Unfair dismisal ?

[qteas]

Re: Unfair dismisal ?

Im really not sure i will speak to him tomorrow morning and let get him to read this. The other problem is he is being funded by the union (UNITE) so it could be the union who decide if they will continue to fund him which I am guessing they would be swayed by the advice given by the barrister possibly

[stevemLS]

Re: Unfair dismisal ?

(Sorry teaboy) Article 8 obliges the state to respect private and family life, but Article 8.2 qualifies it:

"There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

So there are plenty of get outs there that say the private life of a social worker can be interfered with provided it is for one of those specified purposes.

[teaboy2]

Re: Unfair dismisal ?

Yes but the employer i.e. the state would have to prove that the OP's brothers domestic issue posed a threat to public health or morals or public safety. None the others i.e. interests or national security, economic well being, prevention of disorder or crime, or protection of rights and freedoms of others apply here.

I think they would find it difficult to prove that the domestic issues had impacted on his duties or performance as a social worker!

[qteas]

Re: Unfair dismisal ?

The employer has indicated now they are not prepared to settle this case out of court so its up to the Union to agree to continue funding this or i guess that will be it. As there is no way he could afford to pay out any more money nor can his family pay. His solicitor has also advised that the SSSC are virtually a law to themselves as he has worked on a number of cases and the SSSC behaviour has been disgraceful. So it seems he is being destroyed for being a male victim. If he was female I dont think he would be facing this situation - his solicitor agreed with this but indicated that is the reality of these situations

[teaboy2]

Re: Unfair dismisal ?

Tribunal fees are fixed and you can represent yourself at tribunal - Its not that hard actually! I believe of top of my head it only cost him £250 to issue a claim at tribunal, though he needs to go through ACAS prior to going to tribunal to all for conciliation to take place (alternative dispute resolution via ACAS which is free) Acas will also help him issue his claim!

As per what his solicitor said, well i share the same view if they think they are above the law just because they have a code of practice!

[qteas]

Re: Unfair dismisal ?

One of the issues that we have discussed is his ex-employer used the SSSC code of conduct against him as he hadn't informed his employer that he was having difficulties in his personal relationship ie his partner assaulting him which is a breach of the SSSC code of conduct seemingly (which i think is questionable). However there were a number of recordings of incidents which clearly identifies his partner as the aggressor in their relationship which he had offered to his employer at the start. But they refused to listen to this evidence stating it was inadmissible. For me that suggest his employer was not acting impartially and were looking for a reason to dismiss him rather than taken account of all the evidence available to them. I have also had a look at the GTC rules of conduct, as she is a teacher, and it clearly states that if she acted in a 'threatening or disorderly behaviour' which she clearly was as you can hear her screaming at him and hitting him accusing him of all sorts which she later admitted in court she knew wasnt true. So the issue here i think is his employer were looking to dismiss from the start rather than conducting an impartial investigation and looking at all the evidence available to them ?

The thing with the ACAS conciliation process is his employer doesnt seem to want to go there and they dont need to either as his dismissal happened before the change in the ACAS employment rules

[teaboy2]

Re: Unfair dismisal ?

One of the issues that we have discussed is his ex-employer used the SSSC code of conduct against him as he hadn't informed his employer that he was having difficulties in his personal relationship ie his partner assaulting him which is a breach of the SSSC code of conduct seemingly (which i think is questionable). However there were a number of recordings of incidents which clearly identifies his partner as the aggressor in their relationship which he had offered to his employer at the start. But they refused to listen to this evidence stating it was inadmissible. For me that suggest his employer was not acting impartially and were looking for a reason to dismiss him rather than taken account of all the evidence available to them. I have also had a look at the GTC rules of conduct, as she is a teacher, and it clearly states that if she acted in a 'threatening or disorderly behaviour' which she clearly was as you can hear her screaming at him and hitting him accusing him of all sorts which she later admitted in court she knew wasnt true. So the issue here i think is his employer were looking to dismiss from the start rather than conducting an impartial investigation and looking at all the evidence available to them ?

