Have a read of section 2.8 here https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/support-services/advice/practice-notes/archive/holiday-entitlement/11-october-2011/#cc2.8 I would also check your contract terms, and call ACAS once you have done that . However, I think your employer is correct and any pay now would be a goodwill gesture.

thanks - sounds spot on that. Lost a couple of hundred pounds:sad:

I have worked as a temp for an agency that pays out for “holiday pay” where the holiday hasn’t been taken.

The problem is I wasn’t aware that I had to manually claim these payments during the year and that, according to them, they cannot be rolled over.

I worked for them in 2015 and 2016 (and this year) so I have in effect lost these payments as I have not adhered to their policy. (their policy is on their staff portal website and I think their contract, which I don’t recall ever seeing). I am annoyed as in the various numerous training I have had with them in terms of being compliant with their admin/paperwork as part of my duties they have never mentioned I had to claim these payments. In other words they have been very on the ball where it suits them.

Does anyone know if this is legal?

thanks

Does anyone know the story, I heard it somewhere a while back, that when the decision was made about who should have the new job of Governor of the Bank Of England, one of the interviewers said about Mark Carney that "he sounded like he knew what he was talking about", clearly admitting they didn't have a clue themselves what he was talking about. I thought that was interesting on a number of levels. I've googled it recently but can't find a darn thing supporting this so maybe its a myth I've just made up. If anyone on here has a reference to this I'd be grateful.

Are you serious Durkin? 13 years on you are still fighting? What were the circumstances? To be honest mine has been going on for a year already with room to a possible appeal, that is wild, 13 years. I sincerely wish you all the best!!

 

Any progress with you Beastman?

thought I would bump this thread.

 

Best regards

 

BB

No joy with it. The judge ignored the clear lies and when I asked him give some sort of response as to why he found Royal Mail to be more reliable when they lied and I didn't I got feck all back.

Still I suppose in ignoring my request I guess he was consistent. I do wonder why he even took the trouble to write to Royal Mail asking for their response to the lies.

lie detector tests should be employed at the hearings (a la Jeremy Kyle show) hahahaha.

 

Seriously though the system is clogged up, could help unblock the ET system and would solve lots of disputes quickly and efficiently?????

 

like that idea alot.

 

Re the lying in your case, potentially the judge will just say the issue has already been dealt with, I guess?

 

Regards

Don't know is that their BS way out of facing up to the bare faced lies nowadays - just letting it roll?

thanks for all the replies. I guess without getting an expensive solicitor involved theres no way back now. From whats been said here a review request is worthwhile but very unlikely to get me anywhere. Similarly I'm guessing without an solicitor an appeal isn't going to be successful.

Does anyone know if the tribunal has to address direct questions about the witness lying in my review request? I imagine they will just ignore it again or try and say its not a key element in the case. It's hard to see how they can do this when the witness was the main witness and his lying was a important issue in the case and they have claimed that their evidence was consistent.

Was your comparator less experienced than you?

Yes he had 6 months and I had 2 years experience. However the manager played his BS card on that as he made out several times that he was inexperienced as he had only done 2 months under his belt but of course on checking it was actually 6. In fairness though length of service in reality is not so important if the procedures, concerning cutting off the delivery were clear cut and well trained (obviously generally being a postman is not a technical job that requires lots of training!) and the opposite was the case and there was lots of evidence in the case supporting that. I did 2 years and never once saw the official Royal Mail procedure written down and there were lots of guidelines and procedures not followed by the company.

Can I just ask did you have any previous warnings/disiplinarys on your record before you were sacked for this issue.

Sorry should have said, no not a cracker a clean record.

Also I should add that the manager who I left the mail with let me go home without warning me I could be in trouble. Royal Mail have made out that I was experienced enough to know what I did was a serious offence, yet their manager (in fairness she was inexperienced but a manager all the same) admitted she didn't fully know the procedures. So its ok for a manager to not know the procedures!

