Tweet
Up until 18th May 2018, I was employed by one of the UK's bigger retail operations. The 18th May being the date I was dismissed or in the companies term, 'Closure of contract'. My employment period was ONE year and EIGHT months, so I was four months shy of the TWO year minimum period to be able to submit a claim via an Employment Tribunal. My understanding that there are exceptions for a claim, one of these being DISCRIMINATION and the headings under that title. I thought that perhaps Victimisation or even Bullying but perhaps I'm wrong.
I have spoken to an ACAS advisor, bearing in mind that she couldn't offer me any advice of any specific perspective claim, only the understanding of how the employment law stands. Her passing comment was to employ an employment law solicitor to see if there is a case that I can catagories my dismissal as unfair or constructive. She did say that by the virtue of the fact that I didn't leave my employment under duress and that I was dismissed then I wouldn't have a claim for constructive. If I do have a claim I need to categories against either 'Discriminary', 'Breach of Statutory Rights' or 'Breach of Contract'.
The following is what I believe gives me an opinion that I may have a case.
Employment start date 24th September 2016 as Customer Delivery Driver/Installer.
February 2017 Site Leader (highest position manager at site) requested that I done a SIX month secondment in a different role (Link driver) with NO changes to my employment terms and conditions.
July 2017 Line Manager advised that my secondment was coming to an end and that I would need to apply for the newly creating permanent Link driver positions. With the help of the site and a verbal discussion with the Site Leader, I duly followed his verbal advice that he wanted to do the right thing for him and the right thing for me. I was interviewed for both the night and day position Link driver roles during August 2017. I was advised via e-mail that I was unsuccesful for the night job. So e-mail was forth coming regarding the outcome of the day position only a verbal from the manager concerned that I hadn't got the job. Apologies for going into detail about these Link driver roles, but the significants is that I later found out that my Day position application had a status of WITHDRAWN. I hadn't withdrawn the application so the site must have.
From that point and the beginning of OCTOBER 2017 I returned to my original role as Customer Delivery Driver/Installer.
During August 2017, apart from ONE employee who was on long term sick and myself, everybody in that role saw the basic hourly rate rise to a minimum of £11.44p from £10.50p per hour. Through appraisal adjustment, some employees in this role were paid significantly more as a payable rate. During October 2017, I did discuss with my Line Manager and questioned that my rate hadn't been adjusted as per everybody else in the role.
Moving on, during September 2017, via a work place incident, my back was injured resulting with doctor diagnosed scatica. I was able to undertake my duties up until November 2017 when I deemed it impossible to continue and was duly signed by my doctor to do light duties. The site did not have a light duties regime and I was instructed to go off sick. After four weeks, I returned to work with an advisory from the companies Health Service support team to have a controlled return to work program. This was duly followed.
Going back to my return to the role of Customer Delivery Driver/Installer, every operative in that role was issued with a set of tools. Everybody except me. Again, request were made to my line manager as to why I was issued with tools. Just to add, every newly recruited employee was issued with tools straight away. The non issuing of tools did restrict my development in the role because I wasn't equipped to undertake tasks, only watch the other member of my team for the day take on the duties because they had tools.
During the latter part of November, after my return to work, I continued to improve in my ability to undertake my work duties, but the affects of the scatica did have restrictions.
During very early February 2018, at five minutes notice, I as instructed to attend an 'Informal meeting' with my Line Manager and a note taker. Bascially what happens here is that a rigorous questioning session takes place with the note taker writing and recording all questions and answers. After signing off all pages, the 'informal' notes are assessed by the management team, and if deemed necessary a 'formal' interview takes place with the view to disciplinary measures could result.
The content of this informal meeting, was that I was informed that 6/7 other employees had complained about me as regards my performance in the role. I pointed out that I had never advised the management team that I had fully recovered from sciatica and that they were aware of this standing. The conclusion of the meeting was that I was going to be monitored against the data recorded whilst I was undertaking my duties. To my knowledge and as disclosed from the data recording, my performance was acceptable and no further action would be necessitated. However, one employee did tell me that the management team had requested that anybody that went out with me should record a dosier against me. Indeed, in an e-mail supportive statement, this employer stated that he refused to give written evidence. In finding out about this dosier building against me, I did question the Site Leader. His response was that he knew nothing of said goings on and was only interested in finding out who had told me.
After an incident in later February with damage to a clients property whilst making a delivery and a non fault of my own, when the wrong appliance was made to a client I was instructed to attend a 'Formal' meeting with the Site Leader. With the intense aggresive manner of the questionning, it was obvious to me that the Site Leader wanted to get the conclusion to dismissal. With head office support, he openly stated that the intent was for Performance related dismissal. However, via phoned messages, he was advised that he couldn't conclude with Performance, but needed to readdress with Conduct.
