Unfair dismissal claim

[Thermic_Marl]

Hey all,

First post on here but hoping you can help.

I am representing a family member in a possible ET case. I am mainly taking the lead because of three reasons:

1. I'm good at organising things
2. I am liaising with my Union for informal advice (they cannot represent her)
3. I am an ex employee myself but in a more senior role, so quite a bit of insight.

Effectively, the claim revolves around the Part Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) 2000 legislation in that it appears that she has suffered a detriment.

The context is Redundancy,there aren't really any qualms about the process (aside from two smallish issues which I won't mention here, but will be brought up at ET) but rather the outcome (unfair dismissal). FYI >2 years employment.

She was initially offered an identical role elsewhere within the business in lieu of redundancy, and passed all of the relevant checks relating to this (and they were slightly invasive). Everyone was happy to process her and there is strong evidence to suggest this. There is also strong evidence to show that she is a part time worker (amendment to original full time contract). Don't anticipate any of that being disputed. It is important to note that the company were acutely aware of this PT issue a long time in advance (which, I may argue, could have constituted a breach of GDPR if they asked for sensitive information despite having no intention of proceeding with re-employment).

The problem, and there is a lot of evidence, is that she was instead made redundant because she could not be full time flexible for 2 weeks to complete the TRAINING (she offered SOME concessions to assist, along with a request for written clarification under the above legislation, both of which weren't responded to). The ACAS website is very clear about part time workers not being excluded from training. The legislation also suggests that this would be covered (treated like a "comparable full time employee"). There is also evidence that at least two part time female colleagues made concessions to fit in with the training (which could constitute indirect sex discrimination).

It appears that the only clause is the "unless unreasonable" part, which is where I come in. I have worked there previously (with some fairly intimate knowledge of how the training works) and I am doubtful that they could have a justification for a few very specific reasons (which I won't mention here). To summarise, I think the phrase "where there's a will, there's a way" is most apt when describing how things run in there.

So yea, I have two questions:

1. I'm not a legal expert, but I have read up on this extensively. Is there anything I could potentially have missed and which the employer may try and make a point about here?

2. Given I am a representative (for ACAS), am I able to give evidence independent of that role within an ET?

Also, any other comments which may help would be appreciated

[ULA]

Under the regulations, there is an obligation on employers not to exclude part-timers from training. Training will need to be structured wherever possible to be at the most convenient times for the majority of staff including part-timers.

To comply with the law:

1. employers should not exclude part-time staff from training simply because they work part-time

2. training should be scheduled so far as possible so that staff, including part-timers, can attend

The right of part-timers not to be treated less favourably than a comparable full-timer applies only if the treatment is not justified on objective grounds.

Less favourable treatment will only be justified by an employer on objective grounds if it can be shown that the less favourable treatment:

1. is to achieve a legitimate objective, for example, a genuine business objective;

2. is necessary to achieve that objective; and

3. is an appropriate way to achieve the objective.

I am not sure about you being able to represent since you are a family member, there may be some provision for it but you would need to check with ACAS since I do know that generally ACAS can only provide advice but not representation at an ET.

[Thermic_Marl]

Many thanks,

That is very helpful in that it confirms what I already suspected. I did speak to ACAS about it and they gave me one example of where it may objectively be justified, but their suggestion actually sounded detrimental to PT workers as well! That was the Conciliator, mind you, and they were neutral in tone/meaning so not reading too much into it.

Did you, by any chance, copy and paste any of that from a website? I only ask as it may come in handy for me at a later date. I have read up on the legislation itself (very nonspecific and no mention of training or any other scenario, which is expected) and ACAS website which specifically mentions training and not being excluded from it. Your post, especially your point 2., is slightly more compelling than ACAS I think.

The "objective grounds" is, I suspect, going to form a large part of the case given that the evidence that all of this took place is very compelling. I am an ex employee and have some insight to challenge that, as well as what the claimant can provide in the way of evidence.

I am just concerned that, if I represent her at ET stage (or even given I'm representing at Conciliation), I will not be eligible to present independent evidence from the perspective of an ex employee (and not from the claimant, or from the perspective of a family member).

Many thanks for your reply.

[ULA]

T

he above information is taken from the explanatory notes that sit alongside the Regulations and can be found here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/1551/note/made

As a litigant in person then effectively you would be representing yourself and would have to give evidence, however this is a slightly different situation as you are being held out as the representative and I am not certain if this precludes you or not from also giving evidence. I suggest you either check with ACAS or the Tribunal as to whether this is possible. I would be interested to know what they say for my own knowledge.