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

[Berniethebolt]

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

Something I rarely do on employment issues but I am going to stick my neck out and say you are wrong T2 when you state that you have a right to be accompanied at an investigation meeting.
Unless otherwise allowed for in a contract of employment and investigation meeting is just that and is not a formal part of the disciplinary process . As such you have no right to be accompanied although some employers will allow it.
Of course as always , if you can provide evidence to the contrary then I will admit I was wrong.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/wo...inary-meeting/

https://www.tuc.org.uk/workplace-iss...be-accompanied

[FlamingParrot]

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

Something I rarely do on employment issues but I am going to stick my neck out and say you are wrong T2 when you state that you have a right to be accompanied at an investigation meeting.
Unless otherwise allowed for in a contract of employment and investigation meeting is just that and is not a formal part of the disciplinary process . As such you have no right to be accompanied although some employers will allow it.
Of course as always , if you can provide evidence to the contrary then I will admit I was wrong.

Based on personal experience, unless things have changed in the past few years, I'll be inclined to agree, an investigation meeting is just to find out more details from yourself and you didn't have the right to be accompanied or even to 24 hours notice.

With regards to disciplinaries when you have the right to be accompanied, some companies will allow someone who is neither a colleague nor a union rep, to accompany you, in particular when there is no union involved, so it's always worth asking. :thumb:

[teaboy2]

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

Based on personal experience, unless things have changed in the past few years, I'll be inclined to agree, an investigation meeting is just to find out more details from yourself and you didn't have the right to be accompanied or even to 24 hours notice.

With regards to disciplinaries when you have the right to be accompanied, some companies will allow someone who is neither a colleague nor a union rep, to accompany you, in particular when there is no union involved, so it's always worth asking. :thumb:

Actually since nearly all companies include the investigatory meeting as part of their disciplinary procedure policy or contract terms, then suspension alone triggers the disciplinary procedure. As such, whilst the investigatory meeting is largely fact finding, the fact it is part of a disciplinary process in the disciplinary procedure policy/terms, then it forms part of a formal disciplinary process and the employee therefore does have the right to be accompanied.

Basically the onus is on the employer to make it clear that the employee is not yet facing disciplinary action or that the investigatory meeting is not part of the employers disciplinary procedure! Otherwise the employee could bring a claim for denial of statutory right to be accompanied!

So basically if the investigatory meeting is part of the employers disciplinary policy and its not made clear to whether the employee has the right to be accompanied (or that the meeting is informal) to said meeting, then the statutory right does apply, purely because said meeting forms part of the employers own disciplinary policy!

[Berniethebolt]

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

TB2
In my experience yet again you are wrong

Suspension with pay has always been stated as not a disciplinary action. It is part of due diligence. Maybe , because I have worked for two market leading multinational companies with big H.R. departments they are able to get it right.


If you tried to go to ET and based your claim on non allowance of a witness/representative an an investigatory meeting, pre or post suspension you would have a very hard task to prove that the employer had failed in their duty.

Personally I think it is a situation to aspire to, any meeting with your employer should allow a witness to be present but I cant see that happening

[FlamingParrot]

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

TB2
In my experience yet again you are wrong

Suspension with pay has always been stated as not a disciplinary action. It is part of due diligence. Maybe , because I have worked for two market leading multinational companies with big H.R. departments they are able to get it right.

If you tried to go to ET and based your claim on non allowance of a witness/representative an an investigatory meeting, pre or post suspension you would have a very hard task to prove that the employer had failed in their duty.

Personally I think it is a situation to aspire to, any meeting with your employer should allow a witness to be present but I cant see that happening

I have to agree with the above, basing a claim purely on technical procedural issues does not guarantee success and can be risky.

Once upon a time I had a case prepped by an eminent professor with a PhD who was a bit of a figure in employment case law (google Hinton Compromise Agreement :nerd who wrote all my letters during the suspension/disciplinary period and picked on all the finer points. I was then represented by an employment solicitor from a well known law centre who drafted and submitted my claim. The alleged gross misconduct 'offences' were ridiculous beyond belief, basically having an online portfolio and a one liner buried somewhere on the site that mentioned my employers as 'clients'.

