Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Redundancy Question


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2355 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

 

Again posting on behalf of a family member, I will give you a break down of facts and what has happened to try and stick to the point.

 

 

  • Partners Sister was employed by a Railway Museum 4 years ago as a curator
  • She has asperger's syndrome so can be difficult in some social situations
  • Within the 3rd year she though everyone had a problem with her (how true this was we don't know.)
  • Within the 3rd year there was a problem with one volunteer that had overstepped his duties (cleaned her office without permission) that caused everything to flair up and he was asked to leave.
  • Things then broke down at work and she was put on sick leave with pay being diagnosed with depression, this was for about 3-4 Months.
  • In the meantime meetings had been held with her present asking for her to come back on reduced duties and less working hours (two eight hour days a week from 40 flexable hours over 7 days,) all this was agreed and was in place for about 2 months.
  • She didn't always go in when she was asked and called in sick saying she couldn't deal with the public (but then would go to steam punk events with friends.)
  • After some time she was bought into a meeting to discuss what had been going on and it turns out they have made her redundent as they are phasing out her job role.
  • She has been given a week to decide if she will accept what they have offered her (3 months of full pay approx £5k) or does she want it to go to a tribunal.

About two years ago they had another worker that was in a similar boat, she was off sick all the time due to mental illness and they ended up firing her and it went to a tribunal as they did it all wrong and paid her off in the region of £40k, so I now assume they have done everything correctly and above board, but her Dad is trying to find if they have done anything wrong that they can try and use in a tribunal.

Looking at ACAS it looks like they have acted correctly, fairly and legally but he doesn't want to just take their websites word for it and has asked me to put this post up.

So with the above information do you think she has a case for unfair dismissal etc or is there anything she should do / ask from her employer ?

Sorry if something doesn't sound right etc as it's being relayed from her Dad to me at the moment if there is anything you need me to ask her directly I am seeing her Sunday for her Birthday.

Thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also from my point of view I think she may play on the fact she has Asperger's because when something doesn't suite her she will have a break down and as soon as you step down she is back to normal, but then if the same situation that she broke down over then bettered her say a week later she will be absolutly fine with it.

 

An example is this steam punk event, she will break down saying she can't do public transport to get into work or then deal with the public when they are open but then the next day go to a Steam Punk event and then get there of public transport and then spend a couple days with the public, this happened more than once.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the real question is whether the post is really redundant or are they offering her a package dressed up as redundancy to save going through a dismissal procedure. People who are ill, disabled etc can still be sacked for the usual reasons and you have made it clear she didnt keep to the phased return programme. Fom what you say if they have evidence of attending these events that fly in the face of what she is claiming at work then they are just being nice but also taking a realisitc look at the costs of dismissal and the possibility of a claim at an ET ( which if they follow procedure will most likely win). The obvious grounds for dismissal are capability but could be gross misconduct if they are holding information about her external activities.

What would I suggest? In this case take the offer, they will have to provide a reference that reflects the manner of her departure and this will be a damned sight more positive than the one she would get if she decides to decline the offer. They could also withdraw the severance package and go for compulsory redundancy which will see her with a months salary at best. The risk of going to a tribunal on the basis of comparison with someone else's dismissal is not a good strategy. As you say, they arent going to get it wrong twice. Likewise if the role is redundant then again she will lose and may well end up with a costs order if her claim is reckless, frivolous or malicious.

She must understand something though, she is not staying in that job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the real question is whether the post is really redundant or are they offering her a package dressed up as redundancy to save going through a dismissal procedure. People who are ill, disabled etc can still be sacked for the usual reasons and you have made it clear she didnt keep to the phased return programme. Fom what you say if they have evidence of attending these events that fly in the face of what she is claiming at work then they are just being nice but also taking a realisitc look at the costs of dismissal and the possibility of a claim at an ET ( which if they follow procedure will most likely win). The obvious grounds for dismissal are capability but could be gross misconduct if they are holding information about her external activities.

What would I suggest? In this case take the offer, they will have to provide a reference that reflects the manner of her departure and this will be a damned sight more positive than the one she would get if she decides to decline the offer. They could also withdraw the severance package and go for compulsory redundancy which will see her with a months salary at best. The risk of going to a tribunal on the basis of comparison with someone else's dismissal is not a good strategy. As you say, they arent going to get it wrong twice. Likewise if the role is redundant then again she will lose and may well end up with a costs order if her claim is reckless, frivolous or malicious.

She must understand something though, she is not staying in that job.

