Disciplinaries: couple of questions

[Latina]

Hi, I have a couple of questions regarding disciplinaries:

1. Someone I know did not appeal a decision within 3 months, but they should have done. Is it possible to still appeal and claim "mitigating circumstances". The ones I have in mind are stress and overlooking a technical fault in the procedure, which was allowed to go through. Is there any basis at all for an appeal AFTER 3 months?

2. In a small department, it very often happens that the investigator at the informal stage is a very close personal friend of the investigator at the formal stage. Are there any grounds for requesting that a manager of the appropriate level but from ANOTHER DEPARTMENT chairs the formal stage?

Any help or suggestions would be much appreciated!

[ULA]

If this person is talking of making an employment tribunal claim then in most unfair dismissal claims, the starting process for the employment tribunal claim must commence within 3 months less one day, from the date the paid employment ended. For discrimination claims or complaints relating to non-payment of salary or holiday pay, the 3 month period begins from the date of the act complained of (which may be continuing, in which case the time for commencing the process will also continue to run). So, the last act of discrimination or non-payment of salary, for example, is of prime importance.

Although this person could make an application to the tribunal to present their claim out of time, there are very few exceptions where this will be granted, and they are therefore likely to be time barred.

If the appeal referred to is as a result of an internal disciplinary procedure and the person has not been dismissed, then at 3 months again they would be out of time. Most internal procedure have a time limit from notification of the outcome of the disciplinary meeting in which to make an appeal, typically 5 days. This should have been made aware to them in any written correspondence detailing the outcome of the disciplinary meeting.

In regard to the original investigator (1^st person) and the person who carries out any formal disciplinary meeting (2^nd person), they cannot be the same person. If there is a suggestion that the 2^nd person has too close a relationship with the 1^st person to the extend their decision may not be objective, then it may be a basis for requesting a change in the 2^nd person to ensure a fair and objective approach is taken to the disciplinary meeting.