Unfair/Wrongful dismissal - Conflict of interest

Marcon

Blatchford wrote: »

It's a ridiculous stretch, I agree. It will never win at a tribunal. But it first has to go to ACAS for conciliation. And they are entirely likely to tell the employer that it would be cheaper to make an offer than go to tribunal.

Except the sacking has nothing to do with whistleblowing. ACAS are just as likely to tell OP that as this is a lost cause, they could be saddled with the employer's costs if it goes to a tribunal.

Blatchford

Marcon wrote: »

Except the sacking has nothing to do with whistleblowing. ACAS are just as likely to tell OP that as this is a lost cause, they could be saddled with the employer's costs if it goes to a tribunal.

In the first instance I made it clear that this would never win a tribunal; but I think your suggestion is unlikely. It won't get as far as a tribunal, and unless the tribunal warns the poster about a risk of costs, that simply won't happen. It is exceptionally rare that it happens, and only after a litigant has been warned by a tribunal about the risk of proceeding. And given that such a claim would be for both whistleblowing unfair dismissal and owed money.... I think that it is worth a punt to see if it gets them even a small amount at conciliation. The poster has nothing to lose - even the small risk of being ordered to pay costs only comes at tribunal stage and AFTER being warned.

Blatchford

Les79 wrote: »

(well done for embracing the "possibility" mantra, by the way I get shouted at when I go against the grain, but you seem to have it to a tee )

I have no idea what you are talking about, but please be clear - I am not "embracing" making stuff up not in evidence in order to manufacture a completely fictitious claim. If anything would make me reconsider the wisdom of my advice on this matter it would be the fact that you seem to agree with it.

Blatchford

Les79 wrote: »

Does your advice vary depending on who is asking or agreeing with you?

Not usually, but in your case I have so little respect for your advice on this board that when I get such fulsome praise from you I have to consider whether I have got it totally wrong.

I wish to be clear - it is my view that it is a stretch to argue whistleblowing (which I said), but there is an evidential foundation to do so. The employer has refused to acknowledge and act upon the posters friend informing them of beaches of the law, in the final case, one occurring in front of the employer. It is my opinion that you almost always manufacture an argument based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever, and usually to claim discrimination when there is no evidence of any discrimination at all. I would not subscribe to the methodology that you appear to apply on this board.