 

Being a small Museum I imagine they are phasing out the role so they don't have to do through the full dismissal procedure and will add the responsibilities to either one of the other paid staff or among some of the longer term volunteers.

 

I don't know if they have any evidence of her external activities but it is known by family and friends and it could of made it's way into the railway.

 

I have said from the beginning to take the offer as they are actually offering her more than she is entitled to according to ACAS but her Dad wants to see if they can go any further with it (that is just how he is.)

 

They both know that no matter what happens she won't be returning that has been made clear.

 

I will relay this information over to her and her Dad and see what they have to say, thanks for your input.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the real question is whether the post is really redundant or are they offering her a package dressed up as redundancy to save going through a dismissal procedure. People who are ill, disabled etc can still be sacked for the usual reasons and you have made it clear she didnt keep to the phased return programme. Fom what you say if they have evidence of attending these events that fly in the face of what she is claiming at work then they are just being nice but also taking a realisitc look at the costs of dismissal and the possibility of a claim at an ET ( which if they follow procedure will most likely win). The obvious grounds for dismissal are capability but could be gross misconduct if they are holding information about her external activities.

What would I suggest? In this case take the offer, they will have to provide a reference that reflects the manner of her departure and this will be a damned sight more positive than the one she would get if she decides to decline the offer. They could also withdraw the severance package and go for compulsory redundancy which will see her with a months salary at best. The risk of going to a tribunal on the basis of comparison with someone else's dismissal is not a good strategy. As you say, they arent going to get it wrong twice. Likewise if the role is redundant then again she will lose and may well end up with a costs order if her claim is reckless, frivolous or malicious.

She must understand something though, she is not staying in that job.

 

I agree with this. The fact is that her father is being ridiculous. Even if this isn't a true redundancy, she has brought this on herself. Her behaviour, disability included, will not reflect well on her in a reference or a tribunal. Assuming she is not going to melt down in a tribunal - if getting her office cleaned causes a problem, she had no idea what a tribunal will do to get! Sometimes it is worth recalling that saying about gift horses. She isn't being dismissed. I'd say that's a plus!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the redundancy involves less than a dozen people they have to do very little in the way of consultation, proof of redundancy offering new posts etc, just give the correct notice and say that the job as a stand alone no longer exists for financial technological or operational reasons. They require no real proof the work doesnt exist, they just have to say it has changed and incorporated into someone else's job and that is that.

 

As for her external activities all it needs is for her to appear in someone else's social media postings and she is stuffed. Doesnt matter she didnt put the pictures into the public domain. On that point even so called private posts in closed groups are public as far as the law goes.

 

Try and dissuade her dad from getting involved unless he is happy to stump up the £125k that the ET can order against her if it seems to them to be a malicious, reckless etc claim. A tribunal is not a bonus feature on a gambling machine.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

As for her external activities all it needs is for her to appear in someone else's social media postings and she is stuffed. Doesnt matter she didnt put the pictures into the public domain. On that point even so called private posts in closed groups are public as far as the law goes.

 

The OP's description of the family friend and the job role would make it fairly easy to identify her by the employer. There can't be too many small museums where a curator with asperger's is being made redundant.

 

A £5,000 offer is very reasonable for four years of employment in my opinion, and I'd take it like a shot in a similar position.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey all,

 

Thanks for the replies, I have spoken to her Dad and he is now taking a step back and leaving her to deal with it but her partner is now pushing to do something :/

 

He says that he has spoken to ACAS and apparently (again this has come from him and not me speaking directly to them myself.);

 

 

  • They can't just call her into a meeting to make her redundant and have to give her a notice period (they actually did give her a week to decide if she accepts or not and I assumed this would of counted as a notice period)
  • They have to offer her another job within the company before letting her go (I don't get this part because how do you offer a job to someone if there isn't one, I thought that is what the point in redundancy was.)

The only reason I am posting about this is to try and persuade them to not push any further as it could end up costing them money they don't have to get nothing out of it, as stated before this Museum had to pay of an ex worker £40K, they aren't going to get it wrong a second time. If it was me I would have shaken their hands, thanked them and just taken the £5k and gone elsewhere as it obviously wasn't going to work out any longer.

 

 

Anyway, thanks for the help and I will pass the information on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

by calling her into a meeting they ARE giving notice. As the tersm offered are better than stat redundancy it would be called severence at this stage and that offer can be withdrawn if she doesnt accept and then they go down the formal minimum route instead.

