The madness of the employment tribunal Part 2
Discussion
So, those of you here 12 months or so ago will recall that I had to delete a thread I started about being taken to an employment tribunal by a job applicant.
Well, it is listed for hearing within the next week or so. Just the 16 months and £12K in legal advice after the intial empty complaint.
I will update once it is all over and I know what I can safely and legally say but it has done nothing to reassure me that the law has one ounce of common sense.
Watch this space because all the signs are she is in for a spanking (but I have also learned not to think evidence has any role either).
Sadly, don't hold your breath for the ET to do anything but believe every word of the employee. We just lost one :
- Saleswoman goes on maternity leave, asks to come back part time - 1 day in the office and 3 from home
- No IT systems to support or other staff working that way
- She needed to visit customers any day of the week plus fly overseas - could no longer do this thus causing real work for others
- We rejected it but offered 3 days in the office instead. Off to ET with her claiming everything under the sun inc. sex discrimination etc.
- Said being asked to change desks in the office was discrimination against pregnant women
- Being asked to hand laptop back (despite signing form saying she had to when employed) was discrimination
- Said all male staff in the office were colluding with Directors
- Oh - came to the office BBQ while pregnant and had a great time
- Claimed never to have seen emails when we had full docs to prove it
- Her witness gave conflicting evidence - all ignored
- Not a single piece of email or written evidence to prove her allegations ; all her word only
- We had 300+ pages of emails and letters showing we bent over backwards to help her
- Tribunal agreed with her and her Barrister
- Her "looking for work" consisted of 3 applications a month
- Tribunal said this was more than sufficient
- We got royally reamed and told we were a a most unpleasant place for parents with children (40% of the office has kids)
Lost 100% of all confidence in the system. When faced with 2 options, they always chose the employee's verbal account over our email evidence. They believed every instance where she said she never received the email . I mean FFS!
As a consequence of all this, working life in the office is much stricter for all staff. No flexibility on sickness, strict disciplinary when things go wrong rather than a quiet word. Lateness in the office made a personnel file issue. If we had done this before, we would probably have been ok.
A bleeding farce.
- Saleswoman goes on maternity leave, asks to come back part time - 1 day in the office and 3 from home
- No IT systems to support or other staff working that way
- She needed to visit customers any day of the week plus fly overseas - could no longer do this thus causing real work for others
- We rejected it but offered 3 days in the office instead. Off to ET with her claiming everything under the sun inc. sex discrimination etc.
- Said being asked to change desks in the office was discrimination against pregnant women
- Being asked to hand laptop back (despite signing form saying she had to when employed) was discrimination
- Said all male staff in the office were colluding with Directors
- Oh - came to the office BBQ while pregnant and had a great time
- Claimed never to have seen emails when we had full docs to prove it
- Her witness gave conflicting evidence - all ignored
- Not a single piece of email or written evidence to prove her allegations ; all her word only
- We had 300+ pages of emails and letters showing we bent over backwards to help her
- Tribunal agreed with her and her Barrister
- Her "looking for work" consisted of 3 applications a month
- Tribunal said this was more than sufficient
- We got royally reamed and told we were a a most unpleasant place for parents with children (40% of the office has kids)
Lost 100% of all confidence in the system. When faced with 2 options, they always chose the employee's verbal account over our email evidence. They believed every instance where she said she never received the email . I mean FFS!
As a consequence of all this, working life in the office is much stricter for all staff. No flexibility on sickness, strict disciplinary when things go wrong rather than a quiet word. Lateness in the office made a personnel file issue. If we had done this before, we would probably have been ok.
A bleeding farce.
bunyarra said:
Sadly, don't hold your breath for the ET to do anything but believe every word of the employee. We just lost one :
- Saleswoman goes on maternity leave, asks to come back part time - 1 day in the office and 3 from home
- No IT systems to support or other staff working that way
- She needed to visit customers any day of the week plus fly overseas - could no longer do this thus causing real work for others
- We rejected it but offered 3 days in the office instead. Off to ET with her claiming everything under the sun inc. sex discrimination etc.
- Said being asked to change desks in the office was discrimination against pregnant women
- Being asked to hand laptop back (despite signing form saying she had to when employed) was discrimination
- Said all male staff in the office were colluding with Directors
- Oh - came to the office BBQ while pregnant and had a great time
- Claimed never to have seen emails when we had full docs to prove it
- Her witness gave conflicting evidence - all ignored
- Not a single piece of email or written evidence to prove her allegations ; all her word only
- We had 300+ pages of emails and letters showing we bent over backwards to help her
- Tribunal agreed with her and her Barrister
- Her "looking for work" consisted of 3 applications a month
- Tribunal said this was more than sufficient
- We got royally reamed and told we were a a most unpleasant place for parents with children (40% of the office has kids)
Lost 100% of all confidence in the system. When faced with 2 options, they always chose the employee's verbal account over our email evidence. They believed every instance where she said she never received the email . I mean FFS!
