Tweet
I would appreciate a view on the following.
First things first, I was employed at a company that collects and processes electrical components for a company. I have been doing this work from home and the components would be delivered to my home and they would be collected by my employer at set frequencies.
I have not was given a probation period of three months in starting in February of this year. I was dismissed just prior to the end of my probation period. Upon my dismissal I alleged that I had whistleblown because of a data breach.
I will explain this by way of the events in a chronological list.
Started working on the 17th Feb 2020. At first there were no problems and my employer collected the boxed components that I had to pack for customers. At first there was an enormous backlog of orders to process and this was fine.
I then received an email from a colleague on the 23rd March 2020, informing me that my supervisor would call me to discuss progress in a few days’ time. I had a discussion with my supervisor on the 25th March 2020 and because the telephone line was bad, I asked for an email of the issues as discussed to be sent to me. I promptly received the email some 10 minutes after the conversation. What was covered in the conversation was verbatim in the email. The email detailed very minor faults and are of little significance. For example I was told that I had placed some components in slightly larger boxes than what was required. Another concerned the colour of Sellotape that I brought and used to seal the boxes, and I should have used a red pen as opposed to a blue pen for marking the boxes with the supplier code. I was not told about these issues before I started. I never received any guidance on the size of the boxes that the components were to be placed in. Another issue was that instead of using bubble wrap I used polystyrene chips. I was even accused of not using specialist anti-statice film for wrapping components in – I was never told that that I had to, I was never supplied with any, I was never told that I had to. I was also told that the orientation of some components as packaged was ‘down to personal choice’. These are innocuous comments, and I took on board what was said.
I continued to work.
I had a schedule of components to pack and noticed that there were 2 customers that were not ours and their addresses and other confidential information was disclosed to me. I should not have seen the information and nor should my employer. I brought this to the attention of my colleague on the 9th April 2020 who acknowledged that our company ought not to have received the customer’s confidential information and they should never have received it either.
My employer came to my house to collect the components and I raised it with her. I said that there is a potential data breach and my brief discussion led to a change of demeanour. Upon reflection she seemed to have been a bit displeased that I had raised this. I thought no more of it.
I continued to work on the backlog of components that needed to be boxed.
I then received an email on the 8th May 2020 telling me my contract of employment was to be terminated.
I have Before the Event Legal Expenses Insurance with my insurer. The insurer appointed a solicitor and started a claim for whistleblowing and noted that the matter would be for Unfair Dismissal. I explained the email dated the 25th March 2020, and my solicitor is fully aware of it’s contents right from the start.
My solicitor then received the ET3 from the Respondents.
The Respondents said that I was incapable of carrying out the role. The ET3 stated that a 'client' of theirs was unhappy about the packaging and it seemed that the packaging and processing of components was wrong. This then gave rise to the conversation and email that was sent to me detailing my faults, as per the email dated the 25th March 2020. The ET3 continues to state that my colleague reviewed my sorting of components and formed the view that it seemed I had no experience at all. In short, the Respondent’s allege capability, whilst I allege whistleblowing being the reason for my dismissal.
My solicitor upon reading the ET3 now states that there are no prospects of success. He accepts that the data breach should not have happened. The problem is that my allegation of whistleblowing occurred after the complaint concerning my capability as per the 25th March 2020, and is of the view that causation is the issue. If I was incapable, I do not understand why I was not dismissed sooner and allowed to continue working.
I have challenged my solicitor on the contents of the ET3 and he will not ask the Respondent’s solicitor for clarification of the issues raised. I believe that the details in it are a fabrication. The innocuous comments in the email from my colleague was sent to my solicitor at the start of the matter (25th March 2020 email), but now asserts that ET3 supports the email of the 25th March 2020. I have asserted and maintained that the contents of the ET3 are a fabrication as my former employer’s ‘client’ is not a client at all.
I have asked my solicitor to challenge and to determine if this ‘client’ exists. I have also asked my solicitor to challenge the contents of the ET3. I was asked to provide comments on the ET3 by my solicitor. I did this and he will not revert back to the Respondent’s solicitors. It seems to be bizarre that a claim is taken on in full knowledge of complaints that are innocuous, wait for the ET3 to arrive and then state that they rely on capability as per the email of the 25th March 2020?. The email dated the 25th March is used against me, (wrong coloured pen, orientation of packaging etc) whilst my solicitor will not challenge ½ page of respondent’s questionable allegations? How can I be deemed to be incapable if I do not know that what I am doing is not wrong, (of course everyone has statice foil to wrap components in - don't they?) Lets be clear, if my solicitor reverts back to Respondent and it comes out where evidence is produced of me being incapable, say I sent components to competitors, selected the wrong component (and because it is wrong they would need to reorder and wait 3 weeks), this is trulely indicative of being incapable of carrying out the role - this never happened. If it did I would tell myself that I was incapable - the issues listed above are innocuos.
I understand that causation might be an issue, but it seems odd to me that my solicitor accepts that the innocuous comments and the ET3 (which I believe is a fabrication) kills the claim. It seems to be totally illogical to me that my solicitor accepts what is said in the ET3 with out further recourse and challenge. The reasons for my dismissal is not substantiated or significant as per s47B PIDA. My solicitor has a preliminary directions hearing in the next 2 months
I would appreciate it if some one can give me some advice, possibly to discuss the matter. If there is any case law on the finer aspects of challenging what is said in a case on whistleblowing whilst not having been employed for 2 years would be appreciated.
