Bujon - Employment Tribunal Help Please

[judgemental24]

Re: Assistance advice required on an unusal set of circumstances

Section 2(1) Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 can be used in your case

(1)It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees

You then use Regulation 3 Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 in identifying the failings of the employer.
Risk assessment

3.—(1) every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of—
(a) The risks to the health and safety of his employees to which they are exposed whilst they are at work; and
(b) The risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking,

[Bujon]

Re: Assistance advice required on an unusal set of circumstances

X is the FD for Company A & Company B, although only an employee of company A (I worked for company B). The owners of company A have heavily invested in company B, and with that, X has involvement in both. I think in an ideal world and with hindsight, company B would have preferred me to be employed by company A and then that whole financial department could be treated as outsourced, however my contract was with company B.Company A is notorious for bad man management, to which X is one of the main perpetrators. That aside, I still feel that company B in this instance couldn't 'really' protect me in these circumstances.....My claim is for breach of contract due to implied terms for the initial bullying and a final straw scenario, and then a further breach of trust and confidence based on the investigations of the grievance procedure coupled with the 'duty of care' angle as possible explanation for this.

[teaboy2]

Re: Assistance advice required on an unusal set of circumstances

Don;t forget that duty of care is also an implied contractual term of all employment contracts - So is mutual trust and confidentiality. You could claim in your constructive dismissal case that the employers failure to protect you from bullying and harassment not only put them in breach of their contract duty of care (as supported by section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work act 1974) but as a result of said breach they also breached the contractual terms of mutual trust, as you had placed your trust in the employer that you would be protected from any bullying or harassment, and clearly that was not the case and therefore your trust was broken and in doing so the employer breached the implied term of mutual trust leading to a serious break down in relations as well as being a serious breach of contract!

[Bujon]

Re: Assistance advice required on an unusal set of circumstances

Is there anyway in which my ex employer could argue that X was my line manager regardless of which company they are an employee of?Also could I insist on receiving the employment status of X in relation to company B, I did request this during grievance proceedings but it was denied as a matter of confidentiality.

[Amethyst]

Re: Assistance advice required on an unusal set of circumstances

If he acted as your line manager it doesn't matter who he was employed by - your employer is responsible for a duty of care to you, they put you in the situation where X acted as your line manager, therefore it is their responsibility.

Presumably btw the other 4 occasions were reported / dealt with ( or not as the case may be ) as you went along before last straw ?

[stevemLS]

Re: Assistance advice required on an unusal set of circumstances

Just as any financial involvement between companies A&B is immaterial, so is X's employment status, in my view.

Your claim arises out of your treatment by X and [MENTION=52714]Tea[/MENTION]yboy2 correctly analyzed what flows from that in post #10.

That is what you need to focus on rather than allow yourself to be diverted by non-issues.

[judgemental24]

Re: Assistance advice required on an unusal set of circumstances

Amethyst is correct

Line managers are also employees of the company

The statutory duty is always on the employer, never the employee, no matter what the position of the manager is within the company

[Bujon]

Re: Assistance advice required on an unusal set of circumstances

I had previously resigned in late 2014 due to a final straw situation, and this was the 1 of 5 incidents. My employers held a meeting and X was present and off the back of that I retracted the resignation based on opportunity. Since then the further 4 incidents have all been documented, with responses from employer at each occasion that I should speak with X as they were my direct line manager!!! The fact they use an outsourced HR company, means responses like that were wholly inadequate, and funnily enough the same HR company are providing litigation services in this case.

[Amethyst]

Re: Assistance advice required on an unusal set of circumstances

That sounds about right, the company may have been poorly advised throughout. Can't pass any comment on the rest of your case (but sounds like you have covered everything) however the question was about the line manager and the answer is his employment status is irrelevant.

[Bujon]

Re: Assistance advice required on an unusal set of circumstances

OK great thanks, didn't want to go barking down the wrong avenue. I'll merely present the 'duty of care' breach. I was hopeful that by presenting the employment status of X, would insinuate a 'beyond control', and therefore a knock on effect of little 'duty of care' to me.

[teaboy2]

Re: Assistance advice required on an unusal set of circumstances

You can use the fact you previous resigned but that side resignation was retracted after a meeting with the employer and X, and you felt the matter was resolved as a result of said meeting, as supporting argument to support your claim of constructive dismissal due to bullying and harrassment and your employers breach of their duty of care.

Stop fussing about the line managers employment status, its completely immaterial - Fact is you were subjected to bullying and harassment in the work place, your employer is liable for ensuring your protected from being bullied and harassed in the workplace, regardless as to who the perpetrator is. If a member of the Joe public walked in to a shop and bullied and harassed an employee of the shop, the employer has a duty to protect their employee otherwise they have failed in their duty of care.

[Bujon]

Re: Assistance advice required on an unusal set of circumstances

Brilliant, many thanks everyone. I'll keep you posted and no doubt have a few more queries when I get to the meat of preparing my bundle for the tribunal!!

[Bujon]

28 day time limit for ET3 form

Hi all, I wondered what the 28 day time limit actually meant. I am awaiting a response to my ET1 and acknowledgement date from the ET was 30/7/15. To respond 'within' 28 days, surely this would mean end of play on the 26/8/15. i.e. Today!! Nit picking I know but it's looking like a non response situation

[Bujon]

Re: 28 day time limit for ET3 form

Should I also consider Labour Relations Agency (Ni version of ACAS) offer for conciliation at this stage, or press for a default judgement? My concern here is that nothing was forthcoming during pre-claim conciliation process. I genuinely think the respondents just want to roll the dice and hope I can't provide sufficient evidence to substantiate my claim.

[ritemaster]

Re: 28 day time limit for ET3 form

Hi all, I wondered what the 28 day time limit actually meant. I am awaiting a response to my ET1 and acknowledgement date from the ET was 30/7/15. To respond 'within' 28 days, surely this would mean end of play on the 26/8/15. i.e. Today!! Nit picking I know but it's looking like a non response situation

Acknowledgement date is only the date the ET received your ET1 form, not the date they processed it and passed it on to the respondent. 28 days is from when the respondent receives your ET1 form. Mine took 8 weeks from date of acknowledgement.