Employment Tribunal - Case Management Decision Help

sangie595

Ps. It's never a good idea to refuse mediation, but it's not the worst error. It may still happen. The problem is that if the judge now indicates your case is weak, they won't do it, or won't offer much, because they know your are more at risk than they are. There's never any harm in talking as it binds you to agree nothing. Too late to give you that advice, but it might help someone else.

steampowered

Why would you want a Tribunal order for disclosure of documents which you know don't exist?

Not sure I understand how the lack of a job description would help a health and safety claim. Claiming you didn't do something you were asked to do because it wasn't in your job description doesn't help you prove that the task you were asked to do was unsafe.

Brynsam

Have you been in touch with the Free Representation Unit: http://www.thefru.org.uk

sangie595

Brynsam wrote: »

Have you been in touch with the Free Representation Unit: http://www.thefru.org.uk

Probably not. Because they only work in a limited area and you can't contact them - you must be referred.

sangie595

steampowered wrote: »

Why would you want a Tribunal order for disclosure of documents which you don't know don't exist?

Not sure I understand how the lack of a job description would help a health and safety claim. Claiming you didn't do something you were asked to do because it wasn't in your job description doesn't help you prove that the task you were asked to do was unsafe.

You just had to ask, didn't you? My head was hurting trying to get around that one. The OP had also listed a series of documents that " must exist because they are legal documents" . Ummm. No. Because, for example, a job description isn't legally required. There's no requirement to have a personnel file either. Not something I'd recommend to an employer, but they don't have to keep such records at all!

Brynsam

sangie595 wrote: »

Probably not. Because they only work in a limited area and you can't contact them - you must be referred.

Referral isn't difficult - most CABx can refer.

steampowered

FRU have changed their policy and now allow self-referrals it seems, but only for short cases requiring a hearing of 1-2 days (http://www.thefru.org.uk/Employment-Self-Referral)

I imagine FRU would only accept people for self-referrals who are pretty organised (e.g. able to bring along a folder with all the Tribunal documents in date order, to an interview at FRU's offices in central London). The hearing would also have to be in London or the South-East.

sangie595

steampowered wrote: »

FRU have changed their policy and now allow self-referrals it seems, but only for short cases requiring a hearing of 1-2 days (http://www.thefru.org.uk/Employment-Self-Referral)

I imagine FRU would only accept people for self-referrals who are pretty organised (e.g. able to bring along a folder with all the Tribunal documents in date order, to an interview at FRU's offices in central London). The hearing would also have to be in London or the South-East.

Interesting. I was informed that route no longer existed, and that page is directly in conflict with the information on the home page, which says you must be referred. Given that the pilot was in 2015, I wonder if someone hasn't updated something?

steampowered

sangie595 wrote: »

Interesting. I was informed that route no longer existed, and that page is directly in conflict with the information on the home page, which says you must be referred. Given that the pilot was in 2015, I wonder if someone hasn't updated something?

Very possible, it sounds like you are right. The self-referrals page is still linked to on their referrals page, the site must be out of date one way or the other!

HMO976

I'm sure you can all appreciate that it isn't a good idea to get too specific about the case on an open forum.

I gave an example of a coupe of items I have requested. Not all of them. I've never said "must exist because they are a legal document". Some of the documents I have requested ARE a legal requirement.

I'm not naive enough to think the law is 'fair'. I don't think it's about 'right or wrong'. It is about what you can PROVE to be 'right or wrong'.

As a litigant in person a judge will still expect you to prove your case in law. I think that stacks the odds against you. It should be about right and wrong. Not about the person who is more knowledgeable about the rules under which you will be judged. Obviously that is not the way the world works. Tough ****, buttercup. It doesn't mean that I'm not entitled to my opinion to think that it is wrong.