Can a Judge's decision at case management meetings be challenged post pre-hearing?

[Hellothanks]

Re: Can a Judge's decision at case management meetings be challenged post pre-hearing

Hello teaboy2 and krypton, thank you for both of your last two messages - thank you for time and thoughts, all very wise and helpful.

I know I might anger you after all your wise advice! But just thinking if I was to request Tribunal if they would reconsider including CEO's name giving my reasons (i.e. i am doing the whole case because of principle and its important to me that she be joined as she misused powers entrusted to her against me) but ADD a note that if they will not be willing to reconsider my request then to take my request with confidentiality and not inform the Respondent side. I am thinking that will give me the satisfaction that i tried one last chance to have her named (as its part of the justice for me, sorry can't explain it any better!) and the Respondent side won't know about my request and the subsequent rejection by the Tribunal and thus save me the embarrassment.

What do you think?? Please share your last thoughts on this. Thank you!

[stevemLS]

Re: Can a Judge's decision at case management meetings be challenged post pre-hearing

Hellothanks - that is probably the worst possible thing you can do. The Tribunal will most certainly not take an application, which is what you in effect intend to do, without notifying the other side. It is an impartial arena.

You either do or you don't but please don't ask the Tribunal to consider it on that basis.

[krypton]

Re: Can a Judge's decision at case management meetings be challenged post pre-hearing

What do you think?? Please share your last thoughts on this. Thank you!

I think you would be acting petulantly, foolish and vindictively. That is exactly what the tribunal and the other side will think and you will most certainly harm your case.

If you are taking the matter to tribunal simply for these reasons alone then you are misguided and you need to take time out to consider your own thought patterns more carefully... vengeance is a dish best served cold

[teaboy2]

Re: Can a Judge's decision at case management meetings be challenged post pre-hearing

Hello teaboy2 and krypton, thank you for both of your last two messages - thank you for time and thoughts, all very wise and helpful.

I know I might anger you after all your wise advice! But just thinking if I was to request Tribunal if they would reconsider including CEO's name giving my reasons (i.e. i am doing the whole case because of principle and its important to me that she be joined as she misused powers entrusted to her against me) but ADD a note that if they will not be willing to reconsider my request then to take my request with confidentiality and not inform the Respondent side. I am thinking that will give me the satisfaction that i tried one last chance to have her named (as its part of the justice for me, sorry can't explain it any better!) and the Respondent side won't know about my request and the subsequent rejection by the Tribunal and thus save me the embarrassment.

What do you think?? Please share your last thoughts on this. Thank you!

On top of what StevemLS and Krypton have said, to which i agree with them.

See the bit i highlighted in red in above: - This is a matter of law not a matter of principle. A matter of principle should never be mixed with what is a matter of law, as the two do not see eye to eye!

Now see bit highlighted in Blue: Why is is so important she be named a respondent too, when you can tell the court all about how she misused her powers entrusted to her against you when arguing your case against the company? You do not need to name her a respondent to tell the court that, as you will (I HOPE) have all that in your case file ready to present to the tribunal judge when you present your case and reason for your claim!

ANd don't worry we not mad at you, well i ain't. Am just perplexed as to why your so adamant to go against not just our advice but the judges. The judge actually was doing you a favor, when he/she shouldn't have done really, as they not meant to give legal counsel! But in your case, the judge advised you in a sly way with a wink of the eye so to speak.

Ohh and don't worry about the Victimization. As one if you were unfairly dismissed as per you claim, then the tribunal will acknowledge you were (so long as you have a your case and claim set out clearly). So how you were treated during the disciplinary process etc is not going to change the the fact of if you were unfairly dismissed our not. Though i not know the full details on what it is your actually claiming for or on what grounds your claiming unfair dismissal - So don't take my comment on victimisation as rock solid

[Hellothanks]

Re: Can a Judge's decision at case management meetings be challenged post pre-hearing

Hello StevemLS, Krypton, teaboy2, thank you so much for all your time and thoughts. No, I am not going against any of your advice or Judge's, I really appreciate your time and advice. I just can't decide so trying to see if there is a way around without harming my case or causing unnecessary embarrassment for myself, hence just exploring and seeking thoughts. I am also extremely angry with myself because i let myself down at the pre-hearing - if i had insisted or presented an argument for it may be there was a chance Judge would have joined her name because at the beginning he did say it was upto his discretion, so this is killing me inside the fact that i didn't even think of TRYING! Agree my reason for wanting ceo named might not be convincing, it's only i hold the 'organisation' to my heart and highly respected the previous management and the fact it wasn't the 'organisation', it was her! The only benefit her being named would have been that it would have felt i was taking her to tribunal and not the 'org'.

