Jump to content

Bellessima

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. Sorry i forgot. I was rather tired when it was all over and been busy looking for work At the end, the ET said the constructive dismissal is in the bag. What they were going to be deciding was the fairness of my employers actions. The problem with that is that the chairman seemed to believe the office managers lies and said her evidence hadnt been refuted, which I had......on day 1 before she even gave her evidence (she was claiming they offered me 28 hours - albeit on a temporary basis - nearly 2 weeks before they actually did offer them to me where in my own evidence i stated they HAD offered me 26 hours but that was dependent on 2 other employees taking voluntary redundancy and the hours they were offering were not in line with the working time regulations) but one of the other ET's seemed to pick up on that as they asked her why, if she had offered me the hours and i had rejected them, did she offer the exact same hours ago (obv wasnt same hours and i know that but i can only hope the ET know that). The ET did sort of tell them ( office manager and secretary of the committee) as they claimed they had 28 hours permanently available to offer me (I dont believe they did as the hours they claimed to be offering me vs the supposed cuts the other staff had volunteered didnt add up.....like they said one girl was giving up 2 hours every saturday, but the girl in question only worked 2 out of 4 saturdays and the 2 of the shifts they were supposedly offering belonged to 2 staff members that had NO reduction in hours and not the people who were supposedly offering to cut their hours) but yet 2 weeks passed and they didnt make me aware the hours would be permanent. My mum commented that the ET chairman was harder on me than he was on them. I said i wasnt sure of a date and said i thought it was around the xth, he practically jumped on me for it. He misunderstood what i was saying and took wrong notes and when i repeated what i had said, was basically calling me a liar because it didnt add up to what he had written down - even though my lawyer was pointing out that what i was saying as correct, she had notes that i had said the same thing twice and at least one of the ET panel judges was agreeing with her that i was telling the truth and that i hadnt changed my story. Yet my ex-employers were giving conflicting information all the time, getting dates wrong, trying to look through evidence bundles to find the answer they shouldve known off the top of their heads etc and were barely picked up on. I dont know, perhaps they took pity on them because they were utterly clueless. My mum thinks he didnt like me because I seemed to understand things and because when he asked a few questions, I worded my answer in a way that sort of contradicted his question but that gave the answer I wanted. I didnt do it on purpose though. I'm a very literal person. I cant remember exactly what he said but it was something along the lines of "so you did have a choice, you couldve worked the 14 hours they were offering". I said no, i didnt have a choice....if i had worked the 14 hours i wouldve been getting into debt as i wouldnt be able to afford my bills and none of my providers were willing to reduce my bills - even at 14 hours a week - unless i was unemployed. He said but it was a choice, just perhaps a less than ideal one. And although i conceded i could see where he was coming from and what he was saying, to me its still a non-choice. Any choice that was bad for your health or bad financially to the point that you're not just worse off, but worse off than what you would be unemployed is just a non-choice. Perhaps they thought it had been rehearsed because i was able to give answers off the top of my head and because i had a lawyer. Who knows. My lawyer didnt go over any of the documents with me. She did tell me what elements we needed for it to be regarded as constructive dismissal were but she didnt tell me what parts of my own circumstances satisfied those elements. I could work it out for myself. I'm not saying i'm smart - I have dumb moments like anyone does and i hate people who think they're smarter than others.....i dont think anyone is dumb i just think we're smart in different ways - but i feel if anything penalised by case, it was that i had a better understanding of the situation than my ex-employers. But my lawyer said I'm guaranteed 8-9 weeks pay for the breach of contract element (as they ET have said it is most certainly a constructive dismissal) and because they didnt provide me with a written contract. Max payout is 31 weeks. I know ET usually never give max payout and given the ET chairmans attitude towards me, i think i'll be lucky to get anything above the minimum they have to award. Dont get me wrong, any amount of money would be welcome right now but the main thing for me was that it was accepted as a constructive dismissal - as there can be no such dismissal without a repudiatory breach of contract (or so i've been informed). I've got the part thats important to me. The final decision wont be given for another 2 weeks or so yet. I think my ex-employers still have no clue what happened as they're going around telling everyone they won and i dont have a hope in hell. If they'd had one oz of common sense they wouldve agreed to settle as 8 weeks (4 for notice and 4 for redundancy) was all I had asked for from day 1 right up until the tribunal started. Especially knowing full well that I know all their "dirty little secrets". After all, i'm pretty sure defrauding HMRC/Inland Revenue would cost them a whole lot more than 8 weeks pay. At the moment i'm still trying very hard not to report them out of spite. I am not a vengeful person. I'm also aware that it would possibly do more harm to the people who were working on the side and not the company itself. However the other part of me thinks that its their own fault for breaking the law in the first place and that they all did it knowingly as they were claiming unemployment benefit at the same time. I know i shouldve reported it when i first became aware of it approx 2 years ago but what can i say, i knew if i did, i'd likely end up losing my job if the company closed. Thoughts anyone?