The letter inviting me to a disciplinary had been typed before they questioned me and was handed to me along with the letter saying I was suspended pending an investigation, the disciplinary was scheduled for 1pm the day after and I got the letters at 5pm. I spotted that the disciplinary letter said I was entitled to at least 24hrs notice so they went and printed a new one off. As it stood at the time, there would hardly have been time for an investigation, let alone a meeting, before the disciplinary. I managed to get the disciplinary postponed thanks to the letters drafted by the person I mentioned above. :typing: I was told in writing I had to be available to attend a meeting at any time during my normal working hours because I was suspended with full pay and I had to have my phone switched on and ready to take a call. :cell: I received such a call to go to the investigation meeting and was only given a few hours notice over the phone. hone: The day after I got a call saying a cab was on its way to pick me up along with my home computer and laptop for inspection by the company's IT department.

There was no question of being accompanied at any of those two meetings. My claim was backed up by a pile of evidence showing they'd plotted the dismissal well in advance, probably as far back as one year, yet in the end I was given only a 20% chance of winning and was warned about the possibility of a costs order against me (Baker & McKenzie being their legal representative :scared, all this by my own legal representative.

IMHO procedural issues are most useful for getting them to consider a 'commercial settlement' rather than as a true winning argument.

[teaboy2]

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

TB2
In my experience yet again you are wrong

Suspension with pay has always been stated as not a disciplinary action. It is part of due diligence. Maybe , because I have worked for two market leading multinational companies with big H.R. departments they are able to get it right.


If you tried to go to ET and based your claim on non allowance of a witness/representative an an investigatory meeting, pre or post suspension you would have a very hard task to prove that the employer had failed in their duty.

Personally I think it is a situation to aspire to, any meeting with your employer should allow a witness to be present but I cant see that happening

You missed my point entirely - I thought i made it clear that if the investigatory meeting is not stated as informal under the disciplinary policy then it forms part of the formal disciplinary procedure under said policy - Therefore the disciplinary process starts from when your suspended and not after the investigatory meeting. If they state its informal and not part of the disciplinary process, then only then do employees not have the right to be accompanied! As i said a lot of companies nowadays actually permit employees to be accompanied at investigatory meetings in their disciplinary policy/contract one such case was Stevens v University of Birmingham (case date 31st july 2015), And Mr Stevens won - proving my point!!

And anyway why are we even debating this (the three of us) I have seen his Contract previously so i know what it says and doesn't! Plus i did clearly state the meeting was "not a disciplinary meeting" and clearly it was not an investigatory meeting either, though even then its good practice to allow them to be accompanied to non disciplinary/investigatory meetings too if reasonable to do so!

[Berniethebolt]

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

TB2
I do not believe that I missed the point at all, it is you that missed what I said. At no point did the OP say he was told he was not aloud to be accompanied , of course being accompanied and represented are two different things.

Yes it is common practise for companies to allow you to be accompanied at an investigation meeting but from what I can see non of these meetings have been anything to do with discipline. Of course you say that you have seen the contract, I assume you have also seen the terms and conditions that are usually a separate document . That does put you at an advantage to the rest of us and is somewhat disingenuous of you to come out with this at the 11th hour.

CAB, ACAS and the TUC all state that an investigation is just that and you are not automatically entitled to be accompanied. An disciplinary meeting can still have an element of investigation to it but an investigation is just that. If I phoned your employer and made some accusations against you that say you were misusing company property and not doing your job it would be only right for them to suspend you and investigate, Suspension with pay is not a form of discipline.

Incidentally i faced gross misconduct allegations a few years ago and di lose my job, even though I confessed to wrong doing the company allowed me to be accompanied at the investigation although they didn't have to. the reason for my dismissal was IMHO technically wrong but to be fair i would have dismissed anyone who had done what i did . There was no point in fighting it.

[FlamingParrot]

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

CAB, ACAS and the TUC all state that an investigation is just that and you are not automatically entitled to be accompanied. An disciplinary meeting can still have an element of investigation to it but an investigation is just that. If I phoned your employer and made some accusations against you that say you were misusing company property and not doing your job it would be only right for them to suspend you and investigate, Suspension with pay is not a form of discipline.