First things first, I was employed at a company that collects and processes electrical components for a company. I have been doing this work from home and the components would be delivered to my home and they would be collected by my employer at set frequencies.
I have not was given a probation period of three months in starting in February of this year. I was dismissed just prior to the end of my probation period. Upon my dismissal I alleged that I had whistleblown because of a data breach.
I will explain this by way of the events in a chronological list.
Started working on the 17th Feb 2020. At first there were no problems and my employer collected the boxed components that I had to pack for customers. At first there was an enormous backlog of orders to process and this was fine.
I then received an email from a colleague on the 23rd March 2020, informing me that my supervisor would call me to discuss progress in a few days’ time. I had a discussion with my supervisor on the 25th March 2020 and because the telephone line was bad, I asked for an email of the issues as discussed to be sent to me. I promptly received the email some 10 minutes after the conversation. What was covered in the conversation was verbatim in the email. The email detailed very minor faults and are of little significance. For example I was told that I had placed some components in slightly larger boxes than what was required. Another concerned the colour of Sellotape that I brought and used to seal the boxes, and I should have used a red pen as opposed to a blue pen for marking the boxes with the supplier code. I was not told about these issues before I started. I never received any guidance on the size of the boxes that the components were to be placed in. Another issue was that instead of using bubble wrap I used polystyrene chips. I was even accused of not using specialist anti-statice film for wrapping components in – I was never told that that I had to, I was never supplied with any, I was never told that I had to. I was also told that the orientation of some components as packaged was ‘down to personal choice’. These are innocuous comments, and I took on board what was said.
I continued to work.
I had a schedule of components to pack and noticed that there were 2 customers that were not ours and their addresses and other confidential information was disclosed to me. I should not have seen the information and nor should my employer. I brought this to the attention of my colleague on the 9th April 2020 who acknowledged that our company ought not to have received the customer’s confidential information and they should never have received it either.
My employer came to my house to collect the components and I raised it with her. I said that there is a potential data breach and my brief discussion led to a change of demeanour. Upon reflection she seemed to have been a bit displeased that I had raised this. I thought no more of it.
I continued to work on the backlog of components that needed to be boxed.
I then received an email on the 8th May 2020 telling me my contract of employment was to be terminated.
I have Before the Event Legal Expenses Insurance with my insurer. The insurer appointed a solicitor and started a claim for whistleblowing and noted that the matter would be for Unfair Dismissal. I explained the email dated the 25th March 2020, and my solicitor is fully aware of it’s contents right from the start.
My solicitor then received the ET3 from the Respondents.
The Respondents said that I was incapable of carrying out the role. The ET3 stated that a 'client' of theirs was unhappy about the packaging and it seemed that the packaging and processing of components was wrong. This then gave rise to the conversation and email that was sent to me detailing my faults, as per the email dated the 25th March 2020. The ET3 continues to state that my colleague reviewed my sorting of components and formed the view that it seemed I had no experience at all. In short, the Respondent’s allege capability, whilst I allege whistleblowing being the reason for my dismissal.
My solicitor upon reading the ET3 now states that there are no prospects of success. He accepts that the data breach should not have happened. The problem is that my allegation of whistleblowing occurred after the complaint concerning my capability as per the 25th March 2020, and is of the view that causation is the issue. If I was incapable, I do not understand why I was not dismissed sooner and allowed to continue working.
I have challenged my solicitor on the contents of the ET3 and he will not ask the Respondent’s solicitor for clarification of the issues raised. I believe that the details in it are a fabrication. The innocuous comments in the email from my colleague was sent to my solicitor at the start of the matter (25th March 2020 email), but now asserts that ET3 supports the email of the 25th March 2020. I have asserted and maintained that the contents of the ET3 are a fabrication as my former employer’s ‘client’ is not a client at all.
I have asked my solicitor to challenge and to determine if this ‘client’ exists. I have also asked my solicitor to challenge the contents of the ET3. I was asked to provide comments on the ET3 by my solicitor. I did this and he will not revert back to the Respondent’s solicitors. It seems to be bizarre that a claim is taken on in full knowledge of complaints that are innocuous, wait for the ET3 to arrive and then state that they rely on capability as per the email of the 25th March 2020?. The email dated the 25th March is used against me, (wrong coloured pen, orientation of packaging etc) whilst my solicitor will not challenge ½ page of respondent’s questionable allegations? How can I be deemed to be incapable if I do not know that what I am doing is not wrong, (of course everyone has statice foil to wrap components in - don't they?) Lets be clear, if my solicitor reverts back to Respondent and it comes out where evidence is produced of me being incapable, say I sent components to competitors, selected the wrong component (and because it is wrong they would need to reorder and wait 3 weeks), this is trulely indicative of being incapable of carrying out the role - this never happened. If it did I would tell myself that I was incapable - the issues listed above are innocuos.
I understand that causation might be an issue, but it seems odd to me that my solicitor accepts that the innocuous comments and the ET3 (which I believe is a fabrication) kills the claim. It seems to be totally illogical to me that my solicitor accepts what is said in the ET3 with out further recourse and challenge. The reasons for my dismissal is not substantiated or significant as per s47B PIDA. My solicitor has a preliminary directions hearing in the next 2 months
I would appreciate it if some one can give me some advice, possibly to discuss the matter. If there is any case law on the finer aspects of challenging what is said in a case on whistleblowing whilst not having been employed for 2 years would be appreciated.
Comment