teaboy2, yes, she is named throughout - Appeal and ET1 form and all i will be doing at tribunal is 'Ms X this, Ms X that ...' because it's all about how she conducted my consultation in comparison to others and the breaches in procedures (i.e. putting alternative roles on hold and then denying them, during my consultation meetings there was always a 3rd person present which I am told was a breach in independent redundancy consultation but with others only herself and the worker); telling me I'm at risk of redundancy because heritage lottery fund has come to an end when my role wasn't even connected to the lottery fund but kept the person who was linked to the fund; terminated my employment following my procedural questions and complaints so my questions and complaints remained unaddressed; expenses due to me were declined until acas stage; one day's pay withheld until i queried it during the appeal stage (the later two would have been examples of 'victimisation' but I am not sure if i can use 'victimisation' now at final hearing because the Judge didn't allow its addition at pre hearing. I wanted to add victimisation because I complaint of being treated differently and informed will be seeking legal advice prior to dismissal and therefore believe it amounted to protected act, alternatively ceo had a believe i will be making a protected act). During the appeal stage, ceo gave a different reason for redundancy - diminishing of work due to lack of demand which is completely false.

Do you know if there's any way 'victimisation' could still be incorporated at the final hearing so to add some weight/substance to my arguments/treatments? or I lost my chance on is as well!

Thank you so much, and hope you all wonderful and helpful people have a lovely weekend!

[Hellothanks]

Re: Can a Judge's decision at case management meetings be challenged post pre-hearing

Hello teaboy2, sorry i think you kind of addressed my last question re: 'victimisation' in my last post. i do get what you mean above in you reply, but what i meant by my last question was that the fact the Judge dismissed inclusion of 'victimisatiom' at pre-hearing does that not mean it cannot be used or my treatments which i am thinking are examples of 'victimisation' has lost their weight/substance, as I am thinking otherwise the Judge would have said that i don't need to include 'victimisation' as a heading as examples are given and therefore no need to spell out that they were 'victimisation'?? I mean there must be some implication for my case by the Judge's decision to dismiss its inclusion.

Thank you!

[Hellothanks]

Re: Can a Judge's decision at case management meetings be challenged post pre-hearing

Hello teaboy2, sorry i think you kind of addressed my last question re: 'victimisation' in my last post. i do get what you mean above in you reply, but what i meant by my last question was that the fact the Judge dismissed inclusion of 'victimisatiom' at pre-hearing does that not mean it cannot be used or my treatments which i am thinking are examples of 'victimisation' has lost their weight/substance, as I am thinking otherwise the Judge would have said that i don't need to include 'victimisation' as a heading as examples are given and therefore no need to spell out that they were 'victimisation'?? I mean there must be some implication for my case by the Judge's decision to dismiss its inclusion.

Thank you!

[Hellothanks]

Re: Can a Judge's decision at case management meetings be challenged post pre-hearing

Hello teaboy2, sorry i think you kind of addressed my last question re: 'victimisation' in my last post. i do get what you mean above in you reply, but what i meant by my last question was that the fact the Judge dismissed inclusion of 'victimisatiom' at pre-hearing does that not mean it cannot be used or my treatments which i am thinking are examples of 'victimisation' has lost their weight/substance, as I am thinking otherwise the Judge would have said that i don't need to include 'victimisation' as a heading as examples are given and therefore no need to spell out that they were 'victimisation'?? I mean there must be some implication for my case by the Judge's decision to dismiss its inclusion.

Thank you!

[krypton]

Re: Can a Judge's decision at case management meetings be challenged post pre-hearing

Do you know if there's any way 'victimisation' could still be incorporated at the final hearing so to add some weight/substance to my arguments/treatments? or I lost my chance on is as well!

I think firstly you really need to understand the judge has done you a favour.

The questions you are asking and ideas you are exploring here are areas that will not help you. Do you understand that?