Incidentally i faced gross misconduct allegations a few years ago and di lose my job, even though I confessed to wrong doing the company allowed me to be accompanied at the investigation although they didn't have to. the reason for my dismissal was IMHO technically wrong but to be fair i would have dismissed anyone who had done what i did . There was no point in fighting it.

I am familiar with these two scenarios above, there was a case involving someone making allegations to someone's employers and I always said that, surely the employers would have to run their own investigations, you can hardly expect a company to take the allegations of a total stranger at face value, as if they were gospel, without conducting their own investigations.

A friend of mine was also dismissed from another company at the same time as me because my employers contacted his employers after reading our emails (this was long before obile gadgets and even webmail was in its infancy) and made all sorts of accusations. His employers found the accusations unfounded but in the course of the investigation, they found other tidbits in his emails, nothing major, but they still dismissed him.

I've also heard that, even if there are procedural errors, when the actions of an employee are so serious that the result would have been dismissal anyway, the ET doesn't pay that much attention to procedural errors. It's a bit like applying to have a CCJ set aside when you did not receive the claim, if the court reckons that the claimant would have obtained judgment even if you had received the claim, then they'll refuse to set the judgment aside. If the ET decides that you should have dismissed anyway, you can't expect to win just because they missed out on a few technical points. This is different from criminal proceedings when procedural technicalities can make all the difference between a conviction and a dismissal (of the case). :incourt:

[teaboy2]

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

TB2
I do not believe that I missed the point at all, it is you that missed what I said. At no point did the OP say he was told he was not aloud to be accompanied , of course being accompanied and represented are two different things.

Yes it is common practise for companies to allow you to be accompanied at an investigation meeting but from what I can see non of these meetings have been anything to do with discipline (There are if the employer does not make it clear that the meeting is not part of the formal disciplinary procedure - If they do not make that clear, then said investigatory meeting is not in formal, but in fact part of the formal disciplinary procedure under their disciplinary policy/terms). Of course you say that you have seen the contract, I assume you have also seen the terms and conditions that are usually a separate document . That does put you at an advantage to the rest of us and is somewhat disingenuous of you to come out with this at the 11th hour. (LOL - Right so i've seen it, you haven't - Yet apparently according to you, knowing the terms of his contract makes no difference, when said terms would entitle him under contract to be accompanied - Also it did state previously in this thread about the other issues he faced, so on balance of probability i had clearly helped him before and therefore its very likely i had seen his contract, which i had seen - And anyway, the meeting he attended was neither investigatory or disciplinary, so i again ask why are we even arguing about this?!)

CAB, ACAS and the TUC all state that an investigation is just that and you are not automatically entitled to be accompanied (Am not talking about automatic right under statutory law, am talking about the contractual right under his terms of employment - even ACAS, CAB and TUC all state that the employer may give the employee the right to be accompanied to investigatory meetings under contract of employment). An disciplinary meeting can still have an element of investigation to it but an investigation is just that. If I phoned your employer and made some accusations against you that say you were misusing company property and not doing your job it would be only right for them to suspend you and investigate, Suspension with pay is not a form of discipline.

Incidentally i faced gross misconduct allegations a few years ago and di lose my job, even though I confessed to wrong doing the company allowed me to be accompanied at the investigation although they didn't have to. the reason for my dismissal was IMHO technically wrong but to be fair i would have dismissed anyone who had done what i did . There was no point in fighting it. (They allowed it because you made a reasonable request to be accompanied, and employers do allow such request regardless, so long as the person accompanying you is acceptable to them)

I can not make it any clearer - If the employer does not state in their disciplinary policy that the investigatory meeting is informal and/or does not form part of the formal disciplinary process, then the investigatory meeting is not an informal fact finding meeting, but an formal disciplinary meeting with the purpose only being fact finding prior to deciding whether to continue to full disciplinary hearing or not - So it is then clearly part of the formal disciplinary process in such circumstances, and employees have a statutory right to be accompanied in formal disciplinary meetings, regardless as to what purpose the meeting serves - The statutory right to be accompanied applies to all formal disciplinary meetings/hearings, regardless of the purpose of the meeting (i.e. investigatory or full hearing). Hence why the employer needs to make clear where the formal disciplinary procedure starts, and only way to do that is to make clear that the investigatory meeting is informal and does not form part of the formal disciplinary process - If they do not make it clear that the investigatory part is informal and not part of the formal process, then the formal process starts from the point you are suspended!

