Jump to content

Gazza01

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    129
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Gazza01

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. mariefab/Emmzzi It is both of those things - they say they were acting under "established policies", which do not exist. And these policies were not appllied consistenty or fairly - considering the size of the organization they would have had to have been written down and their impact assessed. None of that happened here. No union agreement either. Cheers
  2. Emmzzi Employers operated and imposed policies and procedures on individuals - said policies caused persons from being able to gain promotion and helped sanctions to be imposed on various individuals. It has now come to light te policies/procedures used do not exist. Cheers
  3. Hiya All I have a very Basic Question concerning Policies/Procedures. If a Employer has acted under various policies and procedures [in a way that targetted/excluded individuals/groups] which turn out not to exist - how would that affect a potential employment tribunal case? How would you explain the non-existance to a Judge? I am sure there will be some in interesting replies so fire away people. Cheers
  4. As I pointed out HR useless - unsure myself plus with pay freeze no details - but its the reasons why I was marked down to the lowest marking which is why it is at the ET. This was just the final straw so to speak.
  5. Hiya Every year all staff get apprased on their performance over the previous year [an annual report basically]. Dependent on the marking which springs from that a person is elligible/or not for receiving a performance bonus.
  6. Hiya Becky2585 as I am so thick on this subject i will lay it out in as specific simple terms as I can: yearly pay appraisal, stopped [not mnded to detail on this open forum why] classed as illegal deduction of wages for 2010/2011 period. £250x1 yearly pay appraisal, stopped - classed as illegal deduction of wages for 2011/2012 period. i.e. a repeat of previous year £250x1 Total = £500 Then I would add in the rest of the Gross Pay normal amounts? not including bonus as do not know what it would have been due to pay freeze in effect at this organization. also s
  7. Hello all My issues were addressed at et last week and judge instructed I supply a schedule of loss. Now as it was 2 years deduction of wages [set at phr] I have no idea how to do that particular calculation. Could someone more knowledgable about that posssibly post up a small example a dunce like me can use? i.e. is just take two years past pay and lump together? or something else? I have not a clue... Much appreciated. All I will say is there have been some very odd things going on in the back ground around this case. One unusual thing is the direction to use a law c
  8. Hiya You might want to have a look at the following cases: Roberts v Barley http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2012/0271_11_2004.html Doyle v North West London Hospitals NHS Trust http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2012/0013_12_1403.html These are where costs orders were thrown out. If you PM me privately I'll point out the website that highlighted these for the legal position. Good Luck
  9. Good Evening All I have a question [well several actually] about costs orders. Who is responsible for admnistrating them. i.e. The Employment Tribunal or the Respondent? Who is supposed to comunicate to the plaintif the timing and how it is to be handled. The Employment Tribunal or the Respondent? Who is the payment to go to. The Employment Tribunal or the Respondent? What is considered the usual timeframe for the payment of a costs order? A Week/Two Weeks/A Month? [Full ET not due till end of November], leading to the question of who can set the payment timeframe. The
  10. Emmzzi Thanks. And I fully understand where you are coming from. The ex-head person, she said okay was able to attend for four weeks, then a decision comes in against one she was protecing and suddenly she is no longer available. Hmmmm. Regarding the Union, had no choice, could not afford the subscription while I am on the dole. And I had nothing to lose, they were going to come again with more made up stuff - so why stay and get sacked, maybe by something which they might be able to use to sway a ET with or go at a time of my choosing. I chose the later. Cheers everyone.
  11. Emmzzi No, as no longer working, could not afford to stay in union and going by past experience [have been consulted on staffing matters for others] union has been no help to anyone - in fact has been helping employer in various [local reps are okay] areas to keep things quite, plus impossible to get legal representation/advice [someone I know is still waiting for advice a year and a half later!!! Both Union rep and a solicitor we know say have very strong case]. Did approach a local solicitor who was said to deal with such matters, not interested due to the apparent award that might
  12. Hiya Emmzzi and thanks. I think you are right on the HSE part. Evidence wise I am struggling to fufil the directins so suspect it is going to be dropped. A bummer afer the way I've been treated but there you are. With regards to the markings - it comes down as I understand it did the employer act in a reasonable manner with the polocies/procedures. Clearly in my case it is documeted that polocies and procedure were twisted and hearsay used to justify actions. Where I [and I suspect the Judge at the CMD knew this, which is why she had it listed for a full hearing] have issues is the f
  13. >Hi > >So I think to summarise, you are claiming CD because the appraisal system was unfair to you reflected in > >a) you receiving higher ratings when it was anonymised and based on data alone correct >b) you being the only person of a specific ethnicity only myself and someone else's report were outstanding at the time this occured. I and that person are Non-white. All other persons reports [some not even going through process, but said to have been] done in March this year - my report dragged out to June. >c) other ethnicity related slurs
  14. Hiya all thanks for responding. I lay out a breif decription of the situation below: Issue was Benchmarking of staff - ie a star chamber of managers brought together to evaluate a individuals annual report done by the line manager and countersigning officer [individuals direct managers]. Policy/Procedures used consisted of single sheet. Policy/Procedures not linked to general reporting process or anything else for that matter. When made aware of change from being annouynous, I contacted Union to verify had been run by them - it had not. Email explanation was gibberish. In Fact during
  15. Evening All I have a question for the more knowlegable people: I have resigned and claimed constructive dissmissal - the reason has been onfirmed as the three individuals - including the racist one have been found guilty of the exact reason why I resigned so its case proved there methinks. I also claim racism due to the use of "not your place", and "not in our culture", and no one for the past 4 years [before, during and after the Greivance, and its Appeal], has been able to explain its use. Now someone who is acting as a go between to their Solcitors [not even sure if person as
×
×
  • Create New...