You are involved in an Employment Tribunal for Unfair dismissal. The tribunal will decide based upon your claims if that was so and then if successful will decide what the compensation should be.

They are not there to decide to vilify the CEO which is what you seem to be seeking. That will not happen. It will never happen at an ET. Do you understand that?

You seem to have great disdain for the CEO but affinity towards the company. That demonstrates a confused state of mind driven by some kind of vengeance. In which case you may well be better off buying yourself a small doll and a box of pins and do as you please.

If you don't understand, then you need to re-examine why you have taken the case to Employment Tribunal and what you are actually seeking. I strongly suggest you do so.

[Hellothanks]

Re: Can a Judge's decision at case management meetings be challenged post pre-hearing

Hello Krypton, thank you for time and thoughts. I do blame myself for the outcome of the pre-hearing not judge, sorry if i sounded like blaming judge. Mine is discrimination claim as well given the different treatment i received as compared to others, however, i do know 'different' is not enough - i have to prove it was related to race/religion otherwise i loose the discrimination claim. I am also told 'victimisation' was an important claim i should have pursued as that's an element of discrimination claim and that's why was wondering if it still could be incoperated at final hearing so to add weight.

I do understand ceo wont be liable and tribunal wont hold her accountable but kicking myself only because was told she could have still been joined without any cost to me although teaboy2 above said that if she was joined and defended herself and won then she could have claimed her costs against me! If the later is true and former incorrect then, yes, judge has done me a favour!

I am clear about why ive gone to tribunal because it was unfair dismissal and discrimination, i am sure of that in my heart and mind, not so ET could vilify her. So basically, if i could see her name on form i.e. Miss X v Ms Y than Miss X v 'Org', (can you see/feel the difference as I see/feel!) and have the opportunity to ask her the questions she declined to answer at ET I would consider I won! But at present it feels like it will only be half won, if i do win that is.

All advice/thoughts received been great help and have stopped me from sending the request to tribunal today! I will think over the weekend, most likely I wont make the request based on all thoughts received. Agree i should try to forget about it and just focus on how i can win the case at least the unfair dismissal claim which has better chance.

Thank you! and thank you for all your patience with me, even i am finding myself very annoying because I am just going around in a circle and so not helping myself!

[krypton]

Re: Can a Judge's decision at case management meetings be challenged post pre-hearing

Mine is discrimination claim as well given the different treatment i received as compared to others, however, i do know 'different' is not enough - i have to prove it was related to race/religion otherwise i loose the discrimination claim. I am also told 'victimisation' was an important claim i should have pursued as that's an element of discrimination claim and that's why was wondering if it still could be incoperated at final hearing so to add weight.

Who is telling you victimisation is an important claim ? Do you not realise discrimination is a form of victimisation? Do you even know how notoriously difficult it is to prove victimisation?

The judge has done you a favour and removed it. It is clear you still cannot understand or perhaps want to understand why.

You are in an Employment Tribunal. 'Employment' is the operative word.

You need to concentrate on the points that will win you the case. If you prove unfair dismissal all other things fall suit. People are not stupid and there is no smoke without fire. The company and CEO will be damaged by default and in some cases the CEO's position can become untenable.

If your focus is in anticipation of an all out hate campaign against her you will likely lose or be very disappointed.

[Hellothanks]

Re: Can a Judge's decision at case management meetings be challenged post pre-hearing

Hello again, I saw an employment lawyer (volunteer, at a local advice centre) before the pre-hearing meeting. He advised to add it in as I hadn't specifically mentioned it in my ET1 form (i mentioned harassment), and the prehearing agenda asked if there's any amendment needed to be made. He told me its part of discrimination because victimisation is 'Treating someone badly because they have done a ‘protected act’ (or because you believe that a person has done or is going to do a protected act)', see: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/private-and-public-sector-guidance/education-providers/higher-education-providers-guidance/key-concepts/victimisation Based on that he said mine was a case of 'victimisation' too because following my procedural questioning and complaints i experienced what i had experienced leading to dismissal. 'Harassment', 'victimisation', 'discrimination' are all different terms but all need to be put together like a puzzle to add substance/weight.

