Pursue action against employer...or walk away?

Les79

OP, to keep things as balanced as I can but Employment Tribunals are sort of the end of the road when it comes to putting in complaints like this.


You usually have to first raise the grievances with them, then go through ACAS conciliation and then Employment Tribunal.


Additionally, an ET is pretty much free these days (in comparison to in the past when it was REALLY hard to access one due to the extortionate costs) and you also have the opportunity to appoint someone to deal with it on your behalf. You could also appoint a solicitor who may well take you on for no win no fee.


This won't rule out you dealing with certain elements, and there is a good chance you'll be questioned in ET and for them to be somewhat uncomfortable/painful ones. But OVERALL, the whole process doesn't have to be as stressful as many people make out.


It grates me sometimes when people see "health issues" and start playing up the negative effects it will have on your health, to the point where it effectively aims to put you off from considering it in the first place (another factor often overlooked is the possibility that INACTION could aggravate health issues too). You would be wise to take the advice on here with a pinch of salt, but also to defer to the advice from people such as:


- Your union rep(s) who may well take on your case and do most of the legwork for you
- Your GP about your health issues and how this could affect it
- Possibly a solicitor
- ACAS and possibly CAB


Also, you would need some clear idea of what you want out of this! Speak to your union and ACAS about what you might expect if successful. If you don't stand to gain much then there is a good case for simply dropping it and moving on with your life.

Dox

Les79 wrote: »

But OVERALL, the whole process doesn't have to be as stressful as many people make out.

...it is likely to be far worse. Go and sit in on a few employment tribunals (they are almost all open to the public) and you'll soon discover the reality can be truly horrible.

Les79

Dox wrote: »

...it is likely to be far worse. Go and sit in on a few employment tribunals (they are almost all open to the public) and you'll soon discover the reality can be truly horrible.

Righto, so you didn't read my post.


I'm not too bothered like because it was long, but you just cherry picked there.


I also said:

me wrote:

and there is a good chance you'll be questioned in ET and for them to be somewhat uncomfortable/painful ones

In the part of my post you DID quote, I used the key words "the whole process", which includes the stages PRIOR to an ET and which can sometimes force a settlement in itself.

jonnygee2

It grates me sometimes when people see "health issues" and start playing up the negative effects it will have on your health

The OP has said that 'every time I have dealings with my employer I feel so suicidal and end up in hospital after seriously self harming'.

What is described is an extremely serious state of mental illness. You have to do a considerable amount of harm to yourself before you will get taken to a hospital.

I think it is pretty naive/dismissive to write health issues in inverted speech marks in this case. No one has 'played up the effects'. The OP is self harming and at risk of serious or even fatal harm.

Marcon

Les79 wrote: »

I'm not too bothered like because it was long, but you just cherry picked there.

Picking out what appears to be the salient point is hardly cherry picking: OP needs to know what could happen if the process gets to a tribunal hearing. Ducking out at that stage, having endured the painful run up/preparation is only going to make them feel a whole lot worse.

Saying hopefully that it might force a settlement, given what OP has posted, is optimistic in the extreme.

Dox has hit the nail on the head with his observation. An employment tribunal is a process with two losers - any 'victory' is almost always pyrrhic in nature. Someone in a fragile mental state could find it intolerable, so putting their own mental health first makes a lot of sense.

WednesdayAdams

Dox wrote: »

Looking at the first post you made on this site back in 2014, my impression (based on very limited evidence) is that you are quite vulnerable and quite prone to reacting strongly to circumstances which some others might find easier to take in their stride.

I think blaming your employer for everything, when you have a history of debt and feeling down, might possibly be one of those 'strong' reactions (but obviously I could be wrong).

Having read all your previous posts, I think you'd struggle if you have to relive all the misery you believe stems from the last couple of years of employment. You are not responsible for 'stopping them doing it to other people', so don't let that red herring get in the way of taking a decision based on your own best interests.