  2. They dont tell you on the day? :O If it appears i'm coping well it was because i kept telling myself after tomorrow, thats the end of it. I really hope i dont need to wait 2 weeks to find out But hey ho, i've been stressed out since March (at the beginning of this) and have had a constant headache for the past 2 months so 2 more weeks wont hurt i guess. On the bright side, i can get back to applying for jobs on thursday (by time i travel home from tribunal, offices are shut so havent been able to apply for a few jobs ive found). Being unemployed for 1 month is an absolute nightmare for me. 6 months? absolute hell. Been working full time since i was 16 with the biggest gap being 6 weeks! Didnt realise how bad the job market was when i walked but at the end of the day, that wouldnt have changed my mind. It went on long enough and after what the secretary did, it was just too much. Anyway, i must get to bed. As tomorrow is final day i'm back to worrying again (hence why i'm still awake now!). Thanks for your kind words/support/advice. I hope all goes well but I will update to let you know either or. Thanks again guys
  3. Definitely going to run onto day 3. They were lying again today. Not about everything, just a few things. I got told off for nitpicking. And while that wasnt my intention (office manager from ex-employer asked if we had a conversation on 16th march about xyz, i replied i did remember the conversation but it was the 17th it took place on), i do see how it could be understood as nitpicking. I guess i just take the "whole truth and nothing but the truth" perhaps a little too literally Although I had previously forgotten that conversation, her asking about it brought it back. She said i had told her i needed 28 hours for working tax credits. I stated no, I said 30. She said she was sure 28. I said i remember the conversation in question, initially she had said is it not 16 you need and i had said no, thats for people with children. Because i dont have kids, i need 30. Although i do remember that at that time, she said they could put me through for 30 hours even though i wouldnt be receiving 30 hours or paid for them so i could still claim working tax credits. Which would be fraud (and this was the reason i had declined at the time....stating i wasnt willing to commit fraud). She said in all her years as office manager, she had never done something like that and never would do something like that. To which i replied that she definitely did say that to me and she definitely has done things like that in the past as one employee in particular had actually been working illegally for at least a year prior to me starting with the company and was still claiming benefits for 6 months to a year after i started - at which time she became an official employee. She denied this (of course) saying she didnt know where i was getting my information from, to which i replied that she herself had told me this (and if anyone is going to know if an employee is paying tax/NI....it will be the office manager who is responsible - by her own admission - for wages. It irks me that people can sit and point blank lie. And while a part of me is worried the tribunal may believe them, another part of me also knows that ET panels/judges deal with this on a daily basis and i am sure that they can spot 99% of lies for exactly what they are. I mean you dont get to their position being stupid, do you? Still no closer to finding out about the actual "company" itself. My solicitor wants to be able to name the entity and also individuals if any award is given. Secretary of the Committee helped my case more than hindered it i think, although i'm sure that wasnt his intention as he didnt tell the whole truth. I'm not sure he really understood the significance of what he was saying, although the ET asking if he was sure several times should have been a huge hint. He was struggling with answers he really should have known and was leafing through both bundles (claimants and respondants) to try and find something which would help him answer. Lawyer tried to clarify something and chairman said he wasnt sure what good it would do as he had tried for 5 minutes to get an answer from the secretary and eventually gave up. At the end of day 1 (as i mentioned above) there was some doubt as to whether it should be heard as constructive dismissal due to the chairmans impression of employee's having to give notice of their resignation along with why (which my lawyer found had been overruled and was going to include this in her submission). That doubt no longer exists. The secretary said (when asked what was his understanding of me not being in the office when he went in) that it was obviously the end of the line, i'd had enough and wouldnt be coming back. Which he reinforced when asked why they hadnt contacted me to make sure there hadnt been an accident or death in the family etc, saying he didnt contact me as it was obvious i had already dismissed myself. He was also asked if 14 hours was the permanent option being offered to me, to which he replied yes (although they had previously tried to say the 28 hours they were offering was permanent and NOT temporary due to staff being on holiday/sick). He agreed on day 1 that i had made substantial efforts to secure employment elsewhere since leaving. He reinforced that when i called on 2nd April, i conveyed a sense of urgency....that i did say he would need to come to the office now and when he replied saying he'd drop by later, i did say no, you'll need to come right now. When asked what