We worked as a TWO man team, so my point to the Site Leader was that if it's Conduct, why was I the only member of the team being questioned and if it went to discipline, why wasn't the other member being scrutinised. Needless to say it seems the cases were dropped.
Unfortunately, there were another couple of instances that presented the Site Leader with the opportunity to interview me with Formal Conduct meeting. First being that I ate two sausage rolls. On the communial dining room fridge, there is a written notice on the outside of the fridge that clearly stated that all items should be clearly labelled as to ownership. Also any perisable items in the fridge that are still present on the following Monday will be disposed of. On the immediate preceeding Saturday, I found two unlabled sausage rolls and ate them round about 11a.m. On my return from my duties that same Saturday, my Line Manager shouted across the crowded room to me, in a jokingly manner, did I know anything about Polly's sausage rolls. My mistake was that I denied that I did. On the following Monday morning I went straight up to Polly and apoligiesed to her for eating her sausage rolls. Her response was to thank me for my honesty and seemed to accept my apology as conclusion to the matter. However, the site management team viewed this differently which resulted in one of the reasons why I was given my dismissal.
The other element was that on the 12th April, a vehicle that I was responsible for sustained a crack in one of the rear light clusters. Nothing was said to me until the 19th April whereupon attending yet another Formal meeting, I was given a photocopy picture of said lens. In my opinion, the viewed damage was not severe and noticeable. In fact, I didn't even realise damage had been sustained. To support this, a piece of cellotape was placed across the crack and the same vehicle was sent out at the next opportunity. Being a light, with Operator License requirements, if the light had been broken and deemed illegal for road use, the vehicle would have been taken off the road until repaired. The company also had the opportunity to utilise the CCTV camera footage that was available from the onboard cameras as fitted on that vehicle. I never denied that I had NOT cracked the lens, but I wasn't aware that I had. The Site Leader was intent that he used this incident as the other element to dismiss me.
Apologies for the log winded explainations but I've detailed elements so as to furnish details that I believe the Site Leader involved had built up against me. To this end, I ask the question does anybody believe I have a value case for 'Victimisation' or 'Discrimination'. In which case, how could I categories in presenting a case to ACAS for unfair, construction dismissal. Bearing in mind the 2 year ruling, would this be supported as an exceptional case?
Many thanks for any forthcoming advice.
Many thanks for any forthcoming advice
Peter
I have spoken to an ACAS advisor, bearing in mind that she couldn't offer me any advice of any specific perspective claim, only the understanding of how the employment law stands. Her passing comment was to employ an employment law solicitor to see if there is a case that I can catagories my dismissal as unfair or constructive. She did say that by the virtue of the fact that I didn't leave my employment under duress and that I was dismissed then I wouldn't have a claim for constructive. If I do have a claim I need to categories against either 'Discriminary', 'Breach of Statutory Rights' or 'Breach of Contract'.
The following is what I believe gives me an opinion that I may have a case.
Employment start date 24th September 2016 as Customer Delivery Driver/Installer.
February 2017 Site Leader (highest position manager at site) requested that I done a SIX month secondment in a different role (Link driver) with NO changes to my employment terms and conditions.
July 2017 Line Manager advised that my secondment was coming to an end and that I would need to apply for the newly creating permanent Link driver positions. With the help of the site and a verbal discussion with the Site Leader, I duly followed his verbal advice that he wanted to do the right thing for him and the right thing for me. I was interviewed for both the night and day position Link driver roles during August 2017. I was advised via e-mail that I was unsuccesful for the night job. So e-mail was forth coming regarding the outcome of the day position only a verbal from the manager concerned that I hadn't got the job. Apologies for going into detail about these Link driver roles, but the significants is that I later found out that my Day position application had a status of WITHDRAWN. I hadn't withdrawn the application so the site must have.
From that point and the beginning of OCTOBER 2017 I returned to my original role as Customer Delivery Driver/Installer.
During August 2017, apart from ONE employee who was on long term sick and myself, everybody in that role saw the basic hourly rate rise to a minimum of £11.44p from £10.50p per hour. Through appraisal adjustment, some employees in this role were paid significantly more as a payable rate. During October 2017, I did discuss with my Line Manager and questioned that my rate hadn't been adjusted as per everybody else in the role.
