Yes, but not (as far as I can remember) since my most recent promotion (bar after my accident).

Exact hours were allocated weekly, and mine did vary slightly, but I worked every week (unless specifically and otherwise agreed at my request - very rare). As for duties allocated for return - they were not but I was expected to return as I had done the year previously. Staff were unless you told them you were leaving for whatever reason. Positions I went through- 10th October 2009 - started employment as an assistant (entry-level position) in one part of the department Autumn 2009 - started working occasional shifts at the same level in another part of the department, while still working as the assistant (this was because jobs in the bit of the department which originally employed me had wildly fluctuating hours, so they employed me in this too to try and even it out a bit for me) Spring/Summer 2010 (I am waiting for people to get back to me to confirm more precise dates) - promoted to a supervisor in the second department I worked for. Continued working for the first department too. Autumn 2011 - my line manager left work, and I covered a lot of the work, clocking ridiculous working weeks like the one I've mentioned to make sure things ran properly. Autumn 2011 - new line manager started work December 2011 - promoted to senior supervisor April 8th - Accident (You know the rest) Sorry for the slightly confusing bit about bits of the department, but I'm aware this is a public forum and I don't want it finding it's way back to anyone. The easiest way to think of it is that if I worked in Tesco, then I started work in Groceries and got moved onto Clothing (doing shifts in both at times).

Not sure if it's relevant but I've worked up to 94.5 hour working weeks without signing out of the working time directive, if that is applicable.

Sick leave - accident was on the 8th May (not April, apologies). I was expected to work up until about the 22nd June but obviously could not so did not return to work until October (because it's shut over the school holiday). Dismissal - I consider myself to have been dismissed by the 3rd October 2011 (because we had used the tactics I have outlined that were used on me against others in the past as a way of getting rid of them without going through formal dismissal procedures - I have witnesses who experienced this). However, I returned to work (in what turned out to be a junior position) from which I resigned on the 16th December 2011. Lodgement of ET claim - 2nd January 2012. My grievance - that my line manager had tried to get rid of me without formally dismissing me (because he couldn't have done) and that when I raised this with senior management I was allowed to return but only on an unjustified and indefinite probationary period and in (what turned out to be) a junior position. That my line manager was motivated because less than a week before all of this first happened (being taken off the rota etc) I had confronted him about the theft, and told him that if it continued I would be reporting him to the chief executive. My grievance outcome - What I believe was a disciplinary was in fact a "performance review" and so didn't need to follow ACAS rules. That my till logon was wiped as an innocent mistake, and my email was "accidentally" missed off the list for communications (this is a mailing list and so things cannot be "accidentally" missed off - someone would have had to remove my name from the actual mailing list itself for me not to receive communications). That my allegations of theft against my line manager are being taken very seriously and have been investigated separately (it says nothing of the outcome, if there was one). That my "senior" position did not exist because I do not have a contract for this (no, but I've got an email to the other supervisors confirming my promotion, and my wage slips/timesheets should support me in this. Apparently, any additional wages had been "inadvertently" processed by the accounts department (rather than being on a separate pay rate I was paid supervisor rate + a set number of additional hours every week. I wrote these at the bottom of my time sheet with "Senior Supervisor" written in capitals next to it). It's impossible that these were processed by accident -my line manager enters the hours on a spreadsheet and accounts pick them up from a shared drive. I know because I used to do them myself before he started. How would he not have noticed?! Is the "protected disclosure" my line manager's theft? I'll look into those two phrases, thanks for the help so far!

What do you mean by unfair and unreasonable? I was asked a lot of questions, but ones where I raised things which make my former employer look bad do not appear to have been followed up. As for sick pay, I have not included this in my claim as I wasn't sure I was entitled to it (and didn't want to look like an idiot for making a stupid mistake like asking the ET for it if I wasn't). Can I add this on now? (I presume maybe not because it's a lot llonger than three months since they failed to pay it to me?)

a) October 2009 b) No, but they became more consistent as you are promoted up (i.e of the entry level staff, not all of them work every week. Of the supervisors, they work pretty much every week. As senior supervisor, I worked every week). Hours ranged from a handful when I first started (before any promotions) up to a peak of 94.5 in a week in the Autumn term of 2010. Autumn was the busiest time for us so we all clocked most of our hours for the year in that term - if I take the average (as per the ERA) of the last eight weeks I worked before my accident it gives me an average of 17. I worked far more than that most of the time, it's just that easter into summer is quieter for us. c) The contract I have is the one I mentioned, which was given to me when I first started in October 2009. It describes an entry-level job in a different part of the department to the one I finished on (two promotions later). d) No d? e) "A number of pre-agreed hours...usually on two days a week on a rota agreed with the XXXXX Manager" Re: Sick pay - no I did not receive it between April and October. Although we do not work over the summer holiday, so the question is I suppose did I receive sick pay between April and mid-June. The answer is still no. My contract says that "Entitlement to sick pay will be governed by the appropriate legislation as expanded by XXXX (Company name)"

It's a bit complicated I'm afraid Marie. See, although I worked every week I worked variable hours. I worked them up until April, when I had a car accident. I was due to return to work at the start of October (because I am only really employed during term time), which was when I found out I had been removed from the rota etc. I returned to work in I believe the middle of October (but worked far less hours than previously, was paid less and had less responsibility, even though this had never been mentioned), was informed verbally by my line manager in mid-November (when I questioned why I had not yet had a meeting to call an end to my one-month probationary period) that my probation was indefinite, and resigned in mid-December (and moved into another job immediately).

