Difference of opinion between Unison and ACAS

[Openlaw15]

Re: Difference of opinion between Unison and ACAS

Unison say the solicitor is Godric Jolliffe, based in the Thompsons Office in London.

He has not contacted my daughter and the Unison regional office area organiser still maintains that there is no case with which to go to tribunal and if daughter thinks otherwise, she must do it herself. I'm wondering if daughter would phone him.

Godric Piers Savigear JolliffeSolicitor Admitted as a solicitor: 15/11/11
SRA ID:481287SRA Regulated

Tel: 0208 947 4163
Email: enquiries@thompson.law.co.uk show
Assistant at:Thompsons Solicitors LLP
22-24 Worple Road,
Wimbledon,
London,
SW19 4DD,

Who in Unison said that there is no case, the aforesaid person you named?

[Guest]

Re: Difference of opinion between Unison and ACAS

Did you make a complaint about these pseudo police officers (PSIs) to the relevant organisation, and the police to the IPCC, as to the way your daughter was treated so badly?

Yes - local Professional Standards refused to record daughter's complaint but IPCC did initial checks and said there was no case to answer.

Yes - my complaint (made very early on before certain information came to light) was (badly in my opinion) investigated at local level by "proportional investigation" which even on appeal found in favour of the police. BUT after the Chief Inspector who was daughter's grievance resolver told me "she (the appeals officer) lied and the offence is Deceptive Misconduct", I complained again. Locally Professional Standards refused to record my complaint, said I can't complain about the decision in an appeal. The IPCC revealed that I CAN complain because my complaint is about something the appeals officer did and not about her decision. The IPCC has called in all the paperwork from the Professional Standards department but have not yet decided whether or not to investigate. I'm not holding my breath.

For information, the "pseudo police officers" come under the same disciplinary measures as police officers, as did my daughter another civilian. There are two parallel complaints systems - one for officers and the other for civilian staff but both are broadly the same. Whether or not you can appeal to the IPCC depends not on whether the complaint is about a police officer but depends instead on the way the complaint was investigated at local level. As far as I know, "Local Resolution" brings with it the right of appeal to the IPCC whereas with Local proportionate investigation, the appeal is to a local supposedly independent, appeals officer. The supposedly independent appeals officer is a Chief Inspector employed in the same professional standards department which decides other matters such as whether or not to record a complaint, the manner in which the complaint must be investigated etc. In my opinion, gained from substantial experience, I would say that a fairer way would be for an appeals officer in a different Constabulary to make the final decision on appeal. I can't see that this would cost any more than the current system.

[Guest]

Re: Difference of opinion between Unison and ACAS

Who in Unison said that there is no case, the aforesaid person you named?

Julie Murdoch, Unison Area Organiser 02380 249120
The Unison Office is at Queens Keep, Southampton

See my previous post with her emails

[Openlaw15]

Re: Difference of opinion between Unison and ACAS

Yes - local Professional Standards refused to record daughter's complaint but IPCC did initial checks and said there was no case to answer.

Yes - my complaint (made very early on before certain information came to light) was (badly in my opinion) investigated at local level by "proportional investigation" which even on appeal found in favour of the police. BUT after the Chief Inspector who was daughter's grievance resolver told me "she (the appeals officer) lied and the offence is Deceptive Misconduct", I complained again. Locally Professional Standards refused to record my complaint, said I can't complain about the decision in an appeal. The IPCC revealed that I CAN complain because my complaint is about something the appeals officer did and not about her decision. The IPCC has called in all the paperwork from the Professional Standards department but have not yet decided whether or not to investigate. I'm not holding my breath.

For information, the "pseudo police officers" come under the same disciplinary measures as police officers, as did my daughter another civilian. There are two parallel complaints systems - one for officers and the other for civilian staff but both are broadly the same. Whether or not you can appeal to the IPCC depends not on whether the complaint is about a police officer but depends instead on the way the complaint was investigated at local level. As far as I know, "Local Resolution" brings with it the right of appeal to the IPCC whereas with Local proportionate investigation, the appeal is to a local supposedly independent, appeals officer. The supposedly independent appeals officer is a Chief Inspector employed in the same professional standards department which decides other matters such as whether or not to record a complaint, the manner in which the complaint must be investigated etc. In my opinion, gained from substantial experience, I would say that a fairer way would be for an appeals officer in a different Constabulary to make the final decision on appeal. I can't see that this would cost any more than the current system.

Are you have the PSI decision looked again at is what am asking.

[Guest]

Re: Difference of opinion between Unison and ACAS

Are you have the PSI decision looked again at is what am asking.

Sorry for my misunderstanding. It's not possible to get the PSI decision looked at again and when I last raised the matter, the professional standards dept rejected my complaint as being repetitious. IF the IPCC look at my complaint about the appeals DCI, it would open up all the other issues.

At the risk of being labelled repetitious and vexatious, I can see a possibility for a complaint about the unfairness of the PSI's comment that "It concerns me that someone with her agression and general behaviour is employed by HC to deal with members of the public", given comments from T/Insp Parkes that she was a good controller and call taker who had shown good skills and abilities in the role and he wanted her back at work and from Chief Inspector Winter that she had been a call taker and worked within Call Management for a number of years and he believes that she was more than capable of dealing with any calls that she would take in that work.

It is not the procedure for police to look at something again - you make a complaint, if it is recorded it will be looked into and a decision made, if the decision goes against you there is the opportunity to appeal. End of story.

[mariefab]

Re: Difference of opinion between Unison and ACAS

I think the solicitor is talking about a time limit issue.
In constructive dismissal at least part of the reason for your resignation must be a fundamental breach by your employer.
The claim needs to be submitted within 3 months of a breach to be in time (not counting the ACAS time-out).
Perhaps when looking at the papers the solicitor can't find a breach within that period.

[Guest]

Re: Difference of opinion between Unison and ACAS

Thank you for explaining this rule so that it is readily understandable. Now I know what to look forward, it may be possible to meet this requirement.

[charitynjw]

Re: Difference of opinion between Unison and ACAS

I think the solicitor is talking about a time limit issue.
In constructive dismissal at least part of the reason for your resignation must be a fundamental breach by your employer.
The claim needs to be submitted within 3 months of a breach to be in time (not counting the ACAS time-out).
Perhaps when looking at the papers the solicitor can't find a breach within that period.

Thank you for explaining this rule so that it is readily understandable. Now I know what to look forward, it may be possible to meet this requirement.

Have you tried contacting the Equality & Human Rights Commission?
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/y...work-situation

(You mentioned that ACAS identified possible discrimination/harassment)

[Guest]

Re: Difference of opinion between Unison and ACAS

Have you tried contacting the Equality & Human Rights Commission?
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/y...work-situation

(You mentioned that ACAS identified possible discrimination/harassment)

Thank you for this information. I had heard of the Equality Act but didn't know about the Commission.

Further to the information provided by Mariefab, it looks as though daughter could have met this rule except....
it also looks as though Unison's apparent negligence ("sitting on" and therefore delaying her tribunal application for two months or more before contacting a Unison solicitor) has seemingly prevented her meeting the rule and will probably cost her the opportunity to go to a tribunal.

Grrrrr - does anyone besides me ever think they're too old for all the hassle!!!

[charitynjw]

Re: Difference of opinion between Unison and ACAS

Thank you for this information. I had heard of the Equality Act but didn't know about the Commission.

Further to the information provided by Mariefab, it looks as though daughter could have met this rule except....
it also looks as though Unison's apparent negligence ("sitting on" and therefore delaying her tribunal application for two months or more before contacting a Unison solicitor) has seemingly prevented her meeting the rule and will probably cost her the opportunity to go to a tribunal.

Grrrrr - does anyone besides me ever think they're too old for all the hassle!!!

If you look at the link, EHRC can possibly progress this through County Court.

[Guest]

Re: Difference of opinion between Unison and ACAS

I'll deal with this in the morning.

Thank you for all your kindness, time and advice. I'm greatly appreciative

[mariefab]

Re: Difference of opinion between Unison and ACAS

Thank you for explaining this rule so that it is readily understandable. Now I know what to look forward, it may be possible to meet this requirement.

Justace
I'm afraid that what I posted at #36 is completely wrong.
I have no excuse. I'm very sorry to have misled you.

In constructive dismissal at least part of the reason for your resignation must be a fundamental breach by your employer.
The time limit for submitting a constructive dismissal claim is 3 months less 1 day from the effective date of termination (and adjusting for the ACAS EC period).
See ERA96 s. 95 1(c), s.111 2(a) & s.97 1(a) below.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/95
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/111
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/97

In most cases, when there has been one fundamental breach by the employer, the employee must resign immediately or very soon after that breach.
Otherwise the employee will be deemed to have waived the breach by the continuing to work there as normal after the breach happened; so they won't be able to claim constructive dismissal later on because that didn't resign in response to that breach.

However, it's different if there are a series of breaches culminating in a final straw breach shortly after which the employee resigns.
All the previous breaches can be added to the final straw and if the combination of all the breaches add up to a fundamental breach they'd have a constructive dismissal claim that way.

I wonder how much detail was in the outline provided to the solicitor.
You've mentioned several potential breaches along the way.
I expect that discoveries made when working through the evidence pack could well be the last straw. e.g. the investigator's helpful statement that the complaint was upheld.
She resigned a couple of weeks after and she wasn't continuing to work as normal during those weeks.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Difference of opinion between Unison and ACAS

I'll deal with this in the morning.

Thank you for all your kindness, time and advice. I'm greatly appreciative

I think there is a massive conflict of interest with the crime at your daughter's home and this linked to her employment as gross miss conduct. The two things are just not connected and cannot be connected and if they were it would be an abuse of employer powers. For a start, what happens at home is of no relevance to the 'Employment Rights Act.' Your daughter simply has the right to a private life and without it is a human rights' violation. Her personal life being affected by a genuine crime affects criminal law not employment law. It is simply outrageous and this PSI needs to have a disciplinary their self. In my view, your daughter's job as a police caller has absolutely nothing to do with her conduct when she is assaulted at home. This in my view is automatically unfair dismissal, ie constructive dismissal, and by that your daughter should have every right to leave her employment and claim automatic unfair dismissal. The police are part of government that is the Executive part of Government, under David Cameron's administration. The courts are another part of the government as well as the legislator ie Parliament. In my view, the Executive is abusing its powers in a free and democratic country. I would not stop your complaint, I would make a complaint to your MP as the way your daughter has been treated is absolutely outrageous.

[Guest]

Re: Difference of opinion between Unison and ACAS

Justace
I'm afraid that what I posted at #36 is completely wrong.
I have no excuse. I'm very sorry to have misled you.

In constructive dismissal at least part of the reason for your resignation must be a fundamental breach by your employer.
The time limit for submitting a constructive dismissal claim is 3 months less 1 day from the effective date of termination (and adjusting for the ACAS EC period).
See ERA96 s. 95 1(c), s.111 2(a) & s.97 1(a) below.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/95
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/111
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/97

In most cases, when there has been one fundamental breach by the employer, the employee must resign immediately or very soon after that breach.
Otherwise the employee will be deemed to have waived the breach by the continuing to work there as normal after the breach happened; so they won't be able to claim constructive dismissal later on because that didn't resign in response to that breach.

However, it's different if there are a series of breaches culminating in a final straw breach shortly after which the employee resigns.
All the previous breaches can be added to the final straw and if the combination of all the breaches add up to a fundamental breach they'd have a constructive dismissal claim that way.

I wonder how much detail was in the outline provided to the solicitor.
You've mentioned several potential breaches along the way.
I expect that discoveries made when working through the evidence pack could well be the last straw. e.g. the investigator's helpful statement that the complaint was upheld.
She resigned a couple of weeks after and she wasn't continuing to work as normal during those weeks.

This information is invaluable.

Someone who, at 01.34 in the morning, took time to explain all this to a total stranger has gone "above and beyond..." I am so grateful.

Thank you.

- - - Updated - - -

I think there is a massive conflict of interest with the crime at your daughter's home and this linked to her employment as gross miss conduct. The two things are just not connected and cannot be connected and if they were it would be an abuse of employer powers. For a start, what happens at home is of no relevance to the 'Employment Rights Act.' Your daughter simply has the right to a private life and without it is a human rights' violation. Her personal life being affected by a genuine crime affects criminal law not employment law. It is simply outrageous and this PSI needs to have a disciplinary their self. In my view, your daughter's job as a police caller has absolutely nothing to do with her conduct when she is assaulted at home. This in my view is automatically unfair dismissal, ie constructive dismissal, and by that your daughter should have every right to leave her employment and claim automatic unfair dismissal. The police are part of government that is the Executive part of Government, under David Cameron's administration. The courts are another part of the government as well as the legislator ie Parliament. In my view, the Executive is abusing its powers in a free and democratic country. I would not stop your complaint, I would make a complaint to your MP as the way your daughter has been treated is absolutely outrageous.

It's good to know that I'm not the only one who feels that what happened is outrageous.

I thank you all for the support, advice and kindness you have shown towards me.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Difference of opinion between Unison and ACAS

This information is invaluable.

Someone who, at 01.34 in the morning, took time to explain all this to a total stranger has gone "above and beyond..." I am so grateful.

Thank you.

- - - Updated - - -



It's good to know that I'm not the only one who feels that what happened is outrageous.

I thank you all for the support, advice and kindness you have shown towards me.

Am not posting these things as a lay person....i have studied qualifying law degree level subjects which include public law, ie human rights, police law; and criminal law. The Union solicitor in addition to the Union collectively cannot say there is no case to answer, as this would be denying you justice under Union laws, including Access to Justice Act. In my view it's simply a human rights breach, ie deprivation of a right to a fair hearing or being treated in a derisory manner as per European Convention of Human Rights' Articles as incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998, by an employer/ the police as a public authority, who is also part of the state's substantive power, ie under the Executive's (leader of government) control. The solicitor works for the Union therefore you need to make a complaint about the Union and or the solicitor to perhaps a senior partner in Thompsons if the solicitor is the problem. The Union has its own constitution, its rules which much be followed, which will includes rules for investigating employee complaints.