have been given 5 days then i have been given 5 days then i have to

[FlamingParrot]

Re: have been given 5 days then i have been given 5 days then i have to

Yes case wasn't settled till 2005, but saying that if your situation was similar and you'd taken it to tribunal using same/similar arguments then you could well have actually won at tribunal if they to considered the investigatory meeting to have crossed the line and morphed into formal disciplinary hearings - or if the employer failed to state in their policy that said meeting was informal and not part of the formal disciplinary process!

None of the people I consulted or even the one who represented me said anything about the investigation meetings or that I could have won on those grounds, :mmph: on the contrary, my representative from the University of London consulted an employment professor who gave my case only 20% chance of winning and, worse than that, I also got costs warnings, so I ended up accepting an almost derisory settlement and an agreed reference. :ohwell: I don't know whether the ET was awarding costs against claimants more often than nowadays where it seems to be just 1% of cases. Would be interesting to see stats for 2003/2004. If it hadn't been for the costs warnings, I'd probably have rejected the settlement and gone all the way.

Even if the investigation morphs into a disciplinary meeting that would not be an automatic unfair dismissal at ET and it is becoming increasingly difficult to get to E.T. thanks to our lovely government. Incidentally, and this is a point for judgemental to be aware of, when looking at the ACAS code of conduct, ACAS state they expect in essence that the larger the company the more closely they should follow the code. Again breach of the code is not automatic unfair dismissal although there can be an uplift in award of up to 25% for breach.

Yes, an employment solicitor has said this to me, however, the uplift refers to complete or major failure to follow the ACAS code rather than an individual procedural error.

You have stated that the judiciary can not interpret law. I think I have provided plenty of evidence that this is not the case. One aspect of their job is to interpret the law, sometimes that interpretation is binding sometimes persuasive. I have never said that they don't sometimes get it wrong hence our legal system that goes up to the supreme court and then (if you don't die waiting) the European Court.

I have to agree with this, it's seen across the board (such as judges deciding when the limitation period starts to run, sometimes wrongly) and specifically in employment matters, when it comes to establishing whether someone was an employee or self-employed, the law is wide open to interpretation, and even case law which should set precedent has to be interpreted if the circumstances of the case being heard are not identical to the precedent being used. That's why ET judgments can take months. :mmph:

Overall we will have to agree to differ and overall I think that , if he can find alternative employment the OP would be best to leave the company he is with . Depending on his length of service there may be a possibility for a claim of constructive dismissal but as i said before ET's are becoming more and more inaccessible to the ordinary person particularly where you now have to pay a deposit . A prime example of this government exercising more and more control over the population (although labour we're as bad with their surveillance).

Claims based on constructive dismissal have just a 3% success rate at the ET, although someone I know got a settlement after issuing one such claim, it was, again, a very small settlement with an agreed reference and came from the same company that settled with me years early, a large corporation making a commercial settlement. Smaller businesses seem much more reluctant to settle IMHO.

Just a point to consider on top of this, if the OP used covert methods to record either audio and/or video would that be allowed to be used in court . I fear that it would be inadmissible and a potential breach of the DPA

I was advised to tape every meeting including the appeal and so was my friend, and there was never any mention of DPA issues, however, the cases didn't go all the way to the ET so no idea whether the tapes would have been admissible. :noidea:

[Berniethebolt]

Re: have been given 5 days then i have been given 5 days then i have to

Teaboy2

Please lets put it to bed
With regard to me asking for evidence, you made a statement that you 'believe' to be true, I contradicted that and provided evidence that my statement was correct saying that if you could provide alternative evidence I would be happy to take it on board and admit my mistake . That is not an unreasonable request. If I stated that the sky was green and you said no it wasn't and showed evidence , wouldn't you (or any reasonable person) expect me to try and show evidence that it was in fact green.

Cutting through all the hype the basic fact that there is no automatic right to be accompanied at an investigation meeting as I have evidenced. Yes best practice may well be that a company clearly states that this is an informal investigation meeting however there is nothing in law to say they have to make that declaration prior to an investigation meeting. Again there may be contractual differences or Union agreements that over ride this.
Even if the investigation morphs into a disciplinary meeting that would not be an automatic unfair dismissal at ET and it is becoming increasingly difficult to get to E.T. thanks to our lovely government. Incidentally, and this is a point for judgemental to be aware of, when looking at the ACAS code of conduct, ACAS state they expect in essence that the larger the company the more closely they should follow the code. Again breach of the code is not automatic unfair dismissal although there can be an uplift in award of up to 25% for breach.

Assuming your comment in post 15 was made with knowledge of the T&C's for the OP, would it not have been good practice to have said something to clarify that , only because many people read these posts and frankly may clutch at straws , so they may go down a route thinking 'well teaboy2 said that was right'.

You have stated that the judiciary can not interpret law. I think I have provided plenty of evidence that this is not the case. One aspect of their job is to interpret the law, sometimes that interpretation is binding sometimes persuasive. I have never said that they don't sometimes get it wrong hence our legal system that goes up to the supreme court and then (if you don't die waiting) the European Court.