As a consequence of all this, working life in the office is much stricter for all staff. No flexibility on sickness, strict disciplinary when things go wrong rather than a quiet word. Lateness in the office made a personnel file issue. If we had done this before, we would probably have been ok.
A bleeding farce.
Out of interest, how do people instigate this kind of action? Do they go to a solicitor on a no-win, no-fee kind of offer?- Saleswoman goes on maternity leave, asks to come back part time - 1 day in the office and 3 from home
- No IT systems to support or other staff working that way
- She needed to visit customers any day of the week plus fly overseas - could no longer do this thus causing real work for others
- We rejected it but offered 3 days in the office instead. Off to ET with her claiming everything under the sun inc. sex discrimination etc.
- Said being asked to change desks in the office was discrimination against pregnant women
- Being asked to hand laptop back (despite signing form saying she had to when employed) was discrimination
- Said all male staff in the office were colluding with Directors
- Oh - came to the office BBQ while pregnant and had a great time
- Claimed never to have seen emails when we had full docs to prove it
- Her witness gave conflicting evidence - all ignored
- Not a single piece of email or written evidence to prove her allegations ; all her word only
- We had 300+ pages of emails and letters showing we bent over backwards to help her
- Tribunal agreed with her and her Barrister
- Her "looking for work" consisted of 3 applications a month
- Tribunal said this was more than sufficient
- We got royally reamed and told we were a a most unpleasant place for parents with children (40% of the office has kids)
Lost 100% of all confidence in the system. When faced with 2 options, they always chose the employee's verbal account over our email evidence. They believed every instance where she said she never received the email . I mean FFS!
As a consequence of all this, working life in the office is much stricter for all staff. No flexibility on sickness, strict disciplinary when things go wrong rather than a quiet word. Lateness in the office made a personnel file issue. If we had done this before, we would probably have been ok.
A bleeding farce.
Must be bad news for women applicants in general, as employers are going to seriously think twice when they see this going on.
jamesb300 said:
bunyarra said:
Sadly, don't hold your breath for the ET to do anything but believe every word of the employee. We just lost one :
- Saleswoman goes on maternity leave, asks to come back part time - 1 day in the office and 3 from home
- No IT systems to support or other staff working that way
- She needed to visit customers any day of the week plus fly overseas - could no longer do this thus causing real work for others
- We rejected it but offered 3 days in the office instead. Off to ET with her claiming everything under the sun inc. sex discrimination etc.
- Said being asked to change desks in the office was discrimination against pregnant women
- Being asked to hand laptop back (despite signing form saying she had to when employed) was discrimination
- Said all male staff in the office were colluding with Directors
- Oh - came to the office BBQ while pregnant and had a great time
- Claimed never to have seen emails when we had full docs to prove it
- Her witness gave conflicting evidence - all ignored
- Not a single piece of email or written evidence to prove her allegations ; all her word only
- We had 300+ pages of emails and letters showing we bent over backwards to help her
- Tribunal agreed with her and her Barrister
- Her "looking for work" consisted of 3 applications a month
- Tribunal said this was more than sufficient
- We got royally reamed and told we were a a most unpleasant place for parents with children (40% of the office has kids)
Lost 100% of all confidence in the system. When faced with 2 options, they always chose the employee's verbal account over our email evidence. They believed every instance where she said she never received the email . I mean FFS!
As a consequence of all this, working life in the office is much stricter for all staff. No flexibility on sickness, strict disciplinary when things go wrong rather than a quiet word. Lateness in the office made a personnel file issue. If we had done this before, we would probably have been ok.
A bleeding farce.
Out of interest, how do people instigate this kind of action? Do they go to a solicitor on a no-win, no-fee kind of offer?- Saleswoman goes on maternity leave, asks to come back part time - 1 day in the office and 3 from home
- No IT systems to support or other staff working that way
- She needed to visit customers any day of the week plus fly overseas - could no longer do this thus causing real work for others
- We rejected it but offered 3 days in the office instead. Off to ET with her claiming everything under the sun inc. sex discrimination etc.
- Said being asked to change desks in the office was discrimination against pregnant women
- Being asked to hand laptop back (despite signing form saying she had to when employed) was discrimination
- Said all male staff in the office were colluding with Directors
- Oh - came to the office BBQ while pregnant and had a great time
- Claimed never to have seen emails when we had full docs to prove it
- Her witness gave conflicting evidence - all ignored
- Not a single piece of email or written evidence to prove her allegations ; all her word only
- We had 300+ pages of emails and letters showing we bent over backwards to help her
- Tribunal agreed with her and her Barrister
- Her "looking for work" consisted of 3 applications a month
- Tribunal said this was more than sufficient
- We got royally reamed and told we were a a most unpleasant place for parents with children (40% of the office has kids)
Lost 100% of all confidence in the system. When faced with 2 options, they always chose the employee's verbal account over our email evidence. They believed every instance where she said she never received the email . I mean FFS!
