for sexual favours, making decisions on the
basis of sexual advances being accepted or rejected
● making threats or comments about job security without foundation
● deliberately undermining a competent worker by overloading and constant
criticism
● preventing individuals progressing by intentionally blocking promotion or
training opportunities."
Extracted from ACAS Bullying and harassment in the workplace a guide for managers and employers

I have a date with a judge and I'll let you know what she thinks, after.
TYVM

I suggest you find some manners before your date with the judge. Are you going to be rude to them if they disagree with you?