he thought of my demeanor/state at the time, he did say he could tell something was wrong with my voice (me trying not to burst into tears again - as much as i hate to admit it as i'm not an emotional person). ET Chairman concluded that it would be proceeding as a constructive unfair dismissal case and that my lawyer need not address unfair dismissal in her submission. He said the only issue is 984 (and although i didnt ask, i assume this to be the "reasonable" element of whether me resigning was fair in response to their breach) and that any evidence to be given by the office manager tomorrow is of marginal importance. He also said something (it took me by surprise so i may not have gotten it word for word) that because no written statement of particulars was given, something about 2 to 4 weeks pay. Then i think he asked my lawyer about the loss submission, to which she replied it was already in the documentation submitted. He then stated this wasnt a stand alone element but a inclusive one. Does that mean a reduction of possible award or increase of possible award? He asked for proceedings to start early tomorrow to ensure everything was covered in plenty time. They left. Then 5 or so mins later he returned and said to make it 10 and that he didnt think we would need additional time after all. I'm hoping thats a good sign. I dont want to count my chickens though. My main thing throughout this was that I "won" about it being a fundamental breach of contract. If i understood what was said today (i hope i did!), then i should get that at least. If i get anything awarded, its a bonus (a very much needed and welcome bonus but a bonus none the less). Like i said, i dont want to count my chickens of jinx it but imo, today went well for me and i hope tomorrow is the same.
  4. Well i know i was expecting them to lie, i wasnt expecting them to falsify documents though. Theyve made up letters dated 17th march to other employees stating their hours would be reduced as of 27th march. On the plus side, the wages calculations i have from 21st march (detailing pay due up to 11th april) shows no reduction in wages or hours to the people they claim were taking a reduction. They kind of got a telling off for not even know what kind of company they ran (their documentation said Ltd but they're not a limited company) and they didnt research into how tribunals work at all. They turned up thinking they'd be asked questions and thats it. Didnt realise they had to ask them too. My lawyer got told off for filing as a constructive dismissal as the chairman said employees have to tell their employer they're leaving and why. But after we left my lawyer checked precedents and found there was a case in 98 which had such a ruling but this ruling was then overruled by the high courts. I thought it was going badly by some things the chairman said but my lawyer assured me they cant be seen to taking one side during the process and that it doesnt necessarily reflect the outcome. She still thinks we've got a very good chance of winning, although did say she obviously cant guarantee it. So fingers crossed, i'm just about to leave to start on day 2. Lets hope it doesnt run to day 3
  5. I'm in scotland, not sure if that makes a difference to the Legal Aid. At first it as only granted advice and assistance.But lately has also been granted for representation.
  6. Thanks very much for help/advice you've given. I have been looking for work. Even before i walked out i started looking for alternative work. I was only signed off a month ago as I got my tribunal dates and thats when their childish behaviour started. It basically brought back all the stress, tension, anxiety etc i experienced while i was still in their employment. Also didnt help matters that the jobcentre is directly next to their main taxi rank =/ I do also have a audio recording I found earlier tonight that was taken 2 years previous when the previous committee tried to sack me on the spot for someone else's mistake. They didnt give me any warning, they were just waiting for me when i started my shift at 1am. I left after pointing out they didnt give me notice which deprived me of my right to have a witness present, that they were taking action against me for a mistake that was someone elses but no action against that person and that they had decided the outcome hours before. The neighbouring company (also a taxi firm) apparently heard the exchange (including me saying i'd be contacting a lawyer) and warned them they were in the wrong......9am that morning I received a phone call saying they had thought about it, werent dismissing me but were giving me a final written warning (no warnings prior to this). I replied saying i would contest that also and funnily enough......I never did receive that warning! I'm not sure thats entirely relevant though as it was a different committee - who then left the company a few weeks later. In fact the only connection is that one member of that committee, is the brother of 2 of the current committee. But i do fully agree reinstatement would be impossible. You cant work with/for people you dont trust. At least not if you expect to retain your sanity! I dont think i have to worry about questions i need to ask. I originally paid for a lawyer to act on my behalf while still employed - just purely to take some of the stress off myself. But I have had Legal Aid granted for representation. She deals with ET's all the time so she should know what she's doing. Guess it couldnt hurt to note down some points i feel are pivotal just in case.
