Does an et judge have to test the evidence?

[rapoo]

If employer states employee clocked in at 9am and was therefore at work at 10am when the incident he is alleged of doing happened, and employee states he only clocked in at 3pm and was not in work at 10am when the incident happened so it wasnt him, and no evidence is disclosed to support either statement, can the judge just take the word of one over the other without giving an explanation as to why or is he required to test the evidence for example by requesting the clocking in records? Clocking in time is the difference between employee being involved in an incident and not being involved in an incident so its fairly important to the case.

[MIKE770]

ULA may be able advise

[atticus]

Surely this employee can give evidence where he was in the morning.

The point is that an Employment Tribunal judge has to decide on the balance of probabilities: which is the more likely version of events? If you can provide additional evidence to help the judge decide that your version is to be preferred, then you should do so.

[EnglandPi]

Surely this employee can give evidence where he was in the morning.

The point is that an Employment Tribunal judge has to decide on the balance of probabilities: which is the more likely version of events? If you can provide additional evidence to help the judge decide that your version is to be preferred, then you should do so.

I agree

[dslippy]

The employer's and employee's statements are already both evidence. It is up to the parties to put forward the evidence upon which they seek to rely, and for the ET to decide on the evidence presented. it is not for the ET to go off hunting down evidence for the parties.

[rapoo]

The employer's and employee's statements are already both evidence. It is up to the parties to put forward the evidence upon which they seek to rely, and for the ET to decide on the evidence presented. it is not for the ET to go off hunting down evidence for the parties.

The employee cant present the clocking in records because they do not have access to them. The employer who is relying on the clocking in times didnt present the records even after the judge ordered all relevant records be disclosed. Surely alarm bells should have rung with the et when employer didnt present the records they relied on.

[atticus]

But, as has already been said, the employee can put forward his own evidence to cast doubt on those records.

[dslippy]

"Surely alarm bells should have rung with the et when employer didnt present the records they relied on."
Sorry, it is for the parties to put forward such arguments. The employee could have made a specific request for time records to be produced. That is the way it works.
There are two kinds of court proceedings, adversarial and inquisitorial. In the first, the parties each present their evidence and the court decides between the cases presented. This is the way nearly all courts in the UK work. In inquisitorial proceedings the judge does indeed step into the ring to make enquiries.
Each has advantages and disadvantages, but ET proceedings are adversarial in nature - the court, broadly, has no opportuity to go beyond the cases presented by each side.

[rapoo]

But, as has already been said, the employee can put forward his own evidence to cast doubt on those records.

The employee put forward a statement saying when he clocked in but only to counter the employers statement, not to cast doubt on the records as the records were never presented, had they been they would have shown employee was telling truth. I get it when the issue is something thats not recorded, then it will come down to one persons word over another, but I dont get it when the issue is one that is recorded, why would an et take the word of an employer when the employer doesnt present the records they are relying on. If thats how things are done then an employer can just say what they want about anything thats recorded and not have to show any records to back up their statements. Thanks for the replies, its not as clean cut as i thought it would be.

[atticus]

You may cross examine the employer about the alleged records. As has also been said, it is for you to test the evidence.

But you can surely also produce better quality evidence than "no I wasn't".

[ULA]

As has already been set out by others, it is not down to the Judge to test the evidence to come to a decision on the case it is the responsibility of each party to present their respective cases and provide all the necessary evidence to support their claims.

If the employee is stating they were not where the employer is claiming they were at a specific time, then it is down to the employee to present evidence that proves where they were.

Not being sure what stage you are in the employment tribunal process, then as atticus has said cross-examination would be the time to try and cast doubt on what the employer is stating. If you are beyond the hearing stage then there is not much further you can do.

[Sky90]

From my own tribunal, the respondent strongly argued against things being dealt with that were not in the original list of issues. The argument being that the issue being brought up later meant they did not have the time to produce a defence.

I believe prior to the tribunal, you can request amendments be made to your claim. If you are not being represented by a lawyer, and have dealt with the claim yourself, then the judge may let you amend your claim at the beginning of your tribunal. This can be a risk and if you can request amendments before then you should.

For me, the other side tried to argue against amendments. However, because I’d made reference to certain issues, the judge stated that the other side were made aware.

With an ET, the judge isn’t investigating, they look at the evidence that is put forward by both sides and make their decision based on that. You will need to argue that they have breached ET law and your contract. Without the argument being put to the judge, I don’t think they would deal with it if they come across it without it being mentioned by the respondent or claimant.

[rapoo]

Does an et judge have to deal with issues that are not part of your claim?

Yesterday, 18:19:PM
If your claim does not mention breach of contract or breach of et law and during the et hearing your employers evidence amounts to breach of contract and et law, does the judge have to deal with it or can they ignore it because its not in your claim?

[dslippy]

Each side has put foerwrd its claim on the papers. They then submit evidence to support that claim. To allow the ET to take a point such as you mention further invites the hearing to descend into chaos. Neither side has had chance too prepare argument based upon it, and it would risk unfairness.

Again, the ET should not go off on adventures of its own.
Having said that any such event happens in its own context, and some may be closer than others to the issues argued on paper.

[rapoo]

If ive got this correct, if the judge spots a breach in contract or law with the evidence put in front of him by the employer, the judge cant act on it if a breach is not part of a claim? Thats even after the employer claimed to have followed their own procedures and employment law.