As a consequence of all this, working life in the office is much stricter for all staff. No flexibility on sickness, strict disciplinary when things go wrong rather than a quiet word. Lateness in the office made a personnel file issue. If we had done this before, we would probably have been ok.
A bleeding farce.
Must be bad news for women applicants in general, as employers are going to seriously think twice when they see this going on.
My claimant is funded by the big wedge of cash she got last time she did this. But her solicitor has withdrawn because she won't accept my insurers quite sensible 'business' offer to walk away (which at one point was three times what she will now get if she wins as her claim has changed). She started with a demand for a very large 6 figure sum but having failed to lodge any schedule of loss depsite numerous requests she is now down to a 'hurt feelings' payment. For her it is all about the principle and her previous hurt.
bunyarra said:
Lost 100% of all confidence in the system. When faced with 2 options, they always chose the employee's verbal account over our email evidence. They believed every instance where she said she never received the email . I mean FFS!
No, they don't. I am personally aware of two cases where the opposite happened - e-mails disclosed by the employee which showed evidence of discrimination (sent by employer between HR and other staff) ut the Tribunal accepted the employers contention that these were not meant in that context- but they very much were.Some judges are pro claimant and some are pro respondent. It is not fair, it is not right, but it is the way it goes.
jamesb300 said:
Out of interest, how do people instigate this kind of action? Do they go to a solicitor on a no-win, no-fee kind of offer?
Must be bad news for women applicants in general, as employers are going to seriously think twice when they see this going on.
I don't know about the employer employee relationship. TBH, I don't think I would consider going to a tribunal unless the circumstances were pretty severe. I always wonder what sort of stigma would be associated with such an action, and future employers.Must be bad news for women applicants in general, as employers are going to seriously think twice when they see this going on.
What I do know is that when you are claiming benefits, they make decisions about you. Given the poor attention that the government pay to most things, it's likely you won't agree with the decision. If you want to appeal the decision then essentially you have to be prepared to go to tribunal.
The decision system is two stage. The DWP will reconsider, but if they can't change their mind you have to be passed on to the tribunal system. Because of this, if you wish to ask them to reconsider, you have to be prepared to go to tribunal. If you're not prepared to go to tribunal, they don't have to reconsider.
The point here is, that within the government's own system, tribunal is a mandatory part of getting them to reconsider their decisions. This is, I guess, part of the Ministry of Justice's agenda of fairness for all.
The relationship between the unemployed and the DWP / JobCentre is not unlike that of the relationship between the Employer and Employee. The function and purpose of the government is not like that of an employer (not to me anyhow). The trouble is that the government see themselves as the standard that employers should set.
I realise now that this point is slightly more profound, especially so since I have worked for employers who pay a salary for essentially doing nothing but trying to find another job. I'm not sure, however, that this one thing could ever outweigh all of the other things that employers or the government could do to raise standards. Basically payment in return for nothing is a really expensive holding position. You just can't let it fester as the current government have.
Sadly, employers often used to set a much better standard than the government currently does. It's all part of the dumbing down process. No-one in government would call it that. The harsh reality is that to achieve the fairness agenda, everybody must be brought down to the same level. The government is practically unable to raise standards to achieve a level playing field. They only have the practical ability to reduce them. We should know this by now.
Vote conservative. Vote for change.
Edited by dilbert on Friday 16th April 12:48
Jasandjules said:
bunyarra said:
Lost 100% of all confidence in the system. When faced with 2 options, they always chose the employee's verbal account over our email evidence. They believed every instance where she said she never received the email . I mean FFS!
No, they don't. I am personally aware of two cases where the opposite happened - e-mails disclosed by the employee which showed evidence of discrimination (sent by employer between HR and other staff) ut the Tribunal accepted the employers contention that these were not meant in that context- but they very much were.Some judges are pro claimant and some are pro respondent. It is not fair, it is not right, but it is the way it goes.
Update. Just had a call from our solicitors and she has accepted the 'business' offer from our insurers, no admission of fault on our part, along with a confidentiality clause that she is not to disclose. So she has probably broken even by the time she has paid her own legal costs.
Best I say no more other than it is a bizarre and soul destroying system.
Best I say no more other than it is a bizarre and soul destroying system.
Whatever you do make sure your bundle is thorough and your statements cover everything, including if necessary a list and decision of all her pevious claims.
