Employment Tribunal Questions
Comments
-
But what are accusing them off? They are entitled to have communication with NMC and share their views. I expect that not only is that is not illegal but even more, it is likely that this is what they are expected to do. According to you, they didn't even say that she didn't meet the requirements any longer, but they had doubt that she would.From thing I didn't wrote befor I know that employer raported my wife to NMC that he doubts she meets the requirements. When I asked them about any contact with NMC they said that they didn't contacted NMC, they confirmed that in witness statement, but I just received from NMC confirmation that they have in records comunications with my employer and also after the month they received anonymus referal about my wife.
If you contact your neighbour because you thought they were dealing drugs, you would be doing the right thing. If the neighbour confronted you and you said that you hadn't reported them, it wouldn't be illegal and they couldn't sue you for having done so. This is very similar in principle.
As stated before, proposing a settlement for resignation is not illegal and is not sacking. Your wife had the power to refuse. Are you saying though that the email explicitly says that they want to resign her only because she raised grievances? They would be very silly to write it as such!In one of the e-mails sent to their legal advisors manager accused by my wife described they behaviour and explained that they proposed her setlement for resignation not because of her fitnes to practice but because she has rised grievance against other employees and she appealed the outcome.0 -
But what are accusing them off? They are entitled to have communication with NMC and share their views. I expect that not only is that is not illegal but even more, it is likely that this is what they are expected to do. According to you, they didn't even say that she didn't meet the requirements any longer, but they had doubt that she would. Yes but when you know what are the requirements and still raporting the reson of doing that was to harm the nurse. My wife meet all requirements. They also should disclose that information that they sent something to NMC, and they didn't . They also denied it in witness statement. Do you belive that general manager of hospital will not know the requirements before he raport the nurse? Why he is hiding that?
If you contact your neighbour because you thought they were dealing drugs, you would be doing the right thing. If the neighbour confronted you and you said that you hadn't reported them, it wouldn't be illegal and they couldn't sue you for having done so. This is very similar in principle.
As stated before, proposing a settlement for resignation is not illegal and is not sacking. Your wife had the power to refuse. Are you saying though that the email explicitly says that they want to resign her only because she raised grievances? They would be very silly to write it as such
Yes she wrote that. I think that she didn't think it is something wrong and it was in comunication with legal advisor so probably she thought thet this will not be disclose. But that e-mail was also cc to others managers and grievance managers so previlage doesn't work and I asked them to disclose all comunication with legal advisors if it was copied to other. They also disclose that after we exchange witness statements and after they confirmed to employment tribunal that they alredy dislose all comunication between management !
They disclose right now about 20 new e-mail. Some not relevant but from few it will be easly prove that they lied in witness statement0 -
Or protect patients. You won't prove that they meant harm to her by this action, especially when they express doubts rather than certitude.Yes but when you know what are the requirements and still raporting the reson of doing that was to harm the nurse
I think you would need to post what was actually written to comment accurately as your interpretation of correspondence might be in question (as for instance above, you're not distinguishing doubts with accusations).Yes she wrote that.
Once again, even if it's proven that they lied doesn't mean you will win your case. They can get a slap on the wrist for having done so, but there is a -large- gap between telling a lie and breaking the law.0 -
I think that from what they did is obvius that they lied to harm the employee. All management work togather during grievance proces.They have lied so many times that they are not credible at all. They explanation in witness statement is so embarrassing and impossible to believe
I don't think that I can post document what was disclose to me so I am not going to do that at least till hearing.0 -
If you have not taken legal advice, and it looks as though you haven't, please do so.
If you are not prepared to do so, please go back to basics. You need to look up the law on each of the claims you have made. Go to www.legislation.gov.uk and find the Equality Act 2010 and the Employment Rights act 1996. Look up exactly what you need to show to convince the Judge that there has been discrimination because of race, because of pregnancy/maternity, victimisation and constructive dismissal.
Lying is not enough. Being a bit rubbish is not enough. Being inefficient is not enough. Late documents is not enough. Pressure is not enough. Being treated poorly after bringing a grievance is not enough.
I would also question your point on legal privilege, but I will leave that to the other side's lawyers and the Tribunal panel.0 -
If you have not taken legal advice, and it looks as though you haven't, please do so.
If you are not prepared to do so, please go back to basics. You need to look up the law on each of the claims you have made. Go to www.legislation.gov.uk and find the Equality Act 2010 and the Employment Rights act 1996. Look up exactly what you need to show to convince the Judge that there has been discrimination because of race, because of pregnancy/maternity, victimisation and constructive dismissal.
Lying is not enough. Being a bit rubbish is not enough. Being inefficient is not enough. Late documents is not enough. Pressure is not enough. Being treated poorly after bringing a grievance is not enough.
I would also question your point on legal privilege, but I will leave that to the other side's lawyers and the Tribunal panel.
I believe the OP can act as Lay Rep as long as his wife is present at the tribunal0 -
-
I hate saying this, but I think the OP may harm his wife's case by representing her, she needs someone who can put her points across clearly and concisely.
Which brings us to the second problem, what precise evidence does she have that shows her employer has broken employment law?If you are querying your Council Tax band would you please state whether you are in England, Scotland or Wales0 -
lincroft1710 wrote: »I hate saying this, but I think the OP may harm his wife's case by representing her, she needs someone who can put her points across clearly and concisely.
Which brings us to the second problem, what precise evidence does she have that shows her employer has broken employment law?
Based on this thread, none at all! Sadly though the OP seems to be the only person that can't see that.0 -
Is she a union member and has she spoken to them? I'm guessing not.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards