Tweet
Why does an employment tribunal give more weight to employer speculation than it does to employee first hand knowledge?
I worked 8 years for a company in a management role. I knew their policies and procedures inside out. The business was then taken over by a new company and I was sacked after 4 months for not following procedures. The new company did not introduce new policies and procedures so it was assumed by all staff that we were working to the existing ones. At tribunal the new company said what their policies and procedures were, admitted they had not told staff what they were, but stated they believed staff should have known what they were because their policies and procedures were the same as the previous company's. The thing is their policies and procedures were not the same as the previous company's. Their belief that they were the same was not based on first hand knowledge, it was not based on hearsay as they had not asked anyone about the previous company's policies and procedures, it was simply based on how they do things which to me is pure speculation. When it came to tribunal, I stated what the policies and procedures were of the previous company as I worked for them and had first hand knowledge of them. They were clearly different to the ones stated by new company but the judge took their speculation over my first hand knowledge in regard to the previous company. The judge said it wasn't the actual policies and procedures of the previous company that must be considered, it was the new company's belief of what those policies were that must be considered. The judge said their belief was reasonable. I cant see how their belief was reasonable when they didn't ask anyone about the policies and procedures of the previous company.
I believe I have good reason to appeal the decision but want a second opinion before starting down that road. Thanks
I worked 8 years for a company in a management role. I knew their policies and procedures inside out. The business was then taken over by a new company and I was sacked after 4 months for not following procedures. The new company did not introduce new policies and procedures so it was assumed by all staff that we were working to the existing ones. At tribunal the new company said what their policies and procedures were, admitted they had not told staff what they were, but stated they believed staff should have known what they were because their policies and procedures were the same as the previous company's. The thing is their policies and procedures were not the same as the previous company's. Their belief that they were the same was not based on first hand knowledge, it was not based on hearsay as they had not asked anyone about the previous company's policies and procedures, it was simply based on how they do things which to me is pure speculation. When it came to tribunal, I stated what the policies and procedures were of the previous company as I worked for them and had first hand knowledge of them. They were clearly different to the ones stated by new company but the judge took their speculation over my first hand knowledge in regard to the previous company. The judge said it wasn't the actual policies and procedures of the previous company that must be considered, it was the new company's belief of what those policies were that must be considered. The judge said their belief was reasonable. I cant see how their belief was reasonable when they didn't ask anyone about the policies and procedures of the previous company.
I believe I have good reason to appeal the decision but want a second opinion before starting down that road. Thanks
Comment