Bujon - Employment Tribunal Help Please

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Assistance advice required on an unusal set of circumstances

What is the usual amt of days and is there any corresponding significance of this?

It all depends on the issues to be discussed and how many witnesses each side is using. It doesn't look like there are that many in this case which is why I wondered. One thing to bear in mind is that you may well leave the hearing none the wiser, jugment can take a long time to come through. :mmph:

[Trev1234]

Re: Assistance advice required on an unusal set of circumstances

What is the usual amt of days and is there any corresponding significance of this?

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Assistance advice required on an unusal set of circumstances

Update! I have just had my CMD via teleconference and it appears the respondents have 2 witnesses and myself just the 1. And therefore the judge has scheduled a 3 day hearing in 2 months time? Seems quite a long hearing to me??

Three days? :scared:

The Judge said we need to swap evidence and witness statements within 2 weeks, to allow for a thorough review of each others information..... I assume this is to assess the strengths of each others position?

Also not wanting to alarm my timid witness, but will the cross examination purely be on their statement? It won't be the case that they try to deviate from that will they? Equally can I only cross examine their witnesses on their actual statement evidence?

• :tinysmile_cry_t:

Yes, the cross examination is all based around both witness statements, they can't bring something up at the hearing that wasn't mentioned on the WS.

[cupidstunt]

Re: Assistance advice required on an unusal set of circumstances

It surprises me why they bother with an ET3, it's not like any respondent is going to say they fully agree with the ET1.

Almost like a template, just enter the allegations made by the claimant and then the respondent just denies it all.

[Bujon]

Re: Assistance advice required on an unusal set of circumstances

Update! I have just had my CMD via teleconference and it appears the respondents have 2 witnesses and myself just the 1. And therefore the judge has scheduled a 3 day hearing in 2 months time? Seems quite a long hearing to me??


The Judge said we need to swap evidence and witness statements within 2 weeks, to allow for a thorough review of each others information..... I assume this is to assess the strengths of each others position?

Also not wanting to alarm my timid witness, but will the cross examination purely be on their statement? It won't be the case that they try to deviate from that will they? Equally can I only cross examine their witnesses on their actual statement evidence?

• :tinysmile_cry_t:

[ritemaster]

Re: 28 day time limit for ET3 form

It does happen occasionally.

My employer has as good as admitted in the disciplinary that I was treated to a different set of rules to all the other staff in the same job role as me, which is why I had a disciplinary and they never have. When you read through the investigation notes and the disciplinary notes, it is quite easy to spot every time they breach their own disciplinary procedure or ACAS guidelines. They have made it practically impossible for them to show my dismissal was fair. I'm hoping if they cant show it was fair then I wont need to take the stand at all.

[teaboy2]

Re: Assistance advice required on an unusal set of circumstances

It doesn't do any harm to raise any concerns you have, as doing so is what leads to clarification for you!

[Bujon]

Re: Assistance advice required on an unusal set of circumstances

Teaboy, many thanks! indeed...you should see some of the other garble within the other 60 points!!! It would make your blood boil. I have a Trial Management Discussion scheduled, where I can raise my concerns, and think that given their defence have presented those two little gems as summaries, I can raise as a concern.

[teaboy2]

Re: Assistance advice required on an unusal set of circumstances

OK all, I am in receipt of the ET3 form, and despite a lots of mumbo jumbo (over 60 points of irrelevance in the main), I do have the following few items which need a bit of expert clarity on,I quote.....> Accordingly to the respondent denies that it has acted in breach of claimants contract of employment: further, the respondent denies that any breach, if found, was not fundamental to the claimants contract of employment and did not destroy the relationship of mutual trust and confidence in the manner that the claimant suggests> In the alternative, if the tribunal determine the claimant was constructively dismissed (which is denied), the respondent submits that the dismissal was therefore for some other substantial reason, was reasonable in all circumstances; and was fair in terms of section 98(4) of the ERA.Any thoughts?

- - - Updated - - -

.....> Accordingly to the respondent denies that it has acted in breach of claimants contract of employment: further, the respondent denies that any breach, if found, was not fundamental to the claimants contract of employment and did not destroy the relationship of mutual trust and confidence in the manner that the claimant suggests. - Clearly it did!!

- - - Updated - - -

> In the alternative, if the tribunal determine the claimant was constructively dismissed (which is denied), the respondent submits that the dismissal was therefore for some other substantial reason, was reasonable in all circumstances; and was fair in terms of section 98(4) of the ERA. - Utter ********, there basically saying if you tribunal decided you were constructively dismissed, then it was for another reason other than bullying and harassment etc. Sorry but you resigned precisely because of that, they cant then determine you resigned for other reasons to those you allege and therefore say it was fair dismissal - you didn't even get dismissed as resignation doesn't amount to dismissal!!