Moving on, during September 2017, via a work place incident, my back was injured resulting with doctor diagnosed scatica. I was able to undertake my duties up until November 2017 when I deemed it impossible to continue and was duly signed by my doctor to do light duties. The site did not have a light duties regime and I was instructed to go off sick. After four weeks, I returned to work with an advisory from the companies Health Service support team to have a controlled return to work program. This was duly followed.
Going back to my return to the role of Customer Delivery Driver/Installer, every operative in that role was issued with a set of tools. Everybody except me. Again, request were made to my line manager as to why I was issued with tools. Just to add, every newly recruited employee was issued with tools straight away. The non issuing of tools did restrict my development in the role because I wasn't equipped to undertake tasks, only watch the other member of my team for the day take on the duties because they had tools.
During the latter part of November, after my return to work, I continued to improve in my ability to undertake my work duties, but the affects of the scatica did have restrictions.
During very early February 2018, at five minutes notice, I as instructed to attend an 'Informal meeting' with my Line Manager and a note taker. Bascially what happens here is that a rigorous questioning session takes place with the note taker writing and recording all questions and answers. After signing off all pages, the 'informal' notes are assessed by the management team, and if deemed necessary a 'formal' interview takes place with the view to disciplinary measures could result.
The content of this informal meeting, was that I was informed that 6/7 other employees had complained about me as regards my performance in the role. I pointed out that I had never advised the management team that I had fully recovered from sciatica and that they were aware of this standing. The conclusion of the meeting was that I was going to be monitored against the data recorded whilst I was undertaking my duties. To my knowledge and as disclosed from the data recording, my performance was acceptable and no further action would be necessitated. However, one employee did tell me that the management team had requested that anybody that went out with me should record a dosier against me. Indeed, in an e-mail supportive statement, this employer stated that he refused to give written evidence. In finding out about this dosier building against me, I did question the Site Leader. His response was that he knew nothing of said goings on and was only interested in finding out who had told me.
After an incident in later February with damage to a clients property whilst making a delivery and a non fault of my own, when the wrong appliance was made to a client I was instructed to attend a 'Formal' meeting with the Site Leader. With the intense aggresive manner of the questionning, it was obvious to me that the Site Leader wanted to get the conclusion to dismissal. With head office support, he openly stated that the intent was for Performance related dismissal. However, via phoned messages, he was advised that he couldn't conclude with Performance, but needed to readdress with Conduct.
We worked as a TWO man team, so my point to the Site Leader was that if it's Conduct, why was I the only member of the team being questioned and if it went to discipline, why wasn't the other member being scrutinised. Needless to say it seems the cases were dropped.
Unfortunately, there were another couple of instances that presented the Site Leader with the opportunity to interview me with Formal Conduct meeting. First being that I ate two sausage rolls. On the communial dining room fridge, there is a written notice on the outside of the fridge that clearly stated that all items should be clearly labelled as to ownership. Also any perisable items in the fridge that are still present on the following Monday will be disposed of. On the immediate preceeding Saturday, I found two unlabled sausage rolls and ate them round about 11a.m. On my return from my duties that same Saturday, my Line Manager shouted across the crowded room to me, in a jokingly manner, did I know anything about Polly's sausage rolls. My mistake was that I denied that I did. On the following Monday morning I went straight up to Polly and apoligiesed to her for eating her sausage rolls. Her response was to thank me for my honesty and seemed to accept my apology as conclusion to the matter. However, the site management team viewed this differently which resulted in one of the reasons why I was given my dismissal.
The other element was that on the 12th April, a vehicle that I was responsible for sustained a crack in one of the rear light clusters. Nothing was said to me until the 19th April whereupon attending yet another Formal meeting, I was given a photocopy picture of said lens. In my opinion, the viewed damage was not severe and noticeable. In fact, I didn't even realise damage had been sustained. To support this, a piece of cellotape was placed across the crack and the same vehicle was sent out at the next opportunity. Being a light, with Operator License requirements, if the light had been broken and deemed illegal for road use, the vehicle would have been taken off the road until repaired. The company also had the opportunity to utilise the CCTV camera footage that was available from the onboard cameras as fitted on that vehicle. I never denied that I had NOT cracked the lens, but I wasn't aware that I had. The Site Leader was intent that he used this incident as the other element to dismiss me.
Apologies for the log winded explainations but I've detailed elements so as to furnish details that I believe the Site Leader involved had built up against me. To this end, I ask the question does anybody believe I have a value case for 'Victimisation' or 'Discrimination'. In which case, how could I categories in presenting a case to ACAS for unfair, construction dismissal. Bearing in mind the 2 year ruling, would this be supported as an exceptional case?
Many thanks for any forthcoming advice.
Many thanks for any forthcoming advice
Peter
Comment