You are 100% right that I do have very strong emotional reactions. I'm also very sensitive, find it really hard to cope with stress and I am prone to catastrophise. My mental health is really vulnerable and quite bad at the moment - I am having treatment now to deal with some of these issues. That's why I think it may be better to walk away from this situation asap - and concentrate on getting myself better. And I guess, learning the skills needed to not get myself in this situation again.

Les79

jonnygee2 wrote: »

The OP has said that 'every time I have dealings with my employer I feel so suicidal and end up in hospital after seriously self harming'.

What is described is an extremely serious state of mental illness. You have to do a considerable amount of harm to yourself before you will get taken to a hospital.

I agree, however two things:


1. They should defer to the advice of their GP when it comes to health issues


2. Addressing employment matters like this should be OPEN TO ALL. I feel I have provided a more balanced answer in comparison to those who effectively state the potential effects on OP's health in a way which suggests that they are better not pursuing it for that reason alone. For example, I pointed out that you can appoint a representative to deal with MOST of the stuff; something which would take a lot of pressure off OP and something which wasn't mentioned by some people on here...

I think it is pretty naive/dismissive to write health issues in inverted speech marks in this case. No one has 'played up the effects'. The OP is self harming and at risk of serious or even fatal harm.

You are completely correct about the risk of serious or even fatal harm, and I would implore OP to consult their GP as a matter or urgency (separate to this issue).


Fair enough if you feel it is naïve/dismissive, but it wasn't meant that way and I was hopeful that people could infer that (I am at fault for not bolding it or using asterixis instead). Using "health issues" was merely meant as an indirect quotation of the posts other people have made.

Gavin83

WednesdayAdams wrote: »

The purpose of my post isn't to discuss the bullying, was it really bullying, how to keep my job, how to prove it etc.

You can't say you don't wish to discuss this and then hope to get this answered:

WednesdayAdams wrote: »

The question is...should I pursue a claim against my employer for the bullying.

Essentially how much you should pursue the claim will depend on how valid your claim is. If you aren't prepared to discuss your evidence then no one here can hope to answer this question.

However I agree with most of the others. Will you be able to make it through the case? It's likely to be extremely mentally and physically draining.

WednesdayAdams wrote: »

We have proof of the bullying, im too sick to go back to work.

Are they two separate statements or are you suggesting that's your evidence? Your inability to return to work isn't even close to being enough to win a court case.

Les79

Marcon wrote: »

Picking out what appears to be the salient point is hardly cherry picking: OP needs to know what could happen if the process gets to a tribunal hearing.

It is cherry picking when they omitted to quote the part of my post which made reference to the negative elements of a tribunal hearing, and when the part they quoted referred to the WHOLE process but they seemed to think that I was only referring to the tribunal part.

Ducking out at that stage, having endured the painful run up/preparation is only going to make them feel a whole lot worse.

Despite the fact that they can nominate a representative for most of the process, and they will deal with it on behalf of OP?


That sort of mindset is precisely what grates me!! Health issue and the only advice you can offer up is how it will affect their health long term. YES TRUE, but where's the advice about OP being able to have someone represent them and fill out most of the initial paperwork and handle most of the initial enquiries? It is NOWHERE, because the narrative seems to be constantly focused on discouraging people with health issues from at least considering standing up for themselves.

Saying hopefully that it might force a settlement, given what OP has posted, is optimistic in the extreme.

I haven't read the particulars of the case, because I'm trying to be impartial to OP.

Dox has hit the nail on the head with his observation. An employment tribunal is a process with two losers - any 'victory' is almost always pyrrhic in nature. Someone in a fragile mental state could find it intolerable, so putting their own mental health first makes a lot of sense.

Maybe employers across the country should sack all of their employees who have mental health issues and then users on here should recommend that they don't at least consider the possibility of taking it further? Then get in young hardworking people on lower wages in their place?

WednesdayAdams

Dox wrote: »

...it is likely to be far worse. Go and sit in on a few employment tribunals (they are almost all open to the public) and you'll soon discover the reality can be truly horrible.

This is a really good idea. I might do it. Where are they held? Are they at the Magistrates Court?