- - - Updated - - -

Any thoughts?

There basically saying their failure to protect you did not amount to breach of duty of care or/and mutual trust, when it obviously does, then they are saying if tribunal agrees you were constructively dismissed that the dismissal was for other reasons than those you alleged and therefore dismissal was fair - utter bullshit to be honest and just an attempt to twist and turn things - i.e. wriggle out of it!

section 98 of the ERA refers to whether employer acted fairly in dismissing an employee i.e disciplinary and subsequent dismissal!

[Bujon]

Re: Assistance advice required on an unusal set of circumstances

OK all, I am in receipt of the ET3 form, and despite a lots of mumbo jumbo (over 60 points of irrelevance in the main), I do have the following few items which need a bit of expert clarity on,I quote.....> Accordingly to the respondent denies that it has acted in breach of claimants contract of employment: further, the respondent denies that any breach, if found, was not fundamental to the claimants contract of employment and did not destroy the relationship of mutual trust and confidence in the manner that the claimant suggests> In the alternative, if the tribunal determine the claimant was constructively dismissed (which is denied), the respondent submits that the dismissal was therefore for some other substantial reason, was reasonable in all circumstances; and was fair in terms of section 98(4) of the ERA.Any thoughts?

- - - Updated - - -

.....> Accordingly to the respondent denies that it has acted in breach of claimants contract of employment: further, the respondent denies that any breach, if found, was not fundamental to the claimants contract of employment and did not destroy the relationship of mutual trust and confidence in the manner that the claimant suggests.

- - - Updated - - -

> In the alternative, if the tribunal determine the claimant was constructively dismissed (which is denied), the respondent submits that the dismissal was therefore for some other substantial reason, was reasonable in all circumstances; and was fair in terms of section 98(4) of the ERA.

- - - Updated - - -

Any thoughts?

[Bujon]

Incorrect date on signed ET3 form

This is linked to my previous post on the 28 day time limit of the ET3 form, but having now received a copy of the respondents form, I have noticed they have dated it 3 months previous....clearly a type error (May instead of Aug), but the form can't be allowed to stand with such an obvious error surely? the date actually precedes the constructive dismissal date to which my claim relates!!DO I simply point this out to the ET? http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ies/beagle.gif

[Bujon]

Re: 28 day time limit for ET3 form

So if a junior member of staff hands in their notice after a one on one with his/her superior due to over bearing and demeaning remarks, and then after some negotiations with HR that resignation is retracted, only for the exact same thing to happen 6 months later, but this time the junior raises an official grievance about the superior and resigns only after the company finds no evidence, surely that chain of events is pretty much game set and match on a balance of probabilities? You'd only have to prove that over bearing behaviour can be accepted as 'bullying'......given this simplistic model, why is the success rate so low? Are judges somewhat allergic to the word and thought of 'bullying' as a real concept, pretty reflective of society?.......My aim is going to be centred on three points 1) A definition of bullying, 2) My personal acceptance of being a victim of said bullying and 3) on a balance of probabilities the bullying events were more likely than likely not to have occurred given the chain of events described in both the grievance and my claim to the tribunal. The additional factor and further breach is against the company for a lack of duty of care and trust in the manner in which those investigations were given no serious gravity.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: 28 day time limit for ET3 form

If only a similar thing happened in unfair dismissal cases where the respondent goes first!!!

One thing I will never understand is why the employers representative carries on with a case even when it becomes clear the employer has messed up big time and the dismissal was not fair.

I also wonder the exact same thing, especially when it's glaringly obvious that the respondent has not followed the process because they didn't think they had to.

If by representative you mean the respondent's solicitor, then it could be because they charge by the hour!

- - - Updated - - -

Even though the burden of proof falls on the claimant, surely you only have to prove on balance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt...two children in a shed together and the smaller one comes out crying, balance of probabilities would suggest that they were a victim of bullying, no? Particularly if they said so once questioned about it?

Yes, in employment matters the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Bujon]

Re: 28 day time limit for ET3 form

What catches out claimants in constructive dismissal cases is that the employer doesn't have to prove a thing.
The burden of proof is wholly on the claimant.
Unlike 'ordinary' unfair dismissal cases the claimant often presents their evidence first.
At many of the failed constructive dismissal hearings; the case will have ended after the claimant presented his/her case as the Tribunal decided at that point that the burden of proof had not been met.

Even though the burden of proof falls on the claimant, surely you only have to prove on balance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt...two children in a shed together and the smaller one comes out crying, balance of probabilities would suggest that they were a victim of bullying, no? Particularly if they said so once questioned about it?

[mariefab]

Re: 28 day time limit for ET3 form

It does happen occasionally.

The representative is paid to follow instructions even in an obviously losing case.