I found out my line manager had stolen from the company (which I can prove), threatened to report him and then all of this happened. I believe that was why he was motivated to try to get rid of me. I am claiming for the hours agreed at the start of the autumn which were then taken away from me (although as I'm technically zero hours I am not optimistic this will be successful) but the main component of my Schedule of Loss is the difference in wages between the job I had with them and my new job. Does that answer your question? I'm afraid I'm not very up on the legal terminology (but am off to start reading now as you've made me aware of a big gap in my knowledge that needs to be filled before the hearing!).

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what you mean by that...

Bigredbus, you're not being a pain at all! I appreciate having people here, it makes it feel less "me vs the world"! They did not terminate my contract, I just wasn't given any work. Although it's a zero hours contract I've been expected to work every week (and have done bar when I had a car accident a while back) and have clocked up to 94.5 hour working weeks for them. My old line manager gave me the advice once that "as long as you don't use the word fired, it's fine" (i.e you can do all but fire someone - not give them any shifts ever and have no intention of doing so, take them off the tills and the mailing lists, ignore them, as long as you don't use the word "fired"). As for anything in writing, they haven't issue me with a new contract, no. I have been promoted twice and my way has visibly increased both times (this is fairly easy to prove with payslips and timesheets). They have accepted that I was promoted once (although claim that this was several months later than it actually was) and, although they are now denying that my senior position even existed (!) I do have confirmation of this promotion in the form of an email sent by my line manager to the rest of the supervising team at the time of my promotion.

When I had my interview as part of their internal investigation, they seemed to be focusing on whether or not the words "fired" and "disciplinary" had ever been used explicitly. They tried to claim it had been "an informal performance review" (thus bypassing the need to follow ACAS rules), but neither myself nor any of the other staff at my level or below have ever had a "performance review" before. I personally do not think that I would have been taken back if I had not kicked up a fuss and written to senior management about it. I've seen it happen before where people are just let go in this way.

Thanks all. I was taken off the staff mailing list (which all of the rotas and communications are sent out weekly on), I had my log-on number on the till overwritten and given to a new member of staff, I had my shifts that had been agreed (I work variable hours) taken off me completely, staff were told not to communicate with me if I tried to contact them, and my line manager ignored my communications until I went in and found him in the building at work. It's a tactic that has been used at least twice in the past year (I'm lining up others who experienced it as witnesses), and which I was only aware of because I was in a senior supervisorial (sp?) position myself. It all gets complicated slightly by the fact that on paper I'm still on a zero hours contract from 2009 when I started, which is for a job two levels below where I resigned from (so it's fairly obvious that I wasn't working to that contract, I hope!).

Thanks for your help both. It's fairly complicated - I was effectively fired (removed from the staff mailing list, taken off the rotas, had my till ID overwritten etc), then returned to work when I raised this in writing with senior management (because I was aware of a couple of other people in the past year who had been let go using this method, rather than proper dismissal). I had a meeting with them, which they dispute was a disciplinary, but which mainly served to outline the complaints against me and put me on a probationary period. After I returned to work it became apparent I was operating in a junior role to previously. At the point when I was informed that the probationary period (which they claim was informal) was indefinite (although unfortunately I don't have this in writing) I resigned and moved into an even more junior and lower-paid job elsewhere (which, because I went straight into it, they claim I moved into freely, whereas actually I was just desperate to ensure I could cover rent etc). All in all a bit of a complex situation, and one which I'm still a bit unsure on. When I filled out the ET1 I crossed "unfair/constructive dismissal", but I'm hoping before the hearing to work out which of these applies in my case. Seems to me in the first instance it would be unfair dismissal, and the second would be constructive.

A Case Management Discussion? I haven't had one of those, what is it? All I've had from the Employment Tribunal is a letter through with a kind of timeline of events on it, which says when we have to do what (i.e when we have to give the other side documents, when we have to submit everything to the tribunal etc etc). Should I at least email him saying I strongly disagree with his findings?

Hello everyone, First time poster here but I hope some of you will be willing to help with some advice. I am taking my employer to tribunal for dismissal (the hearing is in April). At the same time I filed my claim they were conducting an internal investigation into the circumstances surrounding my leaving (I had to file when I did rather than wait for the results of their investigation because of the 3 month time limit). The results of the investigation were sent to me this week. It appears that, rather than an independent investigation, which was what I was promised, it was instead used as an evidence-gathering exercise for their side of the argument. I strongly disagree with some of the points made in their findings, and they did not follow up several important points I made which would have made them look bad. They also peddle a lie in their findings which I have documentary evidence is a lie. In about a week we have to send each other all the documents etc our case relies on anyway, as per the tribunal schedule. Should I reply to the investigating officer disputing his findings, and giving my evidence, repeating my points etc, or should I save this for the tribunal (i.e send them the particular document that disproves their lie and then wait and see if they make the connection before the hearing)? On the one hand I don't want to show all of my hand now, but at the same time the sooner they realise that I have a strong case then they sooner they may be willing to consider conciliation. Does anyone with a legal background or experience in this kind of thing have any advice? It would be gratefully received. Oh, and if it's relevant I am representing myself because my claim is fairly small (low four-figures) and I am not entitled to legal aid. Thanks!