Tribunal witnesses

[BarryTheCat]

The employer has listed three witnesses for tribunal: the investigator, the disciplinary officer and the appeal officer. But they missed out the suspending officer. The employer never said who made the decision to suspend, but we know it was carried out by the suspending officer. Can a claimant request that the employer include the suspending officer for questioning at tribunal, or at very least get them to say who made the decision to suspend?

[atticus]

Do you want to give the employer a chance to improve the evidence it will present? Might it be better for you to be able to point out that the employer has not called certain witnesses?

Think about your case, and how you are going to win it.

[Retromau5]

Did the process have a chairperson? They oversee the whole process and usually appoint the individual officers. This also could have been the person who made the decision to suspend. Suspension is usually a formality though, to ensure impartiality, confidentiality, and fairness (or at least give the illusion of it). I'm not sure how much benefit you'll get out of knowing who made the decision to suspend though.

[ULA]

It is down to the respondent to decide who they call as witnesses in the defence of your claim, it is not for you to insist that they call a witness. In the same way that they cannot make you call a witness.

[BarryTheCat]

Do you want to give the employer a chance to improve the evidence it will present? Might it be better for you to be able to point out that the employer has not called certain witnesses?

Think about your case, and how you are going to win it.

How do we get answers to questions that only this witness can answer if they dont bring that witness to the tribunal? Questions such as what alternatives were considered to suspension, how would the investigation have been impacted if the employee was not suspended etc.

[atticus]

Barry: Think! Focus on proving your case. Classify each possible piece of evidence as one of helpful to you, damaging, or neutral. Focus on making sure that you are putting in evidence that is helpful to you, and avoid as far as you can anything that may be damaging.

Do you need answers to those questions? Is it better to have them unanswered than to be able to ask them and be given answers that are unhelpful to your case?

As I said, it may be better for you to be able to comment on the failure to produce a witness who can give evidence on these things.