In the main the tribunal looks at fairness in the procedure applied so unless your process was inherently discriminatory you would want to talk about it, those involved, the numbers within it etc.
In the main the tribunal looks at fairness in the procedure applied so unless your process was inherently discriminatory you would want to talk about it, those involved, the numbers within it etc.
bunyarra said:
Sadly, don't hold your breath for the ET to do anything but believe every word of the employee. We just lost one :
- Saleswoman goes on maternity leave, asks to come back part time - 1 day in the office and 3 from home
- No IT systems to support or other staff working that way
- She needed to visit customers any day of the week plus fly overseas - could no longer do this thus causing real work for others
- We rejected it but offered 3 days in the office instead. Off to ET with her claiming everything under the sun inc. sex discrimination etc.
Did you follow the process set out to deal with this issue? it is very strict and not getting it right will find in the favour of the complainant.- Saleswoman goes on maternity leave, asks to come back part time - 1 day in the office and 3 from home
- No IT systems to support or other staff working that way
- She needed to visit customers any day of the week plus fly overseas - could no longer do this thus causing real work for others
- We rejected it but offered 3 days in the office instead. Off to ET with her claiming everything under the sun inc. sex discrimination etc.
bunyarra said:
Sadly, don't hold your breath for the ET to do anything but believe every word of the employee. We just lost one :
- Saleswoman goes on maternity leave, asks to come back part time - 1 day in the office and 3 from home
- No IT systems to support or other staff working that way
- She needed to visit customers any day of the week plus fly overseas - could no longer do this thus causing real work for others
- We rejected it but offered 3 days in the office instead. Off to ET with her claiming everything under the sun inc. sex discrimination etc.
- Said being asked to change desks in the office was discrimination against pregnant women
- Being asked to hand laptop back (despite signing form saying she had to when employed) was discrimination
- Said all male staff in the office were colluding with Directors
- Oh - came to the office BBQ while pregnant and had a great time
- Claimed never to have seen emails when we had full docs to prove it
- Her witness gave conflicting evidence - all ignored
- Not a single piece of email or written evidence to prove her allegations ; all her word only
- We had 300+ pages of emails and letters showing we bent over backwards to help her
- Tribunal agreed with her and her Barrister
- Her "looking for work" consisted of 3 applications a month
- Tribunal said this was more than sufficient
- We got royally reamed and told we were a a most unpleasant place for parents with children (40% of the office has kids)
Lost 100% of all confidence in the system. When faced with 2 options, they always chose the employee's verbal account over our email evidence. They believed every instance where she said she never received the email . I mean FFS!
As a consequence of all this, working life in the office is much stricter for all staff. No flexibility on sickness, strict disciplinary when things go wrong rather than a quiet word. Lateness in the office made a personnel file issue. If we had done this before, we would probably have been ok.
A bleeding farce.
Don't employ women... Unofficially of course - Saleswoman goes on maternity leave, asks to come back part time - 1 day in the office and 3 from home
- No IT systems to support or other staff working that way
- She needed to visit customers any day of the week plus fly overseas - could no longer do this thus causing real work for others
- We rejected it but offered 3 days in the office instead. Off to ET with her claiming everything under the sun inc. sex discrimination etc.
- Said being asked to change desks in the office was discrimination against pregnant women
- Being asked to hand laptop back (despite signing form saying she had to when employed) was discrimination
- Said all male staff in the office were colluding with Directors
- Oh - came to the office BBQ while pregnant and had a great time
- Claimed never to have seen emails when we had full docs to prove it
- Her witness gave conflicting evidence - all ignored
- Not a single piece of email or written evidence to prove her allegations ; all her word only
- We had 300+ pages of emails and letters showing we bent over backwards to help her
- Tribunal agreed with her and her Barrister
- Her "looking for work" consisted of 3 applications a month
- Tribunal said this was more than sufficient
- We got royally reamed and told we were a a most unpleasant place for parents with children (40% of the office has kids)
Lost 100% of all confidence in the system. When faced with 2 options, they always chose the employee's verbal account over our email evidence. They believed every instance where she said she never received the email . I mean FFS!
As a consequence of all this, working life in the office is much stricter for all staff. No flexibility on sickness, strict disciplinary when things go wrong rather than a quiet word. Lateness in the office made a personnel file issue. If we had done this before, we would probably have been ok.
A bleeding farce.
Four Cofffee said:
Update. Just had a call from our solicitors and she has accepted the 'business' offer from our insurers, no admission of fault on our part, along with a confidentiality clause that she is not to disclose. So she has probably broken even by the time she has paid her own legal costs.
Best I say no more other than it is a bizarre and soul destroying system.
She doesn't seem the type to keep her mouth shut. An ear to the ground over the next 12-24 months is very much in order.Best I say no more other than it is a bizarre and soul destroying system.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff