Can anyone recommend a good employment solicitor in the Worthing/Brighton area?

[Eloise01]

Re: Can anyone recommend a good employment solicitor in the Worthing/Brighton area?

Personally - and bear in mind that I have a rough outline of the situation, I would go for breach of contract and unfair dismissal rather than touch constructive dismissal with a bargepole! I will be honest - as I explained it could be dicey even then, but it turns the burden of proof on the employer. There is a method of doing this, but it requires a tough skin. He has to refuse the contractual changes and deliver a letter to the employer saying that due to the breach of contract in relation to a unilateral breach of contract he is working under protest only, and subject to a claim to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal and brecah of contract. This is a rare exception - a case where you can claim unfair dismissal and still be in employment. So it's worth consdiering but as I said - thick skin required. That said, if he's thinking of a tribunal at all he will need a thick skin, and an even thicker one to claim constructive unfair dismissal.

I am afraid that whatever happens, yes, I think this is a road to unemployment, but that is not something I see as avoidable. You do not have to rush right now - talk to a couple of no wins and see what they say. Sometimes a face to face throws up something you forget to mention that can make a difference, and there's nothing to lose right now since it seems to be a question of how much he loses by rather than whether he loses. If it came to the worst, I'd litigate in person - a claim would have merit, but not much chance, if you see what I mean, You may not have much chance of winning but it isn't vexatious, and the threat of legal costs might force something a bit better as a settlement.

Of course the other thing we haven't discussed, and you must consider it, even if you reject it, is to stick his head down and look for another job. Sometimes, silence is the better part of valour, if you need the income. No shame in that, and you'd be fools not to consider it.

[lexis200]

Re: Can anyone recommend a good employment solicitor in the Worthing/Brighton area?

I've tried mulling over your points with my husband at the moment, and it does make sense, but I think my head has taken all it will today! Too much stuff going on personally and it's all a bit woolly this evening.

I do understand your comment about keeping quiet, but we have, at length, discussed him sticking it out every time something happens. It's what he's done every other time a problem has arisen. The issues I wrote about to you are a very small part of the whole picture, it has been an ongoing campaign from his boss which in the last few years has shredded his confidence and left him (and other members of staff) feeling physically sick at the thought of having to work there. One girl has just left after under a year citing the boss as a bully and the main reason for her leaving, another colleague is going on interviews every chance she gets. The new manager of the team who has been given two pay rises in the last 18 months is also desperately unhappy and looking to leave. It really is a very downtrodden group of people, and they genuinely do not get half of what he's thrown at my husband. We know a lot of stuff we shouldn't due to our relationship with the FC, and the lies that the boss has told about my husband are incredible. Of course none of that is of any help to us as we can't say how we know!

He is on the lookout for another job, but unless something monumental happens he will be looking for it from home rather than work. It can't continue any more. My OH's grandmother passed away last week, and although this has obviously been incredibly stressful for us, it does mean we will have a small inheritance which in turn will allow him to lose his income for a while. It's not how we'd choose to spend the money she saved for him, but to us this is more important than money.

Anyhoo, that's all rather depressing, and I'm not helping anything by whining, so I think I'll pop off and watch something silly on telly!

We'll have a proper look at what you've said tomorrow when when I'm in a better frame of mind.

Thanks very much

Lexis

[lexis200]

Re: Can anyone recommend a good employment solicitor in the Worthing/Brighton area?

Okie dokie, bit less rattled now after last nights downer.

Personally - and bear in mind that I have a rough outline of the situation, I would go for breach of contract and unfair dismissal rather than touch constructive dismissal with a bargepole! I will be honest - as I explained it could be dicey even then, but it turns the burden of proof on the employer. There is a method of doing this, but it requires a tough skin. He has to refuse the contractual changes and deliver a letter to the employer saying that due to the breach of contract in relation to a unilateral breach of contract he is working under protest only, and subject to a claim to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal and breach of contract. This is a rare exception - a case where you can claim unfair dismissal and still be in employment. So it's worth considering but as I said - thick skin required. That said, if he's thinking of a tribunal at all he will need a thick skin, and an even thicker one to claim constructive unfair dismissal.

I've read through what you've said and I think I get it, but having no real understanding of these procedures I'm just going to try and clarify a couple of bits in my mind.

Where you say about refusing the contractual changes etc - is this what I'm calling filing a grievance, or are they two completely different matters? If they are different, would you mind explaining what the benefit is of doing what you mention above rather than going down the grievance route please, as I'm not sure at the moment that I know what the difference is? And if you could do it as though talking to a simpleton that'd be great

You make a point about litigating in person, which I take it would be my husband speaking for himself rather than getting anyone legal involved, but can I ask if you could elaborate on that a bit please as I'm not sure I'm getting why it would be better for him to do that rather than someone who knows the ins and outs of these things. I understand that it wouldn't be a vexatious claim, as obviously there have been issues, but I'm not understanding why they would look at a settlement to avoid legal costs if there is no legal representation? I know I'm sounding like a bit of a lemon here asking this stuff, but OH is seriously stressed at the moment so I want to be sure I'm understanding things if I'm going to talk to him about them!

We did have an email from the solicitor this morning, outlining what he feels the salient points are and stating (in answer to a direct question about it) that he 'would be prepared to consider a no-win no-fee' situation if it progressed to OH's termination (which one way or another it no doubt will). I have noted that he has said 'would be prepared' rather than 'will', and am asking him to clarify. He is still advocating filing a grievance to HR in the company as a first step, citing the last issue as the final straw, but including everything from the start in order to show that it's been an ongoing situation rather than a singular event which has caused the problem. He has also said he has no expectations at all that it will be resolved in OH's favour, but he thinks that it would strengthen any legal position OH may find himself in.

OH is going in to see HR today if he can get an appointment to ask them to steer him through the grievance/tribunal procedures. He's not telling them anything, he just wants to know how the company deals with them. I'm hoping that will crystalise things in his mind as he is a bit of a wreck at the moment with this and other problems!

Thanks again for any and all help

Lexis

[Eloise01]

Re: Can anyone recommend a good employment solicitor in the Worthing/Brighton area?

Okie dokie, bit less rattled now after last nights downer.




I've read through what you've said and I think I get it, but having no real understanding of these procedures I'm just going to try and clarify a couple of bits in my mind.

Where you say about refusing the contractual changes etc - is this what I'm calling filing a grievance, or are they two completely different matters? If they are different, would you mind explaining what the benefit is of doing what you mention above rather than going down the grievance route please, as I'm not sure at the moment that I know what the difference is? And if you could do it as though talking to a simpleton that'd be great You would need to do both. The rejection of a contractual change is simple. It's a letter saying that the employer is changing XXX about the contract and you refuse this change, and you are only working under protest and reserve the right to make a claim to an employment tribunal if the change happens / is imposed. But this only works if you then make a claim to a tribunal - there's no empty threats clause here! You can submit a grievance simulatneously and it may be in the same letter - but the two things are different.

You make a point about litigating in person, which I take it would be my husband speaking for himself rather than getting anyone legal involved, but can I ask if you could elaborate on that a bit please as I'm not sure I'm getting why it would be better for him to do that rather than someone who knows the ins and outs of these things. I understand that it wouldn't be a vexatious claim, as obviously there have been issues, but I'm not understanding why they would look at a settlement to avoid legal costs if there is no legal representation? I know I'm sounding like a bit of a lemon here asking this stuff, but OH is seriously stressed at the moment so I want to be sure I'm understanding things if I'm going to talk to him about them! Because it will cost them a lot of money and it will cost you nothing! So you have nothing to lose and they have. Even if they win they will pay their own legal costs, and that will mount up very quickly. It's a learning curve doing it yourself - but many claimants do it and it can be done!

We did have an email from the solicitor this morning, outlining what he feels the salient points are and stating (in answer to a direct question about it) that he 'would be prepared to consider a no-win no-fee' situation if it progressed to OH's termination (which one way or another it no doubt will). I have noted that he has said 'would be prepared' rather than 'will', and am asking him to clarify. He is still advocating filing a grievance to HR in the company as a first step, citing the last issue as the final straw, but including everything from the start in order to show that it's been an ongoing situation rather than a singular event which has caused the problem. He has also said he has no expectations at all that it will be resolved in OH's favour, but he thinks that it would strengthen any legal position OH may find himself in. I would agree that a grievance is required - especially if this came to constructive unfair dismissal, where it would be an absolutely necessity. I would personally be amazed at someone taking on constructive unfair dismissal of this sort on a no win no fee - I'd read the paperwork very carefully! The odds of winning are less than 3%. No win no fee is generally only taken on if there is a better than (at least) 51% chance of winning. The gap between that and the odds is too great, and nothing you have told me suggests that you have a good case. In particular, wtach out for what happens if there is a settlement - a settlement is not a win! You could end up getting a settlement and paying most of it to the solicitor!

OH is going in to see HR today if he can get an appointment to ask them to steer him through the grievance/tribunal procedures. He's not telling them anything, he just wants to know how the company deals with them. I'm hoping that will crystalise things in his mind as he is a bit of a wreck at the moment with this and other problems!

Thanks again for any and all help

Lexis

Please tell me he really isn't going to ask HR for advice about a tribunal! If so - stop him if you can. You never ask HR those sorts of questions. HR represent the employer and their interests, not the employee, no matter what they say. If they get the slightest wind of a tribunal he can expect them to be searching his Facebook page within the hour - in other words, looking for everything and anything to fairly dismiss him!

[lexis200]

Re: Can anyone recommend a good employment solicitor in the Worthing/Brighton area?

That is brilliant, thank you.

I've told him to veto the HR visit - he hadn't been yet. I'll talk this over with him this evening when he's back now that I understand it.

I hadn't even considered the fact that a settlement isn't a win. Of course it's not, I know that and I should have picked up on it, but it didn't click at all that that would then mean it didn't fit the CFA outline. I have written to him asking him to clarify what he meant so I'll see what he comes back with. I think though we will, as you say, avoid the constructive dismissal angle and try the rejection of contract/grievance route (assuming OH feels he's up to it of course).

[Eloise01]

Re: Can anyone recommend a good employment solicitor in the Worthing/Brighton area?

I always recommend that people try to get dismissed rather than resign! In the nicest possible way. Burden of proof in a dismissal is on the employer - in a resignation it is on the employee. That is what makes it hard to win.

And yes, I am sure that your solicitor is as honest as the day is long - but I tend to be overly cautious in warning people what to look out for because I have some some really sharp, but entirely legal, practices. Barristers have an "advantage" over solicitors - pretty much nobody cares what we cost - either you can afford it or you have some form of payment method such as your union or insurance. You expect us to cost money, and that's all there is to cost issues. What people care about (and what we care about) is (a) winning, and (b) if we can win and create case law, even better. Our clients will never pass our way again - or if they do they are damned careless! So we aren't drumming up business; there will be no repeat trade; we don't need them to like us; and since, in general, our bill gets paid whether we win or not, winning is all it is about. It sounds kind of harsh, but in fact it makes for much simpler relationships. As a form of "employment" it is brutal - there aren't many poor barristers, but there are plenty of "former" ones! So we have less difficulty telling people bald truths because dressing it up doesn't do us any good.

But to be fair, a soliictor may have more avenues to explore than we do. For us it is a case or not - we may in fact settle, but it is a case or nothing. Solicitors may negitiate in terrain we don't enter in to. The snag with that, of course, is that you don't have any road map and you don't know what to expect, so if the solicitor isn't honest with you, you can pay a lot of money and not know they are spinning the work. I recall one such story I came across on another site I post on, where a woman had spent her entire savings on a solicitor "defending" her against a claim of race discrimination because her employer refused to provide support through their legal team. She was petrified because she now had no money left to pay the bills for the solicitor and the case hadn't even gone to tribunal. The sad fact was that the case was never going to tribunal - the claimant had no case against anyone, and had never had a case against her. It could have been ended with one swift and clear letter to the claimant telling them, in legal terms of course, where to stuff their complaint. It never needed Ł8k worth of work on it. But the solicitor had, in professional terms, actually done nothing wrong, and the subsequent inbestigation into the solicitor found that the work had been done and properly charged for, and that it was a matter of judgement alone as to whether he should have done it that way and since she agreed with his actions....

It's a bit like phoning ACAS - who often provide very poor advice these days. You don't phone ACAS or go to a solicitor because you know the answer and what to do, so you are rather stuck if they tell you something and tend to believe what you are told. Because if you already knew the aanswer and what to do about it, why would you be talking to them at all?

[MissFM]

Re: Can anyone recommend a good employment solicitor in the Worthing/Brighton area?

Thank you, that is extremely helpful to all. Superb post!

[lexis200]

Re: Can anyone recommend a good employment solicitor in the Worthing/Brighton area?

Hi,

Lexis200's hubby here...

Just wanted to say thanks to everyone who's helped so far and given their thoughts (good and bad) on my predicament. My wife is a brilliant person, and much more articulate than I on matters like this. She has been superb at dealing with this so far, but we would be nothing without the kind help of everyone else on the forum.

I still haven't made up my mind if I have the guts to see this through (going out with a bang rather than a wimper), but I wanted to show my appreciation for everyone, including my OH, whatever the outcome.

Thanks again.

[lexis200]

Re: Can anyone recommend a good employment solicitor in the Worthing/Brighton area?

I've just come on to the forum, read that, and cried. 17 years and he still surprises me :_tighthug__by_darkm

I always recommend that people try to get dismissed rather than resign! Is anything that we're considering (ie contract breach/grievance) going to end up with him being dismissed though, or will he just be asked to resign? We've been assuming he will be asked to leave, as I didn't think they'd be able to dismiss him for filing a complaint etc? In the nicest possible way. Burden of proof in a dismissal is on the employer - in a resignation it is on the employee. That is what makes it hard to win

And yes, I am sure that your solicitor is as honest as the day is long - but I tend to be overly cautious in warning people what to look out for because I have some some really sharp, but entirely legal, practices. Barristers have an "advantage" over solicitors - pretty much nobody cares what we cost - either you can afford it or you have some form of payment method such as your union or insurance. You expect us to cost money, and that's all there is to cost issues. What people care about (and what we care about) is (a) winning, and (b) if we can win and create case law, even better. Our clients will never pass our way again - or if they do they are damned careless! So we aren't drumming up business; there will be no repeat trade; we don't need them to like us; and since, in general, our bill gets paid whether we win or not, winning is all it is about. It sounds kind of harsh, but in fact it makes for much simpler relationships. As a form of "employment" it is brutal - there aren't many poor barristers, but there are plenty of "former" ones! So we have less difficulty telling people bald truths because dressing it up doesn't do us any good. Understood, and as I said before I appreciate the pointer as the whole settlement vs win thing hadn't even occurred to me.

But to be fair, a soliictor may have more avenues to explore than we do. For us it is a case or not - we may in fact settle, but it is a case or nothing. Solicitors may negitiate in terrain we don't enter in to. The snag with that, of course, is that you don't have any road map and you don't know what to expect, so if the solicitor isn't honest with you, you can pay a lot of money and not know they are spinning the work. I recall one such story I came across on another site I post on, where a woman had spent her entire savings on a solicitor "defending" her against a claim of race discrimination because her employer refused to provide support through their legal team. She was petrified because she now had no money left to pay the bills for the solicitor and the case hadn't even gone to tribunal. The sad fact was that the case was never going to tribunal - the claimant had no case against anyone, and had never had a case against her. It could have been ended with one swift and clear letter to the claimant telling them, in legal terms of course, where to stuff their complaint. It never needed Ł8k worth of work on it. But the solicitor had, in professional terms, actually done nothing wrong, and the subsequent inbestigation into the solicitor found that the work had been done and properly charged for, and that it was a matter of judgement alone as to whether he should have done it that way and since she agreed with his actions...This does worry me. As I mentioned to Celestine, I couldn't understand why we'd be told we had a good case for constructive dismissal when you were adamant there was nothing there, and as he'd mentioned the NWNF as a possibility I couldn't see where his money was coming from. Your earlier points gave an indication to that, and I am still very wary. That said, if he comes back and says there will be no fee no matter what the outcome, I will be biting his hand off! Unfortunately OH can't get any more time off at the moment as they're too busy, so we're a bit stuck for trying to do what you suggest and speak to another NWNF.

It's a bit like phoning ACAS - who often provide very poor advice these days. You don't phone ACAS or go to a solicitor because you know the answer and what to do, so you are rather stuck if they tell you something and tend to believe what you are told. Because if you already knew the aanswer and what to do about it, why would you be talking to them at all? This is exactly right. We are, perhaps extremely naively, of the opinion that if a solicitor says something it's going to be black and white, not grey, and if HR say they're neutral they mean it. If you're in a similar situation to us where you're not sure you can rely on a solicitor, and HR won't be neutral, where, as a lay-person, do you turn? I'm incredibly thankful that I have had such help on various issues on these forums - how many people don't know about them and are left completely on their own?

I've been doing a bit of reading, and on Wikipedia (so it must be right) it says that a claim for breach of contract can't be brought until the employees employment has ended; is this correct? If it is, how is the employment ended - by OH resigning?

Also, is it possible to simply include the breach of contract within a grievance rather than raise it as a separate issue? The reason I ask this is because if they do on the off-chance say 'you've got us bang to rights' and rectify it immediately, it seems to me that that would lessen any complaint running alongside it. I'm also very aware of the fact that my husband is exceedingly worried about this, and the complaints procedure would seem to be far less stressful. I've been trying to work out what would we actually be hoping to gain from taking them to a tribunal simply over the contract. OH can't work there any more so just rectifying the breach won't help. I can't for a minute imagine a possible payout would be a significant amount, and as money is not a driving factor here it's a bit moot anyway. The only thing that could be a swaying factor is if would mean a formal proceeding against the boss, but would it be about him personally or more about the company?

If a complaint is raised though, that's all about him and he can't just state it was orders from above. I'm really just trying to look at this from all angles. Of course he could just walk away, but then this odious person will simply move onto the next person, and will not have to answer at all for years of c**p that he's put my husband through. Nonetheless, it's still a very tempting thought for him to just slap down a resignation and leave. In 6 months time though we both know he'd be regretting it.

One last thing I keep meaning to ask is how long is reasonable before OH makes/acts on a decision? The breach occurred last Friday (1st), and he has a meeting next Wednesday (13th) that he is concerned may be rather biased if he slaps a complaint on them beforehand. Seeing as he will have to be working there for a while even if he does put a complaint in, he's obviously trying to work out how best to mitigate any backlash.

Thanks

Lexis

edit - I've just remembered something I read about a long time ago OTR when people were involved in legal proceedings (admittedly I only saw it referred to in bank cases). If this went to tribunal is it the sort of thing OH would be able to have a Mckenzie Friend for?

[Eloise01]

Re: Can anyone recommend a good employment solicitor in the Worthing/Brighton area?

In response to your first point, in all seriousness here, your OH is a man, not a lemming! If he is asked to resign, then he politely but firmly tells them where to shove that request! If they asked him to jump off a cliff, would he do it? Of course it would be much easier for them if he resigned. That is why he shouldn't do it!

I've just come on to the forum, read that, and cried. 17 years and he still surprises me :_tighthug__by_darkm



I've been doing a bit of reading, and on Wikipedia (so it must be right) it says that a claim for breach of contract can't be brought until the employees employment has ended; is this correct? If it is, how is the employment ended - by OH resigning? Ah, bloody Wikipedia. No it is not correct. A breach of contract claim can still be brought whilst in employment. If there is a breach it can still be rectified whilst in employment. An example of this is a disciplinary. You have breached your contract of employment through misconduct - that is why you can be punished for it. But that does not automatically mean that you can or will be dismissed for it - it has to be a big enough breach for a dismissal. If you get a warning and "keep your nose clean", effectively the breach is being "fixed" by your good conduct. That's a very simply way of explaining it. But breaches of contract happen, on both sides, all the time - they are commonly tiny little ones and most people overlook them on both sides. Your husband has, according to what you have said, been overlooking them quite often! They may not be bif enough breaches to break the contract, but any breach is a breach. In terms that site members will perhaps get more easily, paying your credit card bill late is a breach of contract. You might get a slapped wrist from the company - a reminder, or a charge, or something, but they won't take your credit card away. Not paying it ever - now that's a breach of a different magnitude and they tend to get stroppy! Understand?

Also, is it possible to simply include the breach of contract within a grievance rather than raise it as a separate issue? The reason I ask this is because if they do on the off-chance say 'you've got us bang to rights' and rectify it immediately, it seems to me that that would lessen any complaint running alongside it. I'm also very aware of the fact that my husband is exceedingly worried about this, and the complaints procedure would seem to be far less stressful. I've been trying to work out what would we actually be hoping to gain from taking them to a tribunal simply over the contract. OH can't work there any more so just rectifying the breach won't help. I can't for a minute imagine a possible payout would be a significant amount, and as money is not a driving factor here it's a bit moot anyway. The only thing that could be a swaying factor is if would mean a formal proceeding against the boss, but would it be about him personally or more about the company? This is very simple. If you are saying that your husband will not stay there and intends to resign, then unless the has exhausted the whole of the grievance procedure before he does so, he will not win a claim for constructive unfair dismissal. No chance. Forget it and walk away. The breach that you are talking about - taking away his car - is simply not big enough to justify walking away from your job. The other stuff is unproveable. He has never submitted a grievance about any of it. He has no eveidence of it. And not a single member of the staff is going to support him by agreeing to be a witness - they won't even submit grievances of their own! If you re-read that link I posted for you - and in case it isn't obvious to you by now, that link was also written by me (it just saves me typing the same stuff several dozen times!) - you will see that to justify an immediate resignation without a grievance, the breach has to be enormous and still must be serious enough to say that it would be impossible to go through the grievance. A car isn't that. Sorry, but it just isn't. And I appreciate your concern, but the purpose of the grievance procedure is for the employer to rectify mistakes or problems! The law requires you to attempt to resolve things with the employer - not just quit and make a tribunal claim. I am not saying this to be harsh. It is simply a fact that the law is there as a last resort and it does not apprecaite being treated as the first one. That is why, in constructive unfair dismissal, you must try to resolve the issue first.