Overall we will have to agree to differ and overall I think that , if he can find alternative employment the OP would be best to leave the company he is with . Depending on his length of service there may be a possibility for a claim of constructive dismissal but as i said before ET's are becoming more and more inaccessible to the ordinary person particularly where you now have to pay a deposit . A prime example of this government exercising more and more control over the population (although labour we're as bad with their surveillance).

Just a point to consider on top of this, if the OP used covert methods to record either audio and/or video would that be allowed to be used in court . I fear that it would be inadmissible and a potential breach of the DPA

[teaboy2]

Re: have been given 5 days then i have been given 5 days then i have to

I don't think that was in the T&Cs or it would have been noted by my advisors at the time.


The first investigation meeting was right after I was suspended pending an investigation so I wouldn't have thought it was very "informal". It lasted over three hours and that only because I decided to get up and walk out at that point because they started referring to my emails to my friend who worked at the other bank and I said I wasn't prepared to discuss third parties without legal advice. The day after they sent a cab to pick me up with my home computer and laptop to be examined by someone from IT on the premises. No questions were asked of me, only the equipment was looked at and there was nothing to look at because I'd taken out the second HD with all my files and reformatted the main HD leaving just a C:>prompt! :lol: However, that could hardly be considered informal either!

Well i wouldn't consider that an informal investigatory meeting either, but more like an interrogation! And what right did they have to your home computer and laptop, assuming that they were your personal property? No right at all unless they were company property which i guess they were not given you removed the second HD and reformatted the main one on your home computer!


From what I can see, even though the case arose from incidents that took place in 2002, it was only finalised in 2005. The meetings above took place in 2003 so that precedent wouldn't have been there to refer to, which may explain why the issue wasn't brought up at the time.

Yes case wasn't settled till 2005, but saying that if your situation was similar and you'd taken it to tribunal using same/similar arguments then you could well have actually won at tribunal if they to considered the investigatory meeting to have crossed the line and morphed into formal disciplinary hearings - or if the employer failed to state in their policy that said meeting was informal and not part of the formal disciplinary process!

[FlamingParrot]

Re: have been given 5 days then i have been given 5 days then i have to

If your terms and conditions allowed you to be accompanied to the investigatory meetings, then yes you also had the right to make a reasonable request as to who, and the employer would probably have acted unfairly by not allowing your former colleague to attend. But thats contractual right as supported by the Stevens Case Law.

I don't think that was in the T&Cs or it would have been noted by my advisors at the time.

If you didn't have the contractual right, they a lot depends on whether your terms makes clear that the investigatory was informal and not part of the formal disciplinary procedure. If it didn't then they would have not been informal meetings, but in fact formal meetings under the disciplinary procedure and therefore disciplinary hearings, with a different name given to them! Same if they were informal where they morphed into formal disciplinary hearing!

The first investigation meeting was right after I was suspended pending an investigation so I wouldn't have thought it was very "informal". It lasted over three hours and that only because I decided to get up and walk out at that point because they started referring to my emails to my friend who worked at the other bank and I said I wasn't prepared to discuss third parties without legal advice. The day after they sent a cab to pick me up with my home computer and laptop to be examined by someone from IT on the premises. No questions were asked of me, only the equipment was looked at and there was nothing to look at because I'd taken out the second HD with all my files and reformatted the main HD leaving just a C:>prompt! :lol: However, that could hardly be considered informal either!

Skriggs case i mentioned above made clear the importance of keeping the investigatory informal and outside of the formal disciplinary procedure! Because if Skriggs employer had not made clear it was informal and not a formal disciplinary hearing, then Skriggs would likely have won his claim!

From what I can see, even though the case arose from incidents that took place in 2002, it was only finalised in 2005. The meetings above took place in 2003 so that precedent wouldn't have been there to refer to, which may explain why the issue wasn't brought up at the time.

[teaboy2]

Re: have been given 5 days then i have been given 5 days then i have to

@teaboy2, can I just ask about the statute or case law that established the right to be accompanied at an investigation meeting? The reason I ask is because I wonder whether it's something that's only been around for the last, say, 10 years or so, while the right to be accompanied at a disciplinary has been around much longer than that.

I was involved in a case where I had legal representation as well as a well clued up person looking into each and every aspect of the case up until the point I got legal representation, yet at no point was the right to be accompanied at an investigation meeting brought up. The person who advised me was quite insistent that I should be entitled to be accompanied (at the disciplinary) by someone other than a colleague or trade union rep given that I didn't belong to a union and union membership in that line of business (investment banking) was not exactly encouraged. The fact that a colleague who was also my friend got dismissed at the same time and even another friend who worked at another bank was also dismissed was put forward as an argument against using a colleague, however, there was never any mention of investigation meetings, and there were two of them, very significant ones. I was just told to take a tape recorder with me to the meeting(s) and record the whole thing. No one ever said I should/could be accompanied at these meetings, only at the disciplinary.

Could this be something that only came up more recently? If so, I'd be interested to know how it came about.

If your terms and conditions allowed you to be accompanied to the investigatory meetings, then yes you also had the right to make a reasonable request as to who, and the employer would probably have acted unfairly by not allowing your former colleague to attend. But thats contractual right as supported by the Stevens Case Law.