They dont have to offer another job if their isnt a suitable vacancy, they are not cutting 12 jobs down to 10 posts and it hasnt been made clear why the post is redundant, if financial then there never will be another vacancy

Link to post
Share on other sites

by calling her into a meeting they ARE giving notice. As the tersm offered are better than stat redundancy it would be called severence at this stage and that offer can be withdrawn if she doesnt accept and then they go down the formal minimum route instead.

They dont have to offer another job if their isnt a suitable vacancy, they are not cutting 12 jobs down to 10 posts

 

This is what I have told them (apart from the severance bit as I wasn't aware of that.) There are no other vacancies at the Museum that she would be qualified to do and they aren't going to be creating one.

 

it hasnt been made clear why the post is redundant, if financial then there never will be another vacancy

 

On paper the redundancy is due to the role existing in reality it is to get rid of her as she isn't benefiting the company anymore due to not meeting their expectations / her contract obligations.

 

Thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

not a problem, that means it is for operational reasons, one of the 3 groups of reasons.

It would be good if you can persuade the people involved to take a look at this thread, Sangie is a FTO for a union, my union rep days are in the past but we lay reps seem to spnd a lot of the time in the 1990's-2000's managing organisational change rather than the more traditional industrial relations problems of pay and conditions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

not a problem, that means it is for operational reasons, one of the 3 groups of reasons.

It would be good if you can persuade the people involved to take a look at this thread, Sangie is a FTO for a union, my union rep days are in the past but we lay reps seem to spnd a lot of the time in the 1990's-2000's managing organisational change rather than the more traditional industrial relations problems of pay and conditions.

 

I have passed all the details and information on and told them it's not in their interest to pursue it and left it up to them. At the end of the day I can't stop them as it is their problem but I can at least advise. Thanks again for the help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

 

Again posting on behalf of a family member, I will give you a break down of facts and what has happened to try and stick to the point.

 

 

  • Partners Sister was employed by a Railway Museum 4 years ago as a curator
  • She has asperger's syndrome so can be difficult in some social situations
  • Within the 3rd year she though everyone had a problem with her (how true this was we don't know.)
  • Within the 3rd year there was a problem with one volunteer that had overstepped his duties (cleaned her office without permission) that caused everything to flair up and he was asked to leave.
  • Things then broke down at work and she was put on sick leave with pay being diagnosed with depression, this was for about 3-4 Months.
  • In the meantime meetings had been held with her present asking for her to come back on reduced duties and less working hours (two eight hour days a week from 40 flexable hours over 7 days,) all this was agreed and was in place for about 2 months.
  • She didn't always go in when she was asked and called in sick saying she couldn't deal with the public (but then would go to steam punk events with friends.)
  • After some time she was bought into a meeting to discuss what had been going on and it turns out they have made her redundent as they are phasing out her job role.
  • She has been given a week to decide if she will accept what they have offered her (3 months of full pay approx £5k) or does she want it to go to a tribunal.

About two years ago they had another worker that was in a similar boat, she was off sick all the time due to mental illness and they ended up firing her and it went to a tribunal as they did it all wrong and paid her off in the region of £40k, so I now assume they have done everything correctly and above board, but her Dad is trying to find if they have done anything wrong that they can try and use in a tribunal.

Looking at ACAS it looks like they have acted correctly, fairly and legally but he doesn't want to just take their websites word for it and has asked me to put this post up.

So with the above information do you think she has a case for unfair dismissal etc or is there anything she should do / ask from her employer ?

Sorry if something doesn't sound right etc as it's being relayed from her Dad to me at the moment if there is anything you need me to ask her directly I am seeing her Sunday for her Birthday.

Thanks in advance

 

Apologies as it seems that I'm hijacking this thread:sorry:

 

But do Tribunals still award this kind of amount (40k)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies as it seems that I'm hijacking this thread:sorry:

 

But do Tribunals still award this kind of amount (40k)?

 

Occassionally in discrimination cases, which have no cap; but you're talking really obvious systemic discriminaton

Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, awards of this size are not unusual. The cap for unfair dismissal is £80,541. However, the majority of claims are for less that this. That is because tribunal compensatory awards are linked to income, and do not compensate for more than 1 years loss of income. Few people earn £80k a year! And many don't have a year out of work either. Most tribunal claims are lower value - employers who dismiss higher paid workers are usually too clever to make mistakes; or settle when caught out. The lack of higher awards is actually a result of the demographics of employment tribunals rather than a reflection of the awards amounts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...