  7. The date on which you were first informed officially that the job you had been doing for over 4 years was to end and was the date on which it was to end stated in that official notice? I received the first letter on shift 1st March. They originally said it would change on 27th March, then later (when i pointed out they hadnt given adequate notice but that i was rejecting their variation anyway) changed it to 3rd April The date it actually ended, your last shift on that specific shift? 2nd April. I didnt finish the shift. I ended up at the "enough is enough" stage after over a month of trying to reason with them, them stipulating they would communicate with me in writing only, only to break that stipulation themselves when the secretary tried to bully me into accepting the new shifts (telling me if i didnt, i would have no wage or hours as of that same night - 2nd April), and especially because I had tried for a month to get them to seek legal advice on the matter and they refused, saying they'd checked ACAS's website. Even after knowing CAB, ACAS and a lawyer had told me different, they were still sure they were right just from reading a website. To me, that just isnt reasonable behaviour for a employer. The date of your first shift covering for others? I didnt ever start their variation. Couldnt afford to lose the hours and my WTC.Plus starting any earlier would have been inside the "consultation" period so i was entitled to refuse. The date of your last shift at the firm? 2nd April The usual periods of notice at your firm? Statutory minimum. Were you told of any notice period that you had to work if you refused the alternative offers they made? No. The only option they were giving me was to work the new shifts. That was it. It wasnt "you either work the new hours or we'll have to dismiss you" it was just "you work the new hours or 0 hours". Did you receive any redundancy payment? Nope. I received payment for up until i left the office on the 2nd and payment for the holidays i had remaining from the previous year (our holidays ran from 1st april till 31st of march). I just wasnt sure if the tribunal would take into account that the 28 hours they were offering, was only temporary until 13th april and that they COULD NOT offer me those hours on a permanent basis as they belonged to other employees and that other employees had refused to give up ANY hours to provide me with more than 14 as they couldnt afford to lose any. I'm worried they're going to lie. They are the types to lie. At least one of the employees was working on the side. She was there a few years before me but wasnt "officially" there until well after i started. I also know the drivers (it was a taxi company i worked for), cheat on their tax returns. And that they regularly do things which would lose them their taxi license. Believe it or not, this is not about revenge for me, despite the fact several drivers have taken to making rude gestures whenever they see me and despite the fact the office manager discussed these events on her facebook page and the drivers were discussing it with customers. I want to draw a line under this and move on. But i also feel they at least owe me redundancy pay. I discussed with a friend the other night that i was worried about them lying. My friend told me to lie also. My reply was that i would rather tell the truth and lose because they lied, than lie myself and win. I'm in my 20's but what can i say, my parents raised me with morals LOL.
  8. So, this is a bit of a long story. Please bear with me. My employment tribunal is due to be heard 10th,11th and 12th of this month (next week) and needless to say, i'm worried and stressed out about it. I was working 35 hours on set days/shifts for 4 years with a company. End of Feb this year they unofficially told me they'd decided to close the office between midnight and 6am mon-fri mornings. This affected 21 hours of my shifts (with the remaining being 2am-8am on a saturday night and 6am-8am mon-thur mornings). They originally told me their ideal scenario was for 2 older employee's to accept voluntary redundancy and reschedule the shifts so they could keep me as i was better at the job. The reason they were doing this was "needs of the business" (translates to them saving money - not as a company but as individuals....the reduction in hours would equate to £5 a week each for them). The problems arose when those 2 members didnt want to take VR. I was then served with a letter stating they were changing my hours from 35 a week to 14. They didnt give adequate notice of the change either. So after contacting CAB and ACAS, i replied stating that they hadnt given me enough notice and that in any event, i was rejecting their proposde variation and if they imposed such a variation, it would be a fundamental breach of contract. Just to clarify, I had no written contract - what i was told means there is no possibility of a clause allowing them to vary my contract. Now heres where it gets slightly more complicated. I was in receipt of Working Tax Credits. If i dropped below 30 hours, i would lose my WTC. Two staff members were due to be off. One on holiday and the other on sick. They offered 28 hours on a temporary basis while those 2 were off. The hours were to start immediately and would last until 13th April (was about 4-5 weeks). After this, they would not be able to guarantee me anything other than the 14 hours detailed above. They offered this after a meeting in which we discussed redundancy and what the redundancy package would be (statutory minimum with a good reference). I said i would weigh up the options and get back to them. I was told I had until 10am that morning to make up my mind or i wouldnt be paid for the next 3 weeks - by the office manager. I was told this at 1am on