If you didn't have the contractual right, they a lot depends on whether your terms makes clear that the investigatory was informal and not part of the formal disciplinary procedure. If it didn't then they would have not been informal meetings, but in fact formal meetings under the disciplinary procedure and therefore disciplinary hearings, with a different name given to them! Same if they were informal where they morphed into formal disciplinary hearing! Skriggs case i mentioned above made clear the importance of keeping the investigatory informal and outside of the formal disciplinary procedure! Because if Skriggs employer had not made clear it was informal and not a formal disciplinary hearing, then Skriggs would likely have won his claim!

[teaboy2]

Re: have been given 5 days then i have been given 5 days then i have to

Teabboy
Lets get this sorted once and for all

About dyslexia , On this thread you referred to other threads by the OP and said that anyone was free to read them. That I did. On this thread http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...end&highlight=

in post 18 you said this



Which suggested to me that MAYBE something like Irlens would help you. The joke or lol was because I then suggested that LB may pay for them. They are not at all cheap as you may well know. I also know plenty of people who have no idea what Irlens lenses are or what Irlens syndrome is , there are also some people who deny their usefulness although SFE do pay for them.

I think I can cover the next two points in one. The judiciary do indeed interpret the law and an example of one of your sweeping statements is just that where you said that they do not they only act on it. You maintain that Carey and only agreed with the intention of the law, welter look at it this way. prior to carey, other judges had interpreted it differently whereas after it was laid down exactly what was expected from a S77-79 request and unless that went further up the legal system it stay that way. You maintain that HHJ Waksman only reiterated what parliament had intended but with respect the act was written originally in 1974 and I would think many of its architects are dead so unless you or waksman have a direct line to the deceased we will never know exactly what was intended. Another case not mentioned before was McGuffick v RBS.
http://legalbeagles.info/phillip-mcguffick-and-the-royal-bank-of-scotland-plc/
This gave lenders direction on the meaning of unenforceability and what they could and could not do , further interpretation.

talking of broad sweeping statements you came up with this in post15 of this thread


We have I believe decided that this is not necessarily true as an investigation meeting is just that. We have , I believe begun to split hairs a little and lose sight of what that discussion was about, you seem to maintain that they need to make an unequivocal statement that any investigation meeting is not part of the disciplinary process. I have asked you several times to provide some evidence that this is the case but you have chosen not to. For my part I maybe became a little dogmatic stating that an investigation was just that although I should have made it clear that it must be only an investigation meeting and if it were to stray into the grounds of disciplinary then the right to be accompanied is there. I was coming from the stand point that these were the basic minimum legal requirements and I also am happy to agree that should a contract of employment say differently and gives extra rights then the contract trumps the legal minimum.

Yes investigatory meetings are suppose to be in formal. in which case the right to be accompanied doesn't apply as they are not part of the formal process, but if the employer fails to make clear in their disciplinary policy that the investigation is informal and doesn't form part of the disciplinary process, then he has failed to inform the employee as to when the formal process actually starts i.e. after investigatory meeting. In which case failure to inform that the investigatory is informal and not part of the formal disciplinary process means that it can therefore only be part of the formal process, making it a formal disciplinary meeting (regardless as to if the purpose is to find facts) and part of the formal process under the disciplinary procedure, and in such cases the employer is entitled to be accompanied by law, as such a formal investigatory/disciplinary meeting doesn't comply with the rule that investigatory meetings shall not itself result in disciplinary action/punishment, yet as its part of that formal process, the outcome can only be disciplinary action/punishment either as part of the same meeting or at a separate meeting where the outcome was pre-decided by at the end of the first meeting - Lots of employers have fallen foul of this, but majority if not all have settled prior to tribunal. Hence why they have the right to be accompanied. Not only that its a breach of acas code of conduct if the investigatory meeting forms part of the formal disciplinary procedure and is not informal and carried out prior to disciplinary procedure being invoked or where the decision as to disciplinary punishment is pre-decided at the investigatory meeting - Making it unfair dismissal anyway.

Also there's Skiggs v South West Trains [2005] case, despite skrigg losing his arguments on the day (as the investigatory was indeed informal), the case did highlight the importance of the employer informing the employee as to the investigatory meeting being informal and not part of the actual formal disciplinary process! A lot of HR consultants advise employers to make it clear in their disciplinary policy the investigatory is informal and not part of the formal process precisely because of that court case. Because if its part of the formal process then it can result it being a formal hearing or deemed as such by a tribunal an as such the right to be accompanied applies!

As for providing evidence, was it not you that disagreed with what i said originally? Therefore isn't the onus on you to proof that am wrong when you accuse me of being wrong. If you can not proof i am wrong then i certainly should not have to vindicate myself! If you can't proof someone is wrong then why say they are wrong in the first place. There's nothing more annoying to be told that your wrong, only for the person telling you your wrong without being able to substantiate as to why your wrong by providing the evidence!! But then maybe there is no evidence that exists to prove that what am saying about the need to make clear it is informal and not part of the formal disciplinary process and failure to do so makes the investigatory meeting part of the formal disciplinary process and therefore akin to a disciplinary hearing where the right to be accompanied exists, they can do fact finding at disciplinary hearings too and adjourn to further investigate you know, and to continue the hearing at later date! So you should be asking yourself, when does a investigatory meeting become a formal disciplinary hearing when said investigatory meeting was part of the formal disciplinary process in which it is suppose to be separate from and not form part of said formal process?!

With regards to my comments in Post 15 - That comment was made with knowledge of the OP's employers disciplinary process and knowledge that they contractually allow him to be accompanied to said investigatory meeting! It was not in reference to any statutory right par se, as at the time i was referring directly to the OP's situation with knowledge of his contractual terms etc!

You have made unfounded comments against me in saying that - What saying in response to what i thought, at the time, was a discriminatory comment about my disability
I take great offence at that comment and would appreciate an apology - Well at the time i saw the comment as offensive and unnecessary, whilst i appreciate now it was not intended to be so, at the time i did find it offensive towards to myself. But then things were pretty heated at the time. So i would hardly say my comment in response to it was unfounded, as it was at the time a response to what i interpreted as an offensive comment towards myself - So am not going to apologies for for responding to what i at the time took as being an offensive comment!

I have also not made any libellous accusations against you, I made a couple of general comments and also stated that you do not understand that the judiciary interpret the laws, obviously sometimes this is not needed because it has already been covered but sometimes it is needed
Here are some links you might find interesting

http://home.loxfordlaw.co.uk/unit1/n...nterpretations

http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Statutor...rpretation.php

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statutory_construction

I did not say that the courts could amend laws only interpret them

Yes but point i was making is they can not change the law to suit their interpretation which is precisely what the judge in the pay slip case did, by deciding visualization on a computer screen to was the same as the definitions of "Written" under the interpretations act, when it is completely different to all of the definitions of "written" under said act, the only closest one is typewritten, but that would only be if the document visualized on the screen was printed out! I was not saying, that judges can not interpret "true signed copy" as a "copy of executed agreement" as, but the judge in appeal did nothing other than to clarify the a copy doesn't necessary mean it needs to be a signed copy, as clearly the act never states it needed to be a true copy of the signed agreement. Basically lower courts interpretations mean nothing in general, what matters is the high court, appeal court and finally supreme courts judgements. But majority of time the higher courts only clarify (as per in carey case) things and enforce the law as it is a written. There's been plenty of cases like Brandon case at lower court, that had been lost on the same argument as Brandons, yet the law was clear, if the debtor was not given the the 14 days they are entitled to then the creditor is not entitled to enforce the debt. So whilst the lower courts may interpret things wrongly the higher courts will and do overrule them and do even state that the judge in lower court was wrong etc. And in the Brandon case the appeal court overruled the judgement from the lower court on the basis that the judges interpretation was wrong in law! So whilst judges can interpret laws, the interpretation must still be correct in law otherwise it will be over turned, and if the higher courts get it wrong then that becomes a very serious matter and likely a miscarriage of justice! A judgement that is wrong is nothing less than a judge basically amending/ignoring the law to suit his/her own interpretation based on the fact of the case - They do it unintentionally most of the time, or because they are going senile!

As for libelous comments, where have i made libelous comments against you? Defending myself and responding to what i precieved at the time to be offensive comments from yourself directed at me, are not libelous, but comments made under my right to respond to your comments directed at myself!

It is very difficult to disprove a negative, all I can do is place in front of you the evidence that shows the position

I know I have contradicted myself by replying to you.
The reason I believe on balance that you have not seen the full terms and conditions are
1) the OP has not as far as I am aware referred to them other than I have a handbook somewhere
2) Up until now you have not mentioned this, certainly not on the threads or the times it would have been appropriate
3) When you received what I think may have been video and audio recordings you referred to these on the threads

But as i said, a lot was done by email, so communication was done by email, just because its not mentioned in the thread doesn't mean documents were not exchanged behind the scenes. In many threads users prefer to send sensitive documents or details privately either by email or PM. In the other thread even Kati provided her LB email address so that the OP here could send me something, she forwarded the email to me, i responded directly to the OP! Also when communication by email begins then the thread usually gets neglected as the OP is getting advise directly, so not every details is going to be up there on the thread!!


Thank you for admitting that you may have indeed misinterpreted what I was saying about Irlens . It most certainly was not intended to be offensive . I have no idea , nor do I really care (unless I can do anything to help) what your level of dyslexia is and as such I could not know what your knowledge of aids and adaptive technology is. As a parallel someone who suffers from the blues may well not be aware what treatments are available for the severely depressed or indeed what it feels like. I can only tell you how depression and anxiety affects me and discuss the treatments I have had or are currently undergoing/taking.
If you are aware of Irlens along with the controversy surrounding it I am pleased, as IMO they can make a huge difference but maybe not for everyone.

Yes i am aware of Irlens and i appreciate that you didn't mean it offensively even if it did come across as such at the time. I admit i do struggle a lot when writing/typing, and it does take me a while to write posts here (over an hour for this 1 post so far), letters in general etc but aids do little to help me to be honest, if anything they just give me worse headaches to what i normal get! So yes a lot of times its hard for me to put my thoughts across in to words and i am struggle to make my point clear here in words, which clearly doesn't help the matter, even less helpful when i getting frustrated, so some of the aggressiveness in my post is more frustration with myself not with anyone else. Your close to getting my point or where when you mentioned investigatory meeting morphing into a disciplinary hearing, though my point is it is basically already a formal disciplinary hearing, regardless as to what name they give to it, if the employer fails to make clear that its an informal investigatory meeting and and doesn't form part of the formal disciplinary process - Because by not making clear that the formal disciplinary procedure doesn't start to after the informal investigatory meeting then the formal process can only have started from the moment you are suspended in the eyes of the employee, as they will have nothing saying the the formal disciplinary procedure hasn't started!

I think the best thing we can do is put aside the debate on everything apart from the main point about investigatory meeting, or we can simply just agree to disagree as i can not see this debate ending any time soon - Plus i really can not be arsed arguing about it anymore!

[judgemental24]

Re: have been given 5 days then i have been given 5 days then i have to

Can we please bring this to a close as it is not helping, or close the thread and restart with the original question?
At the end of the day, does it really matter. This is a discussion and debating forum, not university challenge

[Berniethebolt]

Re: have been given 5 days then i have been given 5 days then i have to

Teabboy
Lets get this sorted once and for all

About dyslexia , On this thread you referred to other threads by the OP and said that anyone was free to read them. That I did. On this thread http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...end&highlight=

in post 18 you said this

No need to apologise, i suffer dyslexia myself, which in way makes it even harder for me to read what your saying in your post

Which suggested to me that MAYBE something like Irlens would help you. The joke or lol was because I then suggested that LB may pay for them. They are not at all cheap as you may well know. I also know plenty of people who have no idea what Irlens lenses are or what Irlens syndrome is , there are also some people who deny their usefulness although SFE do pay for them.

I think I can cover the next two points in one. The judiciary do indeed interpret the law and an example of one of your sweeping statements is just that where you said that they do not they only act on it. You maintain that Carey and only agreed with the intention of the law, welter look at it this way. prior to carey, other judges had interpreted it differently whereas after it was laid down exactly what was expected from a S77-79 request and unless that went further up the legal system it stay that way. You maintain that HHJ Waksman only reiterated what parliament had intended but with respect the act was written originally in 1974 and I would think many of its architects are dead so unless you or waksman have a direct line to the deceased we will never know exactly what was intended. Another case not mentioned before was McGuffick v RBS.
http://legalbeagles.info/phillip-mcguffick-and-the-royal-bank-of-scotland-plc/
This gave lenders direction on the meaning of unenforceability and what they could and could not do , further interpretation.

talking of broad sweeping statements you came up with this in post15 of this thread

An investigatory meeting forms part of the formal disciplinary process, therefore, yes your entitled to be accompanied. But meeting in question wasn't disciplinary, though you can still be accompanied by a colleague or union rep.

We have I believe decided that this is not necessarily true as an investigation meeting is just that. We have , I believe begun to split hairs a little and lose sight of what that discussion was about, you seem to maintain that they need to make an unequivocal statement that any investigation meeting is not part of the disciplinary process. I have asked you several times to provide some evidence that this is the case but you have chosen not to. For my part I maybe became a little dogmatic stating that an investigation was just that although I should have made it clear that it must be only an investigation meeting and if it were to stray into the grounds of disciplinary then the right to be accompanied is there. I was coming from the stand point that these were the basic minimum legal requirements and I also am happy to agree that should a contract of employment say differently and gives extra rights then the contract trumps the legal minimum.

You have made unfounded comments against me in saying that

Oh so now you have reduced yourself to disability discrimination have you!! Shown your real colours now!

I take great offence at that comment and would appreciate an apology

I have also not made any libellous accusations against you, I made a couple of general comments and also stated that you do not understand that the judiciary interpret the laws, obviously sometimes this is not needed because it has already been covered but sometimes it is needed
Here are some links you might find interesting

http://home.loxfordlaw.co.uk/unit1/n...nterpretations

http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Statutor...rpretation.php

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statutory_construction

I did not say that the courts could amend laws only interpret them

It is very difficult to disprove a negative, all I can do is place in front of you the evidence that shows the position

I know I have contradicted myself by replying to you.
The reason I believe on balance that you have not seen the full terms and conditions are
1) the OP has not as far as I am aware referred to them other than I have a handbook somewhere
2) Up until now you have not mentioned this, certainly not on the threads or the times it would have been appropriate
3) When you received what I think may have been video and audio recordings you referred to these on the threads


Thank you for admitting that you may have indeed misinterpreted what I was saying about Irlens . It most certainly was not intended to be offensive . I have no idea , nor do I really care (unless I can do anything to help) what your level of dyslexia is and as such I could not know what your knowledge of aids and adaptive technology is. As a parallel someone who suffers from the blues may well not be aware what treatments are available for the severely depressed or indeed what it feels like. I can only tell you how depression and anxiety affects me and discuss the treatments I have had or are currently undergoing/taking.
If you are aware of Irlens along with the controversy surrounding it I am pleased, as IMO they can make a huge difference but maybe not for everyone.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: have been given 5 days then i have been given 5 days then i have to

@teaboy2, can I just ask about the statute or case law that established the right to be accompanied at an investigation meeting? The reason I ask is because I wonder whether it's something that's only been around for the last, say, 10 years or so, while the right to be accompanied at a disciplinary has been around much longer than that.

I was involved in a case where I had legal representation as well as a well clued up person looking into each and every aspect of the case up until the point I got legal representation, yet at no point was the right to be accompanied at an investigation meeting brought up. The person who advised me was quite insistent that I should be entitled to be accompanied (at the disciplinary) by someone other than a colleague or trade union rep given that I didn't belong to a union and union membership in that line of business (investment banking) was not exactly encouraged. The fact that a colleague who was also my friend got dismissed at the same time and even another friend who worked at another bank was also dismissed was put forward as an argument against using a colleague, however, there was never any mention of investigation meetings, and there were two of them, very significant ones. I was just told to take a tape recorder with me to the meeting(s) and record the whole thing. No one ever said I should/could be accompanied at these meetings, only at the disciplinary.

Could this be something that only came up more recently? If so, I'd be interested to know how it came about.

[teaboy2]

Re: have been given 5 days then i have been given 5 days then i have to

Teaboy
Please get some sort of grip on reality

Not everyone, even those with dyslexia know about Irlens lenses, if you had read it as intended the lol was after the remark that LB could pay for them.
The point was separated and supposed to be a comment that may be of some help, if you are so sensitive about it then that is your problem and not mine.

Still what was the purpose of making such a comment - Why bring it up. Sorry but a fail to see how you could have intended it to have been helpful and therefore it can not be anything other than an attempt to mock me - Do you really think would not know perfectly well about available visual aids including coloured lens, which is what Irlens lenses are, actually are! If you really meant it to have been helpful you should have PM'ed me about it instead of posting about it openly in the manner you did!

Wit regard to Brandon may I suggest you have a natter with Paul, Amex had gained summary judgement on the basis that the DN was de minimus, the appeal decided that it was not deminimus and thus the summary judgement could not stand . It basically put the case back to square 1

With Carey it was not just te agreement that was sorted, but essentially prior to carey judges were INTERPRETING law one way which you say they are not allowed to do and Wako interpretted it in a different way.

There are other cases where interpretation as to what was enforcement was made , oh sorry they are not allowed to do that.

Your missing my point - they didn't interpret the law as anything different to what the law actually was - Where in the itemised pay slip discussion the judge interpreted visual image on computer screen as being "written" and same as "type Written" when they are two completely separate things. Yes they can interpret meaning or written law, but they can not change the definition of a word to mean something completely different that is not referred to under legal interpretations that are included in some acts as a section under the act, or under the interpretations act. Clarifying the meaning or definition of written law and enforcing it is not interpreting it as anything different to want it originally means, but changing the interpretation of written law to mean or be defined as something separate to what it was intended to be originally is not withing the power of the judiciary as they do not have the power to amend statutory law based purely on how they interpreted it - in any case this completely irrelevant to this thread so i won't be arguing further on this point!

I grant you that if an investigation meting morphs into a disciplinary then the witness should have been allowed . I am still dubious about what exactly you have seen, as the threads died a death and your 'advice' did not come to anything that was not in the public domain.

And where an investigatory meeting forms part of a formal disciplinary process then its no different to a disciplinary hearing - Hence the importance as to why employers need to make it clear that investigatory meetings are not part of the formal disciplinary process and are informal meetings. Skriggs (forgot who the employer was now and can't be arsed searching it) case made that clear!

My comments are not libellousare they are opinions founded on advice that you have given on here where you make sweeping statements without knowing all the facts , but if you want to discuss it in court feel free. Which sweeping statements would those be exactly? Also just because its your opinion it doesn't mean your opinion isn't libelous especially when you stated it so matter of factually on public forum, and just because its your opinion it also doesn't mean advise i have given is wrong or that i lack basic legal knowledge - I've help enough people successfully, and no claim at tribunal has been lost where i have been sole or main adviser too said claim - hell only recently settled one for over 7K for a member of this very forum!! Id be glad to take it to court but i doubt you will have the financial clout to be able to defend such a claim, especially when likely hood is you will loose!!

Actually you have made unfounded comments against me, all you needed to do was debunk my thoughts by posting legislation/case law. What unfounded comments - disagreeing with you, is not the same as making personal and direct unfounded comments/accusations/innuendo's against you personally - Nor is telling you to google it or read other threads etc etc etc! I don't need to debunk anything, its not my fault if you or others do no not know how important it is to make clear what is and is not part of formal disciplinary process and when said formal disciplinary process begins and the potential consequences of making it or that the right to be accompanied applies to any meeting that is part of the formal disciplinary process given that said investigatory meeting can due to it being under the formal disciplinary process result in what disciplinary punishment should be given! So yes you partly got it when you said investigatory meetings (in the informal sense) can morph into disciplinary hearings, but you didn't understand how the same applies when the meeting is part of the disciplinary process itself - They can't recommend disciplinary action be taken, when such formal disciplinary action has already started prior to any investigatory meeting, therefore they can only recommend to give a "disciplinary punishment" or drop the matter - and that is where they fall foul! Also i did post case law in regards to contractual right to be accompanied! You still have not posted case law to the contrary on my argument. If you think i am wrong then its your job to prove it, i don't have to vindicate my argument in the event your not able to disapprove it!

