Respondents legal rep

[ULA]

Possibly it could be argued.

However just a thought that the respondent may have a cost argument depending on whether the training was being delivered by an external person / company or being done by in-house resources.

[Dave2508]

What is an acceptable amount of time before a hearing to exchange bundles. The Hearing is mid sept.

[ULA]

The Case Management Orders (CMO) will set out the date for exchange of the final hearing bundle and also for Witness Statements.

[Dave2508]

Thoughts on fairness
If during a process it was found out that a manager had falsified documentation to fail or otherwise push an employee on to the next stage of the process. And was caught by the union and in a grievance the employer acknowledged this in writing. But the employer failed to investigate and deal with the manager and continues the process based on information gathered by that manager. Would that be unfair on the employee.

[ULA]

Without specifics and you providing direct information it is difficult to advise.

On the manager though, whether or not the employer investigated to decided or take action against the manager is up to them. Even if the did the outcome of such would not be required to be made known to the employee.

If the falsified information, which was acknowledged as such in the grievance, was then used to continue a process (whatever that may have been) without any further information to support the reason for pursuing the process, then it MAY be an unfair process.

Without specifics I cannot say advise any other way.

[Dave2508]

Had a good Preliminary Hearing every thing was laid out and clarification given where needed. The respondents Legal rep helped some what with a little nudge from the judge. There were a couple of things that i have thought of after the fact.

One was to do with identifying reasonable adjustments.
So it has became apparent that the employer had failed to follow their own policy and failed to identify that adjustments were needed despite the policy stating that this should happen in the first instance. It was the claimant who identified adjustments with help from access to work. Given that the claimant was access to works client/customer and the employer did nothing outwith the recommendations. Could it be argued that the employer has not fully met its obligations under the equality act.

The other issue was that the employers witnesses are all registered practioners and have to abide by a code of conduct and terms of registration to practice. Given that we had identified issues which would require myself and the claimant to raise a concern with the professional body at the earliest opportunity . When could this be reasonably done as i would not want to be accused of any underhanded moves before the main hearing.

[ULA]

In terms of your two question my responses are:

1.It would depend entirely upon what was recommended and the reasons for the employer not making the suggested adjustment/s

2. Sorry but you have provided no specifics with which to answer these questions. i.e. what type of registered practitioners were they, what were the issues with either them abiding by their code of conduct of terms of registration that you need to raise them with their respective bodies.

[Dave2508]

In regards to the second question. The witnesses' are registered health workers who have to follow a set of standards in order to remain registered to practice.
Questions of compliance with the standards have arisen for some as part of evidence gathering . This relates to honesty and integrity following legalisation and polices, record keeping and falsification of documentation.

The HCPC say we must raise a concern If you have concerns about the fitness to practise of a professional registered with the HCPC, or believe that a registrant is a risk to the public or to public confidence in the profession,

Given that the Claimant was advised by her legal representative supporting her with a professional body investigation to raise concerns with the HCPC regarding conduct of some of the individuals that have now been called by the respondent as witnesses. I am cautious about progressing with this if it could be used against the claimant during the tribunal.

[ULA]

If the person you are supporting is taking professional legal advice, then this is a question best directed to them to ask their opinion on.