the same day after making them aware my doctor had prescribed me temazepam because I was stressing out so much, i wasnt sleeping and when i was tired enough to sleep, i was too paranoid to go to sleep in case i slept in for my shift and it gave them a genuine reason to sack me. So when finishing my shift at 8am, i went home, did the necessary research. Wrote down all outgoings. Called all my providers and asked if there was any way to reduce my bills. Only one was willing to reduce my bills and ONLY if i was unemployed. Long story short, I'd be £5 a week better off working than unemployed and i'd spend more than that getting to and from work. So I called the office, let them know my decision and also put it in writing and sent it off recorded delivery. A few days later i'm told they were never offering redundancy and its not a redundancy situation. By this time on top of not sleeping, i'd had a headache for weeks. So i made an appointment with a lawyer who wrote to them telling them it was a redundancy situation, that they were in breach of contract and if they continued, we would commence legal proceedings. My lawyer also told me if anything else happened or if i felt i couldnt cope any longer, to walk out. I specifically asked (because our office is only manned by 1 person, 24 hours a day) if i would give them any kind of warning or let them know i was walking out and he said no. My lawyer had given them 7 days to reply. His letter was received by them 24th March. I also had a telephone conversation with the chairman. He said i was being unreasonable. I replied that they werent willing to pay £5 a week to keep me in a job yet they expected me to give up 60% of my hours and wage. I asked if he could afford to give up 60% of his wages. He replied he couldnt. I said well how can you expect me to afford it? I also made a complaint about being given the deadline when i was already under so much stress, i needed medicating. His response was that it was the office manager and nothing to do with him. He then later claimed he had no knowledge of this being said to me. But nor did he investigate it. After this conversation i received a letter stating they would now only discuss matters with me in writing. I arrived on shift on 2nd April to be told "oh we've got some shifts for you" in a manner that made it sound like they were doing me a favour. I replied i already have shifts, the ones i'm contracted for. The secretary of the company then came into the office and proceeded to try and bully me into accepting their alternative. He told me i had no choice, i wouldnt be able to work my normal shifts as the office would be locked and even if it wasnt, the calls would be getting diverted to a mobile so there would be no "job" for me to do. I asked if they'd received my lawyers letter. They had. I asked if they'd replied, they hadnt. I asked if they'd even checked with CAB, ACAS or a lawyer whether what they were doing was legal. His reply was they had read ACAS's website (but not spoken to anyone about it). I asked why there was no wages through for me for the next few weeks (i'd seen the wages calculations that the office manager had emailed to the treasurer), he couldnt answer. I asked why - if they were going ahead with the change and didnt want to lose me as they claimed - was someone else scheduled to work my new shifts. Again, no answer. He left when the phone rang and i answered it. Then it got quiet, phoned stopped ringing etc and i got more upset as i had time to think about what had been said. I started crying (and i HATE crying, i'm not an emotional individual and nor am i someone who gets stressed easily). I called my mum as my parents live round the corner from the office. She came round. I still couldnt calm down. My mum asked if i wanted to leave and i nodded. She said i should call them. I said what my lawyer had said. She said she still thought i should call them. So i called the committee member who was available, told him he'd need to come into the office right now. He said he'll pop by later and i said no, you'll need to come in now. He said ok, i'll be there in 2 minutes. So, not wanting to run into him (as he was the person who'd tried to bully me into accepting the shifts), i left the office. My lawyer has stated she doesnt think i'll struggle with unfair/constructive dismissal aspect of it. However she has made me aware that if the tribunal view the offer of 28 hours as reasonable - even though it was only temoprary......i may walk away with £0. Does anyone have any tribunal experience or knowledge to be able to tell me whether they will take into account the fact the hours were only temporary? I'm worried they'll either claim the 28 hours was permanent or that other employees will claim they were willing to give up shifts to give me more hours. The only thing i have to challenge the first would be a photocopy of the shift calendar showing that those 2 people were on holiday/sick. The only thing i have to challenge the 2nd is an account of events on a well known forum which was written at the time of it happening - prior to me walking out. In that post i state my suggestion to have the reduction in hours applied to all employees equally as a % so no one employee faces a substantial loss was rejected as other employees stated they couldnt afford to lose any hours. Must be nice for them to refuse a reduction of even 1 or 2 hours yet expect me to lose 21 hours! Anyway, would this be enough? Personal opinions on whether this would be reasonable to you are welcome also, but if you are commenting from a personal viewpoint with no experience/knowledge of tribunals, please specify. I'm already stressing out enough! Constant butterflies coupled with a constant headache is not a good thing, trust me
×
×
  • Create New...