I know that you dislike being contradicted but this is an open forum. He who shouts loudest isn't necessarily correct You have shown your misunderstanding of the legal system by saying that the judiciary can not interpret laws and also the outcome of the two cases mentioned .

There you go again making libelous accusations. my argument regarding that was that they can not change the law itself such as the actual meaning or definition of it or legal interpretation of words in said laws to suit their interpretation - all they can do is interpret them as they actually are written and enforce them as so!! Hence why i said regarding the pay slip, the judge was wrong to add visualized on a computer screen under the interpretation of Written under the interpretations act along side that with typewritten etc, as he doesn't have the power to make amendments to statutory law, only parliament has that power, and that's precisely what he did when he judged that visual image of a pay slip on a computer screen could be interpreted as written under schedule 1 on the interpretations ac - therefore added visual image on a computer screen to the list that included typewritten (which referred to typewriter not typed on keyboard)!

I am sorry but you have frequently contradicted yourself on tis thread, answered a question with a question or said "you said it somehwere" well if I said it somehwere you should know where.

I haven't contradicted my self at all - Post 18 http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...338#post573338 - And i have maintained the same argument all way through! And you also answered questions with questions or tried complicating the issue by bringing up discussions on what courts can can't do in regards to interpreting laws! Not once have you disproved my argument regarding right to be accompanied and when it applies or provided evidence that would disprove it!

I will bow out of this because you will just keep shouting over me

Oh and don't be so sensitive about having a disability because that just perpetuates the myth that it is something shameful . I believe that people who are 'different' should stand up and be counted so that others know it is ok.

Ohh am not ashamed off being dyslexic i just don't appreciate the way you referred to it here, as there was not need to even bring it up on the thread! I have every right to find the comment insulting given the heated debate, though granted i may have misinterpreted what your actual intention and meaning behind it was. But at the time it came across as though you were implying something derogatory akin to saying i needed glasses or should have gone to spec savers!

Anyway i agree there's no point in continuing the argument! But then i did ask "why are we even debating this" back in post 21 and even made reference to having seen his contract. And therefore implying the whole argument was irrelevant to the OP's situation!

[Berniethebolt]

Re: have been given 5 days then i have been given 5 days then i have to

Teaboy
Please get some sort of grip on reality

Not everyone, even those with dyslexia know about Irlens lenses, if you had read it as intended the lol was after the remark that LB could pay for them.
The point was separated and supposed to be a comment that may be of some help, if you are so sensitive about it then that is your problem and not mine.

Wit regard to Brandon may I suggest you have a natter with Paul, Amex had gained summary judgement on the basis that the DN was de minimus, the appeal decided that it was not deminimus and thus the summary judgement could not stand . It basically put the case back to square 1

With Carey it was not just te agreement that was sorted, but essentially prior to carey judges were INTERPRETING law one way which you say they are not allowed to do and Wako interpretted it in a different way.

There are other cases where interpretation as to what was enforcement was made , oh sorry they are not allowed to do that.

I grant you that if an investigation meting morphs into a disciplinary then the witness should have been allowed . I am still dubious about what exactly you have seen, as the threads died a death and your 'advice' did not come to anything that was not in the public domain.

My comments are not libellousare they are opinions founded on advice that you have given on here where you make sweeping statements without knowing all the facts , but if you want to discuss it in court feel free.

Actually you have made unfounded comments against me, all you needed to do was debunk my thoughts by posting legislation/case law.

I know that you dislike being contradicted but this is an open forum. He who shouts loudest isn't necessarily correct You have shown your misunderstanding of the legal system by saying that the judiciary can not interpret laws and also the outcome of the two cases mentioned .

I am sorry but you have frequently contradicted yourself on tis thread, answered a question with a question or said "you said it somehwere" well if I said it somehwere you should know where.

I will bow out of this because you will just keep shouting over me

Oh and don't be so sensitive about having a disability because that just perpetuates the myth that it is something shameful . I believe that people who are 'different' should stand up and be counted so that others know it is ok.

[judgemental24]

Re: have been given 5 days then i have been given 5 days then i have to

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with this statement, below are the automatic unfair reasons: https://www.gov.uk/dismiss-staff/unfair-dismissals

FlamingParrot

When i said "Unfair" i was referencing any negative decision made at the disciplinary hearing against the employee. That can be anything from a personal improvement plan, written warning etc. Dismissal will be the ultimate sanction where we will be then looking at wrongful dismissal.

It was simply stating that if the employer failed to follow the ACAS Code of practice you can appeal any decision made through the employers disciplinary process all the way to an ET if necessary.

There was never any mention or unfair dismissal by me, only the disciplinary process in the way it was conducted will be unfair


sorry for the confusion

[teaboy2]

Re: have been given 5 days then i have been given 5 days then i have to

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with this statement, below are the automatic unfair reasons: https://www.gov.uk/dismiss-staff/unfair-dismissals

Think he just meant automatically in the sense its automatically "unfair dismissal" and not "automatic unfair dismissal" par se

[teaboy2]

Re: have been given 5 days then i have been given 5 days then i have to

Teaboy stop being a complete knob

In a post on another thread you said you were dyslexic so I have suggested Irlens glasses as I know they work. How the F can that be disability discrimination . I have a pair myself and I have a friend who found out in her late 30's she was dyslexic and they have changed her life . I imagine you know much less than me about being discriminated against although who knows you may be a one legged black jewish lesbian , frankly I couldn't care less.