Majority of employers also state in their policies that they will be allowed to be accompanied by either a person of their choice or by a union rep or work colleague, if they fail to then allow the employee to be accompanied as per policy, or as per under formal disciplinary - Though whilst this is not a statutory right it is a contractual right and the Stevens case i referred to supports precisely that!

[Berniethebolt]

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

Teaboy2 you really should have been a politician , and no that is not a compliment

In the first paragraph of mine you commented on I was , as you should well know, meaning this case . It was not a disciplinary i.e there was , as far as has been shown, no disciplinary action. The only action has been to move the OP to a different site. Now in contracts I have had there has been a clause saying I could be transferred to any store/area either on a temporary or permanent basis .

Your second comment, I actually said in post 16 was

Unless otherwise allowed for in a contract of employment and investigation meeting is just that and is not a formal part of the disciplinary process . As such you have no right to be accompanied although some employers will allow it.

The only comment that i can see comes in post 9 where you said
[QUOTE]To be honest i think you would be better off out of their given the issues you have had with the store manager in other threads. Though if they expect you to travel sixty miles i would be asking them to pay towards your travel expenses, until they can find you a more suitable location closer to where you live!/QUOTE].
Now if you expect anyone to think that this means you have seen both the contract and/or other terms you are deluded particularly when the site policy is not to give advice via PM.

Third comment-see above

Fourth comment, with respect you have no idea why they allowed it because you were not privy to the situation or my circumstances at the time . Some members of the site team will know what happened and another senior member knows every gorey detail

You can try to make it as clear as you want but wrong is wrong, I have asked for evidence and you have failed to provide it
Unless otherwise stated , an investigatory meeting is just that and investigation and not part of the formal disciplinary process. It is not a question of them having to demonstrate that it is not part of the disciplinary process , that is assumed unless stated to the contrary.

The Stevens case, can you tell me what level of ET that was, or put another way was it binding

I am not sure who or where it was but the post seems to have gone now but some loon tried to suggest that statutory laws could not be altered by the judiciary whereas that is actually the judiciaries job, to interpret legislation.

The right to be accompanied is often limited to the legal rights which are those of a trade union rep OR a co worker of choice providing it is reasonable for that co worker to attend i.e. if there location is 200 miles away or for other operational reasons it is impossible for them to attend.

If you can provide EVIDENCE to support your claims then I am more than prepared to admit that I am wrong and will stand corrected

[judgemental24]

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

If the employer has Trade union representation then even though the employer does not have to inform the union IR rep of the fact finding meeting, a rep can accompany the employee if requested by the employee

Even at the investigatory/Fact finding stage

It is custom and practice in any Industrial Relations Framework agreement drawn up in any Disciplinary and Grievance Procedure

My source is the:

Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992

The reason being is that it has been known for employers to go straight to a formal while conducting the fact finding interview

[teaboy2]

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

Teaboy2 you really should have been a politician , and no that is not a compliment

In the first paragraph of mine you commented on I was , as you should well know, meaning this case . It was not a disciplinary i.e there was , as far as has been shown, no disciplinary action. The only action has been to move the OP to a different site. Now in contracts I have had there has been a clause saying I could be transferred to any store/area either on a temporary or permanent basis .

Your second comment, I actually said in post 16 was


The only comment that i can see comes in post 9 where you said

Now if you expect anyone to think that this means you have seen both the contract and/or other terms you are deluded particularly when the site policy is not to give advice via PM.

Third comment-see above

Fourth comment, with respect you have no idea why they allowed it because you were not privy to the situation or my circumstances at the time . Some members of the site team will know what happened and another senior member knows every gorey detail

You can try to make it as clear as you want but wrong is wrong, I have asked for evidence and you have failed to provide it
Unless otherwise stated , an investigatory meeting is just that and investigation and not part of the formal disciplinary process. It is not a question of them having to demonstrate that it is not part of the disciplinary process , that is assumed unless stated to the contrary.

The Stevens case, can you tell me what level of ET that was, or put another way was it binding

I am not sure who or where it was but the post seems to have gone now but some loon tried to suggest that statutory laws could not be altered by the judiciary whereas that is actually the judiciaries job, to interpret legislation.

