Jump to content

becky2585

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    2,445
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

becky2585 last won the day on November 25 2015

becky2585 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,754 Excellent

About becky2585

  • Rank
    Classic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I instructed a barrister on one of my cases that knew the judges well, as my barrister was a part time judge. It made no difference whatsoever. A working relationship of sorts is insufficient to show legal bias, and the EAT greatly dislikes any such allegation, particularly from a litigant in person. LIPs tend to argue bias any time that they lose, and almost never does it hold any merit. IME, it would be pointless to try to make such an argument and as a LIP it's seriously unlikely that they would be able to formulate a legal bias case for the EAT - lawyers would even struggle to do so.
  2. Yes - type all of your grievances on the same letter.
  3. Theoretically they should have a grievance procedure, but if they believe you're a worker or self employed then it won't apply. But I'd do it anyway, just to protect your legal position. Ordinarily you would raise it with your line manager in the first instance - but if it's a one man band, you can only raise it with him. At this point it's not really about getting it resolved, as he is so far ignorant of employment law that he probably won't even understand the legal implication of receiving a grievance. The point is that you'll have contemporaneous evidence of threatened detriments
  4. That's horrendous behaviour. You need to raise a grievance, in writing, which complains about ALL of the above threats. You're protected against detriment or dismissal in the circumstances and you're potentially being subjected to both! It's incredibly important to write it all down now so that you have evidence for the ET. And do it before he sacks you! Have a read of this article. https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/problems-at-work/employment-tribunals-from-29-july-2013/making-an-employment-tribunal-claim-is-it-worth-it/detriment-claims/employment-tribunals-legal-tests-that-app
  5. It sounds like a terribly sad situation. Your wife's employer isn't exactly going above and beyond, but they can legitimately refuse the leave so they aren't doing anything wrong either. Ordinarily I'd suggest a grievance, but it's highly unlikely to conclude before the suggested leave date anyway. Your wife could get signed off sick, if she has an ongoing legitimate illness. Her employer would need at least a degree or evidence to dispute that absence, and IMO it would be difficult for them to dismiss her given that a) she has a pre existing stress related illness and b) her current
  6. Yes it's a rather complex situation. Have you got a written contract with them? (If not, you're not a zero hours worker anyway). It's possible that you work 52 weeks a year even though your contract is only 39 weeks for continuity purposes, but it depends whether the job you're doing is treated as such. You'd have to check with an employment lawyer for a definitive answer. As SW says though, the starting position is 5.6 weeks/28 days leave per year, which would be pro ratad to take into account the proportional weekly hours you work and the proportional 39/52 weeks. Holiday usually accru
  7. Both employees AND workers are entitled to holiday pay. I would suggest that you write a formal letter asserting your right to holiday pay for the entire history of your employment. If you have a record of hours worked, you could work it out yourself. If not, they'll have to disclose it as part of Employment Tribunal proceedings. My understanding is that if you're prevented from taking holiday by your employer then the law currently states you can claim any back paid holiday pay regardless of the statutory 15 months back stop... but I'm no longer practicing law so I could be talking
  8. It looks to me that the company have applied the statutory reasoning almost perfectly. Nobody would take the role on for one day per week and there is nobody to cover the role in a Friday. They can't fill the role internally. That implies that the statutory reason of an inability to recruit additional staff applies. If they did recruit for one day per week, it would result in additional costs. If they did, it would be likely to be on a consultancy fee at increased cost to the company, so their reasoning is correct. The are not purporting to shoehorn your salary into a statutor
  9. Oh sorry - I cross posted. Loaded the thread this morning and came back a little late I see Communication between a lawyer and their client is legally privileged so they are right - you have no right to see it. However, if no such communication ever existed then they would have to confirm that to comply with the DSAR - they may also have to confirm that such communication DOES exist, but is legally privileged (it's the content of the communication that is privileged, not the fact that it happened).
  10. I'm a bit rusty on this I'll admit, but legal privilege has a VERY narrow scope indeed and applies only to qualified lawyers (the definition of which has a wider scope). However, it does NOT apply to trade union officers, in house lawyers, consultants, etc. What might apply is litigation privilege which has a wider scope. Basically, if any document or communication is produced primarily because litigation is ongoing, or even contemplated, then it doesn't have to be produced under a DSAR. Unfortunately, you'd have to see the document in question to know definitively whether it is cove
  11. Echoing the above. Defamation claims are very difficult and you could only be awarded £1 at the end of it!
  12. The section relates only to employment status for the purpose of making a protected disclosure (I think, without reviewing the whole section!) So in this case, it's to determine if you were engaged by either company as a worker for the purpose of a claim. It therefore sounds as though it relates to the degree of control they had over you and which of the two dictated when and how you worked. That's how I interpret the word substantial in this context, although I haven't come across this issue in practice. There's probably no question over the fact that one of them was your "empl
  13. Agree with SW. The law on holiday pay hasn't changed - zero hours workers have always been entitled to paid holidays.
  14. Agree that it's wise to understand basic employment rights before engaging an employee. I disagree that 3 weeks pay is required. The statutory minimum is one week. An employee can only claim compensation for a failure to provide a written statement of particulars on the back of another successful substantive claim, i.e. Unfair dismissal. The employee could theoretically decide to pay substantial tribunal fees to bring that claim without another claim on the back of it, but the ET has no jurisdiction to award compensation in those circumstances and could only award a declaration of ri
  15. Most employment contracts that have a medical examination clause have it so the person is examined as being fit to take up the position. Suddenly demadning such things on someone who has been there for a while isnt a fair clause in a contract. Sorry, but that simply isn't true! It's settled law that the onus is on the employer to seek medical evidence on an employees condition in sickness absence dismissal cases, which is why employers should reserve the right to request evidence in the contract (with supporting information being contained in the handbook as a PP helpfully suggested
×
×
  • Create New...