Well if you didn't mean to be disrespectful then why even post such comment - Just because you yourself wear such glasses doesn't mean your can not be discriminatory towards myself with such comment - Frankly there was no need for your comment as such it was disrespectful and uncalled for, the LOL on the end made that clear!


Actually the Brandon case did not rule on what was needed in a D.N it just ruled that any errors are not de-minimus. In another lower court case the judge gave a completely differing opinion of when service was, to them it was the date of posting. That is arrow global v frost.

The error in that case was the lack of statutory 14 days the lower court ruled it was de minimus, the higher court ruled that because it was a statutory requirement to give 14 days it can not be de minimus and therefore Brandon won his argument that they couldn't enforce the agreement as they had failed to give him the statutory 14 days as required under section 88 - Therefore the court enforced section 88 and ruled in Brandons favour making clear that creditors can not enforce a credit agreement if they failed to comply with statutory law i.e section 88 - They didn't interpret section 88 any differently to how it is written and therefore enforced it on face value!

Up until Carey people were winning UE cases when the original could not be produced. Carey clarified what was actually needed. S77 actually says

A reconstituted copy is still a bloody copy of the original agreement. People were only winning previously because they wrongly interpreted copy of executed agreement as meaning a "true copy" i.e signature and all. When the act never mentioned true copy or signature!! So the Carey judge didn't reinterpret a "reconstituted" version as being a copy, as that is exactly what a reconstituted version is, a copy of an original document- Its irrelevant as to how the copy was created, be from parts of different documents or from one document so long as its an accurate copy of the original executed and that's exactly what the judge made clear with his ruling!






I ask you again, where does it say that an investigation is part of a disciplinary unless the employer explicitly says it is not. Where?

Where does it say it doesn't? And how can it not be if it forms part of the employers disciplinary policy and they fail to make clear formal disciplinary procedure doesn't start till after investigatory meeting, by making clear the investigatory meeting is informal and not part of the formal disciplinary process - If they do not make it clear then its deemed part of formal disciplinary procedure!!

I asked you where I stated statutory and you didn't know but said, this one or the last one, get a grip - You referred to your post - I asked which post because you have made more than one bloody post and i am not wasting my time trawling through them all.

ACAS say that you are not entitled to a witnesshttp://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4227 - again only applies if its made clear the investigatory meeting is informal and does not form part of the formal disciplinary procedure! like i said before all your evidence you use to counter my arguement is based on investigatory meeting being informal and not part of the formal disciplinary procedure! My point is if they do not make it clear its informal and not part of the disciplinary procedure - Then it can only be formal and actually part of the disciplinary procedure as they would have failed to have made clear to the employee exactly what point is the start of employers formal disciplinary therefore investigatory meeting is deemed to be no different to disciplinary hearing and the right applies!!

To be accurate I have not said EVER that if the contract says you are allowed a witness at an investigation meeting it can be over ridden only if it doesn't mention it. Right well that part of argument is concluded and we both agree on that!

Thank you for reminding me where the comment about interpretation comes from , if the court acted outside its jurisdiction as you suggest , was it appealed or corrected in another way. Incidentally last time I looked at that thread there was insufficient info to decide if getting the payslip on a screen was enough i.e did the employee have the facility to download and print it?

Yes i agree there was insufficient info and indeed if they were able to print it then that would likely satisfy the ERA. But going by information that was at hand simply having it on a computer screen is not the same as a written pay slip and doesn't amount to employer giving a written payslip

For a so called 'employment expert' you seem to know little about the basics of the law - Yet another insult and libelous at that - Your evidence to support such comment is what precisely!

Funny as i have not once made a single offensive or insulting personal remark against you - Yet here you are doing precisely that in a vain attempt to try discredit me and my argument - Yet you still haven't once provided evidence to the contrary!

See above

[FlamingParrot]

Re: have been given 5 days then i have been given 5 days then i have to

I must agree with Teaboy2 on this one (Not taking sides)

It does not matter what is being stated, all disciplinary matters have to be handled according to the ACAS code of practice.

They set the minimum standards employers have to follow, Trade Union or not

Breach that and any disciplinary is automatically unfair

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with this statement, below are the automatic unfair reasons: https://www.gov.uk/dismiss-staff/unfair-dismissals

• pregnancy, including all reasons relating to maternity
• family, including parental leave, paternity leave (birth and adoption), adoption leave or time off for dependants
• acting as an employee representative
• acting as a trade union representative
• acting as an occupational pension scheme trustee
• joining or not joining a trade union
• being a part-time or fixed-term employee
• discrimination, including protection against discrimination on the grounds of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation (in Northern Ireland, this also includes political beliefs)
• pay and working hours, including the Working Time Regulations, annual leave and the National Minimum Wage
• whistleblowing