I realise the tribunal is not a "fairness test" and its down to reasonable responses etc but I feel really stitched up.

There's no proof they're lying, it's probably an "interpretation" of the truth. How do you know for sure what they say is untruthful?

 

I would say a review is worthwhile, but it still has to be on prescribed grounds. For you, that could be "new evidence" or it being "in the interests of justice". You have 14 days to do this, so act quickly!

I was a postman and I was sacked for "wilful delay" as I did not complete my round. I brought a few bundles back to the office (after doing half an hour overtime) and found a manager and left the mail with them who arranged for the mail to be delivered that day. There were lots of surrounding issues that I won't bore you to death with but in the comparator case a postman around the same time as me at the same office failed to complete his round on a Saturday yet instead of bringing the mail back and reporting it to a manager he dumped it in the nearest red postal box (clearly just for the public to post their mail) and it wasn't discovered till the next Monday. In the evidence bundle the letter from the manager regarding his decision to not sack the other employee states:

""common sense should have told you that you should inform the office of these items which you could not deliver" and "I cannot accept that you did not realise that you were delaying this mail until Monday

In the tribunal the manager stated the member of staff called the office on the day to inform them that he had put the mail in the letterbox. He's told this lie in order to lessen the severity of what the employee had done but his own evidence clearly shows, at least I think its clear, that he was telling a bare faced lie. What that employee did was much more severe and a crucial element to my case is that I didn't telephone the office before heading back with the mail I didn't finish delivering, hence the manager's lie.

There are other surrounding issues concerning lack of proper training and procedures not followed by Royal Mail. The sickening thing is Royal Mail are guilty of deliberately delayed the mail on a daily, local and national basis but they use "wilful delay" as a tactic to get rid of staff when it suits them. They seem to be pretty much bulletproof in the way they can do this.

The tribunal decision letter states "there was not much to dispute on the evidence, and accordingly did not have much to decide issues of credibility or reliablity of the witnesses and parties. Where we did, we preferred on balance, the respondent's evidence which was consistent and well documented".

Bearing I mind I was up against a huge company with expensive solicitors, defending myself, up against what several manager's at Royal Mail who were clearly all going to be partial and consistent in the evidence presented to their side of things.

thanks again

The "lies" are unfortunately a finding of fact, whether the correct one or not. You could therefore request a review asking to include the evidence, but unless there was an error of law you won't be able to appeal, sadly.

thanks. Not quite the response I'd hoped for though! Just to be clear when you have said I could request a review to include the evidence, bearing in mind the lying was highlighted in my final summary and therefore has already been in evidence (albeit ignored) is this worthwhile? Is it likely that say perhaps they have overlooked this crucial point and maybe this could overturn the decision? (I suspect they have rushed out this judgement as it took 6 weeks for them to post it to me and I mithered them several times- I suspect they are understaffed!)

Also, surely shouldn't there some form of censure toward the employer for lying?

thanks alot

I am definitely going to ask for a review as the main witness, the manager who sacked me, told a complete lie about a similar case where a fellow worker was not sacked for doing the same thing. In the final submissions, which were done in writing, as the case couldn't be completed on the day, I made it clear to the tribunal where the manager had lied ( I stated clearly it was a is a complete fabrication and therefore a perjurious statement) and there is documented evidence to back this up so it is pretty darn clear that he has done so.

I am wondering why the tribunal judgement (fairly detailed at 18 pages) has not even mentioned the issue of perjury and they have simply ignored it. I assumed this was a serous offence and as he was a key witness for the employer's defence and he lied about a key comparator case, can any advise if there is a clear case for not only review but an appeal as well?

thanks alot

My wife was made bankrupt a couple of years ago and I was wondering if I opened a new joint bank account (just for expenses and bills really) would be a bad idea as far as my own credit rating is concerned. She has a basic current account with the Co-cop bank so I was thinking about opening the account with them.

Ant advice would be appreciated.