The right to be accompanied is often limited to the legal rights which are those of a trade union rep OR a co worker of choice providing it is reasonable for that co worker to attend i.e. if there location is 200 miles away or for other operational reasons it is impossible for them to attend.

If you can provide EVIDENCE to support your claims then I am more than prepared to admit that I am wrong and will stand corrected

First off all i didn't refer to the OP having a "statutory right to be accompanied" in post 15, i said "entitled to be accompanied" I was talking about his rights under his contract. And throughout this argument i have also been trying to make it clear that if an employer fails to make it clear that the investigatory meeting is informal and not part of they disciplinary process, then it is deemed a formal disciplinary meeting to which the statutory right to be accompanied applies!

Secondly - in post 15 i also made it clear it was not a disciplinary meeting (par se) - but he could still be accompanied, and reason i said that was given the outcome of the meeting resulted in punishment i.e removal from site. The site is named as his place of work in his terms of employment - Therefore even though they can make reasonable requests off him to work at other sites, they can not change his place of work unless via variation of contractual terms, or via a form disciplinary punishment, which would actually also breach his contract!

Also the fact i made it clear i knew about his previous thread and issues, not once but twice actually (post 9 & 15) and as one of the main employment advisers here, then it should be obvious to most that i therefore likely had some involvement in helping the OP previously or had knowledge others are not privy too in regards to the OP's employment. There's nothing stopping people reading those threads - So I do not see why i should have vindicate the advise i have given here, just for your benefit, not mine or the OP's!!

As for my comment on your own situation - You stated "even though I confessed to wrong doing the company allowed me to be accompanied at the investigation although they didn't have to." - Allowed you to be accompanied even when they didn't have too - Therefore implying you had made a reasonable request to be accompanied. My comment in relation to that was, and i quote "They allowed it because you made a reasonable request to be accompanied, and employers do allow such request regardless, so long as the person accompanying you is acceptable to them" - So whether i was privy to the situation or not i was not commenting as to why they allowed it i.e. reasoning behind their decision to allow it, but merely stating the bloody obvious i.e. you requested if you could be accompanied and they allowed it!

In regards to "I am not sure who or where it was but the post seems to have gone now but some loon tried to suggest that statutory laws could not be altered by the judiciary whereas that is actually the judiciaries job, to interpret legislation." - I believe that was in regards to the interpretation of the definition of written in regards to an employers duty under ERA 1996 to give a written itemised pay slip - The definition of written is interpreted under the interpretation act 1978 schedule 1. The judiciaries job is not to interpreted statutory law but to enforce it as it is! In the case in question there went beyond that and changed the interpretation of written i.e. typewritten etc under interpretations act, to include modern technology such as visualization on a computer screen, which for the record are two separate things as typewritten is the equivalent as an electronically printed document not a visualization of it on a computer screen - the judiciary does not have the power to change statutory law in such fashion, only parliament has that power via way of amendment of statutory law, in this case schedule 1 of the interpretation act to include visualization on computer screen as a definition of written!

And as for the Steven's case law - It was the HIGH COURT

Case No: HQ15X02256
Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 2300 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISIONF
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 31/07/2015

[Berniethebolt]

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

TB2
The judiciary interpret and alter statutory law all the time although it doesn't become binding until it reaches the high courts, until then it is only persuasive. Where do I start, oh I know Carey et al. is a good one. Brandon v Amex is another .

As far as I can see you contradicted yourself in saying that the judiciary changed the meaning of typewritten but then you said they are not allowed to do that. I am afraid you are beginning to sound like jason

My point about them allowing someone to be accompanied was that they do not have to but they can and I quoted my case. If they had refused there would have been bugger all I could have done

In the post you quoted where did I mention statutory right?