No, seriously it's not hate campaign! i do understand why it's coming across like that though but like i said previously its that i have nothing against the 'org' - i hold it in my heart and the previous management. the new ceo is not only working on changing its cause, replacing existing people with her friends but its history too! She chose to misuse her powers, the org didn't tell her to. And that's why feel it would have been fairer on my part that she was at least named alongside, that's all, may be then i would have felt less guilt for taking the 'org' alone.

yes, i agree that i just need to concentrate on the facts that will win my case.

I will let you all know the final outcome. really nervous though because esp under pressure i can't think on feet, which is a must requirement for the hearing!!

thank you and hope you have goodnight's rest after me going on and on and on......

[teaboy2]

Re: Can a Judge's decision at case management meetings be challenged post pre-hearing

Hello teaboy2, sorry i think you kind of addressed my last question re: 'victimisation' in my last post. i do get what you mean above in you reply, but what i meant by my last question was that the fact the Judge dismissed inclusion of 'victimisatiom' at pre-hearing does that not mean it cannot be used or my treatments which i am thinking are examples of 'victimisation' has lost their weight/substance, as I am thinking otherwise the Judge would have said that i don't need to include 'victimisation' as a heading as examples are given and therefore no need to spell out that they were 'victimisation'?? I mean there must be some implication for my case by the Judge's decision to dismiss its inclusion.

Thank you!

Hello again, I saw an employment lawyer (volunteer, at a local advice centre) before the pre-hearing meeting. He advised to add it in as I hadn't specifically mentioned it in my ET1 form (i mentioned harassment), and the prehearing agenda asked if there's any amendment needed to be made. He told me its part of discrimination because victimisation is 'Treating someone badly because they have done a ‘protected act’ (or because you believe that a person has done or is going to do a protected act)', see: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/private-and-public-sector-guidance/education-providers/higher-education-providers-guidance/key-concepts/victimisation Based on that he said mine was a case of 'victimisation' too because following my procedural questioning and complaints i experienced what i had experienced leading to dismissal. 'Harassment', 'victimisation', 'discrimination' are all different terms but all need to be put together like a puzzle to add substance/weight.

No, seriously it's not hate campaign! i do understand why it's coming across like that though but like i said previously its that i have nothing against the 'org' - i hold it in my heart and the previous management. the new ceo is not only working on changing its cause, replacing existing people with her friends but its history too! She chose to misuse her powers, the org didn't tell her to. And that's why feel it would have been fairer on my part that she was at least named alongside, that's all, may be then i would have felt less guilt for taking the 'org' alone.

yes, i agree that i just need to concentrate on the facts that will win my case.

I will let you all know the final outcome. really nervous though because esp under pressure i can't think on feet, which is a must requirement for the hearing!!

thank you and hope you have goodnight's rest after me going on and on and on......

Right Victimisation is as i said in my last post when 1 is treated less favorably than others, it does not necessary have to be a protected right for it to be victimisation either - For Example constantly giving ice lollies to others but never giving any to you would be victimisation, but would not be classed as being under a protected act. Where as enforcing your rights by raising a grievance and being treated less favorably as a result of raising a grievance is victimisation under a protected act.

Put the fact you were unfairly dimissed is itself basically victimisation, as you have been treated less favorably to those fairly dismissed, and not in accordance with your rights to fair and equal treatment during the dismissal process. All the instances your referring to as victimisation should be included in your claim for unfair dismissal as supporting evidence to why you belief you were unfairly dismissed. You do not need to bring up victimisation as a second part to your claim, as you'd only be repeated yourself at tribunal. Tribunal Judges etc, are of reasonable and intelligent mind, they will know it was victimisation themselves.

[krypton]

Re: Can a Judge's decision at case management meetings be challenged post pre-hearing

She chose to misuse her powers, the org didn't tell her to. And that's why feel it would have been fairer on my part that she was at least named alongside, that's all, may be then i would have felt less guilt for taking the 'org' alone.

As CEO she is a pretty big part of the organisation. If I was you I would drop the sentimentality. Get over it and get ready.

[Hellothanks]

Re: Can a Judge's decision at case management meetings be challenged post pre-hearing

Hello teaboy2, that makes sense, thanks! - i guess intelligent people will always find a way around! thanks! I am not that intelligent - I can argue with the ceo because she is actually a damb but lucky woman getting away with everything, so damb she couldn't even answer my simple questions so terminated by employment! and this is how she looks like . I am just nervous facing her rep who will be a legal professional