If a complaint is raised though, that's all about him and he can't just state it was orders from above. I'm really just trying to look at this from all angles. Of course he could just walk away, but then this odious person will simply move onto the next person, and will not have to answer at all for years of c**p that he's put my husband through. Nonetheless, it's still a very tempting thought for him to just slap down a resignation and leave. In 6 months time though we both know he'd be regretting it. You are not going to want to hear this. This person is going to move on to the next person regardless of what your husband does now. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that, in the majority of cases, employers punish the guilty. The employer knows what goes on, and they keep these people for a reason. The reason may vary, but they are stil in employment because the employer wants them to be. If you are looking for justice, forget it. It does not exist, an it especially does not exist in the law. Any lawyer who tells you otherwise is deluded or lying. If you think for one minute that people walk away from tribunals elated - they very rarely do, and they never think that they got justice. Money perhaps, but not justice.

One last thing I keep meaning to ask is how long is reasonable before OH makes/acts on a decision? The breach occurred last Friday (1st), and he has a meeting next Wednesday (13th) that he is concerned may be rather biased if he slaps a complaint on them beforehand. Seeing as he will have to be working there for a while even if he does put a complaint in, he's obviously trying to work out how best to mitigate any backlash. If it hasn't actually been done yet, he has until they formally and officially tell him, but any further delay would start to imply acceptance.

Thanks

Lexis

edit - I've just remembered something I read about a long time ago OTR when people were involved in legal proceedings (admittedly I only saw it referred to in bank cases). If this went to tribunal is it the sort of thing OH would be able to have a Mckenzie Friend for? Yes, you can

I tried to explain something previously which is very complex and obviously didn't do it well enough. In constructive unfair dismissal, you resign and the burden of proof is on you throughout the case. In unfair dismissal you get sacked, and the burden of proof is on the employer. Right? There is one exception to this. There is a form of unfair dismissal which involved breach of contract, and generally applies where an employer is attemtping to enforce a change of contractual terms. This is "working under protest" which means that you continue to attend work and so on, but you state that you are working under protest and subject to a legal claim for breach of contract / unfair dismissal. This is the one situation where you can claim unfair dismissal without actually having been dismissed - but this is still unfair dismissal, and so the burden of proof is on the employer that the change to contractual terms is fair. It is used, but as I said, you need a thick skin to do it.

[Eloise01]

Re: Can anyone recommend a good employment solicitor in the Worthing/Brighton area?

One other thing I should mention perhaps, and again, I have alluded to this but perhaps not stated it clearly and outright. I should, because it has to be part of what you think about. I think your husband is suffering some problems with stress as a result of his experiences at work, yes? And you are worried about this because you'd never let him just walk away from a job unless it was that serious - get another one first is always the sensible advice, and you don't strike me as lacking sense, so you are consdierig this because of the concern you have for the effect in him?

It is therefore only fair to warn you that if you think the employer is being nasty now, you have seen nothing yet - and whether you have a solicitor or not, nothing protects you from that. A lawyer is a representative, not a shield. Your husbands performance issues and anything else they can think of are going to be bandied around like there are no tomorrows. They will portray him as someone who is mediocre at best and failing at worst, vindictive about his own shortcomings and making up lies to cover his own back. Those are some of the nicer things they will say. Employment tribunal processes are lengthy - typically 6 - 9 months but it depends on your area (waiting lists are long) - and drawn out. He and you will have to live with this claim for that sort of length of time, and live with what the employer throws at him. It is not a painless experience, even with a good lawyer. It is hard work, gut-wrenching and stressful. And that's all if you win. If you lose...

If you can't do that, and if he can't face it, walk away and don't look back. You make that decision for your own sanity - not for high-faluting concepts of justice which I promise you you will never feel you have achieved. There is merit to the way that lawyers look at this (and I know I may come across as a b**ch, but this is my real world) - we go in there to win and nothing else. Win. That's it. Oh, every now and then I might see a bit of justice creep in. But I never expect it. I keep hope and altruism alive by my choices and by "good deeds", by principles and the way I try to live. I do not expect to go to "work" and find them, so if they aren't there I am not disappointed because all I went to work for was to win.

[PlanB]

Re: Can anyone recommend a good employment solicitor in the Worthing/Brighton area?

One other thing I should mention perhaps, and again, I have alluded to this but perhaps not stated it clearly and outright. I should, because it has to be part of what you think about. I think your husband is suffering some problems with stress as a result of his experiences at work, yes? And you are worried about this because you'd never let him just walk away from a job unless it was that serious - get another one first is always the sensible advice, and you don't strike me as lacking sense, so you are consdierig this because of the concern you have for the effect in him?

It is therefore only fair to warn you that if you think the employer is being nasty now, you have seen nothing yet - and whether you have a solicitor or not, nothing protects you from that. A lawyer is a representative, not a shield. Your husbands performance issues and anything else they can think of are going to be bandied around like there are no tomorrows. They will portray him as someone who is mediocre at best and failing at worst, vindictive about his own shortcomings and making up lies to cover his own back. Those are some of the nicer things they will say. Employment tribunal processes are lengthy - typically 6 - 9 months but it depends on your area (waiting lists are long) - and drawn out. He and you will have to live with this claim for that sort of length of time, and live with what the employer throws at him. It is not a painless experience, even with a good lawyer. It is hard work, gut-wrenching and stressful. And that's all if you win. If you lose...

If you can't do that, and if he can't face it, walk away and don't look back. You make that decision for your own sanity - not for high-faluting concepts of justice which I promise you you will never feel you have achieved. There is merit to the way that lawyers look at this (and I know I may come across as a b**ch, but this is my real world) - we go in there to win and nothing else. Win. That's it. Oh, every now and then I might see a bit of justice creep in. But I never expect it. I keep hope and altruism alive by my choices and by "good deeds", by principles and the way I try to live. I do not expect to go to "work" and find them, so if they aren't there I am not disappointed because all I went to work for was to win.

:amen:

[Eloise01]

Re: Can anyone recommend a good employment solicitor in the Worthing/Brighton area?

:amen:

I should perhaps point out that some people here have experience of being on the sharp end of a tribunal, although I think mostly for much "smaller thngs" than what the OP is describing, which, having the benefit of more information than others on the thread have, can only be described as "very messy". But some personal experiences of being a claimant may be useful to the OP if people feel able to share. I know everyone is different and reacts differently, and every case is different, and some cases easier than others.

I wouldn't want to put anyone off making a claim if that is what they want to do, but I also wouldn't want them to go in with their eyes shut. people have unrealistic views of what they think the inside of a court is like, and how they operate - they are not anything like an episode of a court room drama where people are mostly well behaved, calm, and the truth always comes out in the last five minutes.

[lexis200]

Re: Can anyone recommend a good employment solicitor in the Worthing/Brighton area?

Hello all

I'm sorry I've not been on and responding to messages. They have all most definitely been read and taken on board.

Unfortunately we had my husband's grandmother's funeral last week. This is the last relative he has who cared about him, having lost both his parents to cancer within a year of each other in the last five years. As you can imagine it's not been a good week.

On the plus side, I have managed to drag him kicking and screaming to the the doctor (what is it with men and doctors?), and literally within 3 or 4 minutes of walking in the room the doctor told him he would be signing him off. We then went on to talk to him for nearly 20 minutes, and at no point felt rushed. He was incredibly helpful, but obviously concerned. He signed OH off for 3 weeks rather than 2, and told him he didn't expect him to be returning to work after the 3 weeks, it was likely to be just to check he wasn't feeling worse.

I'll update as and when things happen, but I just wanted to let you know what was going on as I'm aware I'd gone very quiet!

[Eloise01]

Re: Can anyone recommend a good employment solicitor in the Worthing/Brighton area?

Your GP sounds very good - it was once the case that many were poor at dealing with men and mental conditions, but things are changing.

You had mentioned his grandmothers death to me previously, and I am sorry that he's had to deal with this on top of everything else. But it is probably best now that he focus on getting better, and he was never going to acgieve that in the workplace.

I have responded to your PM.