AS for the other posts, there is nothing in there that suggest that you have seen anything other than the basic 48 hours per week and we can move you at anytime with 30 days notice or if its not suitable terminate your employment


P.S. TB2 have you ever been assessed for Irlens lenses as they might help with your dyslexia, perhaps you could get LB to pay for them lol

[Berniethebolt]

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

If the employer has Trade union representation then even though the employer does not have to inform the union IR rep of the fact finding meeting, a rep can accompany the employee if requested by the employee

Even at the investigatory/Fact finding stage

It is custom and practice in any Industrial Relations Framework agreement drawn up in any Disciplinary and Grievance Procedure

My source is the:

Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992

The reason being is that it has been known for employers to go straight to a formal while conducting the fact finding interview

I am quite happy to agree that when a company recognises a trade union there are conditions in place however in this instance the OP is not a member of a trade union and as far as i know there isn't one at his company

[teaboy2]

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

TB2
The judiciary interpret and alter statutory law all the time although it doesn't become binding until it reaches the high courts, until then it is only persuasive. Where do I start, oh I know Carey et al. is a good one. Brandon v Amex is another .

Brandon won the case because the default notice didn't give the statutory 14 days notice to remedy - So the appeal court didn't interpret the law any different to how it is written, they in fact enforced it as it is written. I.e. failure to give a valid default notice in prescribed form means the creditor is not permitted to enforce the credit agreement!

As for carey - Well the creditor doesn't have a statutory duty to provide a true copy of the signed agreement, section 77/78 only state they have to "give a copy of the executed agreement" it doesn't and never did state "give a true copy of the signed executed agreement" - That means a reconstituted version is acceptable and always was acceptable under section 77/78 so long as it an accurate copy of the original, with original terms, amounts etc etc! Therefore the court enforced the law as it was written and didn't interpret it any differently to how it was written!

As far as I can see you contradicted yourself in saying that the judiciary changed the meaning of typewritten but then you said they are not allowed to do that. I am afraid you are beginning to sound like jason

How the **** am i contradicting myself. I never said they could change the meaning, i made clear that typewritten is not the same as visualization on a computer screen. It was the court the wrongly made such interpretation, as they do not have the power to add to the interpretations act that visualization on a computer screen under definition of "written" in schedule 1 of the interpretations act. Not only that i was referring to the thread in which you were, i believe, referring too and the argument in that thread where i made it clear the courts can not change/amend statutory law to suit their interpretation of what it should be or what should be included. So in that thread the court was wrong and acting outside of its remit to state that a visulisation of a pay slip on a computer screen amounts to written as per typewritten is under the interpretations act! - http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...-to-solicitors

My point about them allowing someone to be accompanied was that they do not have to but they can and I quoted my case. If they had refused there would have been bugger all I could have done

But that was in your case, not this one or other peoples. My point is, unless they make it clear that the investigatory meeting is informal and not part of the formal disciplinary process, then it can only be the opposite and therefore part of the formal disciplinary process, and therefore a formal disciplinary hearing to establish facts, and therefore the employee has the right to be accompanied - Especially since such meeting, when formal, can in fact result in disciplinary punishment without further hearings!

Also if the employer actually allows for employees to be accompanied in their disciplinary policy to investigatory meetings, then the employee has a contractual right to be accompanied as per the OP here has!

In the post you quoted where did I mention statutory right?

Which post, your last one or one of your earlier ones? In your last post however you referred to statutory laws, its been clear from the start you have been referring to statutory right to be accompanied when you said the OP didn't have the right to be accompanied when he does!



AS for the other posts, there is nothing in there that suggest that you have seen anything other than the basic 48 hours per week and we can move you at anytime with 30 days notice or if its not suitable terminate your employment.

Ever heard of Private messages and emails - As the full contract was emailed to me along with other things! Lot of work i do on here i do behind the scenes when helping someone and not on public forum!!


P.S. TB2 have you ever been assessed for Irlens lenses as they might help with your dyslexia, perhaps you could get LB to pay for them lol

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

Above in red!

I have repeatedly said that if the employer doesn't make it clear that the investigatory meeting is informal and not part of the formal disciplinary process in their disciplinary policy/terms, then the investigatory meeting is therefore not informal but formal meeting and part of the formal disciplinary process and the employee is therefore entitled to be accompanied.

You however disagree and basically say its irrelevant - Well wheres your evidence that proves that the above is incorrect, and that the employee is not entitled to be accompanied during a "formal" meeting (investigatory or fact finding meeting), when the employer fails to state that the investigatory meeting is informal and not part of the formal process! Because so far you have only counter me by using arguments based only on the investigatory meeting being informal and not formal!