The thing with the ACAS conciliation process is his employer doesnt seem to want to go there and they dont need to either as his dismissal happened before the change in the ACAS employment rules

I have to agree with you on the alleged SSSC code breach - I have read the code myself, and to be honest i do not see how your brother being the victim of an domestic assault, arguments caused by his partners drinking would effect his duties or endanger the safety, morals or overall welfare, especially when as you said he was actually trying to help her, so clearly knew he would get shouted at and occasionally she would lash out physically in any case.

And as i said along the correct procedure would have been for them to have suspended him on full pay, either full suspension or suspension from frontline duties would have sufficed until the court case. In stead it sounds like they dismissed him without any disciplinary procedure being followed at all. And yes they must be impartial and review all evidence you wish to submit to them as part of a disciplinary investigation. They have no right to rule anything you deem important in your defense of disciplinary action being taken, as inadmissible - They are not a court of law! So yes they have been clearly biased by refusing to even hear or view the evidence supporting his said of the whole incident! That code of practice (SSSC) is really going to come and bite them on the arse hard, if you ask me. And i suspect his solicitor feels the same!

[qteas]

Re: Unfair dismisal ?

I agree about the SSSC codes, However is it not the case that his circumstances are a mitigating circumstance which needs to be given some weight in addition to the period of time these incident had occurred. The incidents three of them which are referred to took place over a very short period of time. The first was in the February 2012 after which he ended the relationship but then they restarted the relationship. And when she moved in with him in beginning of May 2012 there was two further incident over a seven week period. Following the third incident he advised her that if she didnt go to the doctor for help with her anger and drinking he was going to leave. At this point she blamed him for the incidents and the police became involved.

As a consequence he was suspended from practice by SSSC and sacked by his employer. His suspension lasted two years and there has been no final determination so they are still considering what they are going to do. My view is even if he should have reported what was happening to him surely he has suffered enough given the circumstances he was in. So as a consequence he has not been working for over two years now based on a false allegation which in my view is completely out of proportion to what he is standing accused of failing to inform his employer of his difficulties.

[teaboy2]

Re: Unfair dismisal ?

I agree about the SSSC codes, However is it not the case that his circumstances are a mitigating circumstance which needs to be given some weight in addition to the period of time these incident had occurred. The incidents three of them which are referred to took place over a very short period of time. The first was in the February 2012 after which he ended the relationship but then they restarted the relationship. And when she moved in with him in beginning of May 2012 there was two further incident over a seven week period. Following the third incident he advised her that if she didnt go to the doctor for help with her anger and drinking he was going to leave. At this point she blamed him for the incidents and the police became involved.

As a consequence he was suspended from practice by SSSC and sacked by his employer. His suspension lasted two years and there has been no final determination so they are still considering what they are going to do. My view is even if he should have reported what was happening to him surely he has suffered enough given the circumstances he was in. So as a consequence he has not been working for over two years now based on a false allegation which in my view is completely out of proportion to what he is standing accused of failing to inform his employer of his difficulties.

I'd hardly say that 3 domestic incidents over a period of 4 months, gives grounds for his need to report the domestic and personal life issues to his employer. Hell couples argue all the time, its non of the states or in this case his state back employers business and to me their saying he should have told them is way out of line and basically an invasion of his right to privacy and to keep his private domestic relationship problems private. Some couples argue and shout gun ho at each other every week or even every other day and it doesn't stop them getting on with their jobs!

So yes i feel the SSSC and his employer have completely overreacted and blown things out of proportion.

What do you mean by they are still considering what they are going to do, do you mean in regards to him being allowed to work as a social worker? or regarding whether to reinstate him etc?

[qteas]

Re: Unfair dismisal ?

The SSSC are saying they have not came to any decision they had suspended him from practicing as a social worker for the maximum time of two years but have still to come to a determination, in other words hold a hearing to make a decision on whether he should face a sanction as a social worker for allegations he was acquitted of. Thats just one aspect of the case.
The other aspect is, in regards his employers stance ie he should have reported the incidents, the employment tribunal will deal with this issue only.
Both are connected but appear to be two distinctly different issues

[teaboy2]

Re: Unfair dismisal ?

