Breakdown or victimisation?

[heisenberg]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

Hi

From what I can see (I'm no expert ), the Tribunal felt that B had no liability to disclose the protected act re her previous employer. She was not specifically asked about it by the new employer, & she remained silent about it.
The Tribunal decided she was within her rights to do so.

How does that compare with your situation?

I think they accused the Claimant of being dishonest by not disclosing the protected act. I think what happened there is that they were trying to use that as an excuse to sack the Claimant for being a potential litigant (victimisation). I don't think there are any substantial similarities apart from the fact that organisations will do what they think they can get away with in order to dispose of any potential threat to them as demonstrated in that case.

[charitynjw]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

I think they accused the Claimant of being dishonest by not disclosing the protected act. I think what happened there is that they were trying to use that as an excuse to sack the Claimant for being a potential litigant (victimisation). I don't think there are any substantial similarities apart from the fact that organisations will do what they think they can get away with in order to dispose of any potential threat to them as demonstrated in that case.

& you are perfectly entitled to your opinion.
But opinion isn't necessarily enough to win a legal argument.

[heisenberg]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

& you are perfectly entitled to your opinion.
But opinion isn't necessarily enough to win a legal argument.

Agreed. I am inclined to agree that a victimisation claim would not succeed (though express some uncertainty). That said, I am not a solicitor and am not intimately familiar with their code of practice.

I am trying to get some legal advice and once I get that I will post the upshot.