Maternity rights question to pose at ET?

Comms69

Were you in fact freelance?


Do you have a contract of employment?

DiscriminationClaimant17

Definitely wasn't freelance, we had a meeting which I have evidence of where we discussed my employment contract, manager agrees we discussed all the contractual elements and had the previous post holders contract there at the time so she could update and send me mine. I then chased and it never came, they said it was fine to work to the verbal agreement we'd set out.

They put forward the case that it was freelance because I could decide what work I accepted but I was always TOLD when I was working and never asked, never declined and the days I worked were based on my managers agreed work days with their clients. I was expected to be available! and the judge asked them if there was evidence to support their their claim and they said no, it was just a point of fact. In reality the only work I declined was when they asked me to work a week after I'd gone on maternity leave and I said no, and then explained that the was something that only I could do as my mat cover wasn't trained yet and so I did what I could. I said this in my witness statement.

DiscriminationClaimant17

Also signed everything off as my job title and R's company name on their behalf, emails were sent from an email they provided, work equipment provided, everything was for and on behalf of R.

Pricivius

I am not aware of a time limit imposed on Judges for reconsiderations, but maybe someone else will be able to clarify for you.


It is unfortunate that you were not aware that the Judge will not look at the bundle before the hearing, and will then only look at documents you refer them to in your witness statement, during cross examination or in your summing up. This is simply how it works. The Judge will make a decision based on what you tell them, what the other side tells them and which documents you take them to. If it is a case of he said/she said, they have no option but to make a judgment call as to who they believe; that's what they are there to do.


Did you take legal advice? CAB? Home insurance? Pro bono?

jobbingmusician

But surely.....

Was your employment status the employer's main point of defence?
Did they make this clear in their bundle?
Did you exchange bundles before the hearing?

If the answer to the these questions is yes, why didn't you bring forward the points you have made in post 23 at the hearing? (Not getting at you, just trying to understand how things happened.)

DiscriminationClaimant17

Hi Pricivus, I understood he wouldn't see it before the day but assumed that where a long string of communication from the tribunal and other judges directions was in place that they might be interested themselves as to why R was trying to hide the evidence in question, but I've since realised that it was for me to point out each and every failing which I've now done in my letter.

He wasn't a judge who asked any other questions really or was particularly supportive to me representing myself (I didn't necessarily expect him to wrap me in cotton wool but I was told all the way through the process that judges read between the lines, are supportive and will try and clarify my points where they can) no outside advice unfortunately, CAB seemed to know less than me and just pointed me in the direction of the ET's online pamphlets which was a real shame as it would have been good to know this before going in.

Jobbingmusician, yes, in the ET3 they said that I wasn't an employee and referred to me as a worker, the tribunal asked for clarification from me and I pointed out that in my ET1 I had said I was a worker and in my grievance letter it referred to me being a worker. After this was sent off they replied saying I wasn't a worker. Their bundle contained no written evidence save a letter which they admitted wasn't ever sent, they prepared the joint bundle which was entirely in support of my case but took elements out which they admitted they did surreptitiously - there was just so much to bring up on the day. I couldn't keep up with everything they did wrong and when I questioned them on something they had previously denied they suddenly admitted it and I dropped that line of questioning and moved on because I assumed the judge would be thinking "hang on, I read in the witness statement that they believed something different happened" but now realise I should have questioned WHY they had changed their story and pointed out where it said something different. I was just trying to keep up with the pace of the whole thing and made a lot of assumptions about what the the judge would do and the process based on what I'd been told.

I also tried to keep it as relevant to the matter of my status as I could where as they were trying to discredit me in ANY way they possibly could and I would explain it was untrue and steer back to relevant matters - I didn't want to make lots of accusations and turn it into a slanging match, at one point they just said "but it is true isn't it?" About 7 times to the same question before I said "unless you're going to show me some evidence that proves these pointless accusations can we move on?" there seemed to be plenty of evidence there to keep it going in the right direction without resorting to that but in his judgement he said he preferred her verbal evidence so it now seems relevant to explain where the evidence disproves every stupid lie my manager told in her witness statement, even if that seems petty...

ReadingTim

You won't want to hear this, but I think you've just learned the hard way why it's not always a good idea to represent yourself, no matter how clear cut you think the evidence is. You appear to have been completely outwitted by the other side's tactics, your own ability to recall facts, understand law and procedure, and generally present a coherent verbal argument, or re-form that argument as a result of conflicting statements from the other side. There's no shame in this - it's not a skill many people have, and it partially explains why those who are good at this sort of thing can be paid very well indeed.

So, do not send your letter. Do not take any further advice from randoms off the internet. Instead, instruct a professional as you're simply out of your depth here and stand little chance of reversing the defeat you've already suffered if you continue along alone.

nicechap

DiscriminationClaimant17 wrote: »

.... I pointed out that in my ET1 I had said I was a worker and in my grievance letter it referred to me being a worker. ......

You appear to have shot yourself in the foot there

ReadingTim wrote: »

........
So, do not send your letter. Do not take any further advice from randoms off the internet. Instead, instruct a professional as you're simply out of your depth here and stand little chance of reversing the defeat you've already suffered if you continue along alone.

This is the best piece of advice you'll get.

I somehow doubt you got permission to appeal the ET decision, and writing a letter to the judge (wasn't it a 3 person panel chaired by one person who may or may not be a judge?)is not likely to get you anywhere. Are you prepared to bet your house and savings taking it further?

Masomnia

As a 'worker' you can still bring a claim for unlawful discrimination.

I'm a bit surprised by this really. Were you on PAYE? And got Statutory Maternity Pay?

ETA I agree with the advice to get a professional on it if you do go further.

nicechap

Masomnia wrote: »

As a 'worker' you can still bring a claim for unlawful discrimination.

I'm a bit surprised by this really. Were you on PAYE? And got Statutory Maternity Pay?

ETA I agree with the advice to get a professional on it if you do go further.

Quite.

But there's no update on the discrimination accusation.

It seems to be more a case of they said this/ didn't say this, they claim I lied, I can prove they lied as opposed to whether the refusal to allow return to work was discrimination.

Also i note that they did decline work but then took it on (whilst on maternity leave in their view, whilst on a an agreed break from the organisations view), and they admit they worked odd hours/ days, so very much like a freelance/ consultancy contract.