The SSSC are saying they have not came to any decision they had suspended him from practicing as a social worker for the maximum time of two years but have still to come to a determination, in other words hold a hearing to make a decision on whether he should face a sanction as a social worker for allegations he was acquitted of. Thats just one aspect of the case.
The other aspect is, in regards his employers stance ie he should have reported the incidents, the employment tribunal will deal with this issue only.
Both are connected but appear to be two distinctly different issues

I can not see how they can sanction him for something he was innocent off and therefore had not done in the eyes of the law. If they did so, and its a matter of public record, they could be sued for libel! Its the fact he was acquitted and innocent from the start that they are probably worried about. If they allow him to return to work they'd be admitting they were in the wrong, if they don't they'd be committing libel if its matter of public interest. Personally i would threaten to go to the press about it all as it is a matter of public interest as to how the state backed employer and SSSC are treating a man falsely accused and later acquitted on the grounds there was no case to answer, as though he was guilty.

Yes unfortunately the Employment tribunal can only deal with the employer, however they were in the wrong for dimissing him for not reported domestic personal issues, which they had no right to no about anyway. Since they were no different to anyone else relationship issues. We all argue with our partners, lose our tempers, mainly get slapped across the face or kicked if they are drunk and you upset them (us poor men have a lot to cope with when partners are drunk)! I suppose they'd be asking about his sexual interactions with her too next!

[qteas]

Re: Unfair dismisal ?

He actually paid out £40,000 of his own money to buy a house with this woman and within seven weeks the relationship ended. During which time she stole thousands out his account. He has now being paying a mortgage of approx £1200.00 a month for the last two and a half years as he cant afford to to get this issue resolved or sell the house as it was previously on the market for three years before they had bought it. My view is this woman had made similar accusations before about her sons father and was up to her eyes in debt she seen him as an easy target and has deliberately tried to take everything he has. He has lost or had to pay out to date over £130,000 or even more. He is lucky he had some property and a very supportive family to help get him this far.

It strange you should mention sex as it was the case he was being constantly accused of having affairs which he wasnt and which she admitted he wasnt in court. But it was the case he was being forced into having sex with her with the threat of assault if he didnt to prove to her he was not having affairs during that seven week period. All the incidents stemmed from her drinking and and accusing him of having affairs.

[teaboy2]

Re: Unfair dismisal ?

Just shows how manipulative she was then. And yes it looks like she did see him as an easy target an being able to fund her lifestyle etc.

I guess at the moment its a waiting game to see what the final determination is by the SSSC. Though, if the result of which becomes public record i.e. published publicly in any form, either by database or newspaper reports. I would seriously consider in forming the SSSC that if they decide against him on the matter at hand, they are basically finding him guilty of something he never did, and for not reporting domestic issues which he has the right to privacy over since they are no different to anyone elses day in and day out issues, other than 1 false vexatious and spiteful allegation that was later found to be untrue. And therefore would be committing libel.

If it was me i'd go to the press about it and force them to make a move, your brother will no doubt get a lot of public support from people reading the story in the media which would put pressure on the SSSC to back down and reinstate him!

[qteas]

Re: Unfair dismisal ?

Hi Teaboy2
I have today been told that the union are not going to support my tribunal applicatiom as a barrister gave advice that because I hadn't reported my problems to my employer before it all came to light I was at fault which would make it difficult to win my case. Which means I was unlikely to win. He advised if I had been a woman it would be easier but the reality is I'm not. Sorry for making out this was all about my brother. He told my solicitor to try and get a settlement but I don't think that's going to happen. So I guess that's it for me

[stevemLS]

Re: Unfair dismisal ?

Isn't it fairly important that, in being acquitted, the prosecutor had to meet a criminal standard of proof.

The allegations before the SSSC are different and they have to be proved, generally, to the civil standard?

Any profession has a set of rules by which its members must abide, facing the internal disciplinary consequences if they don't.