Jump to content

SweetLorraine

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    402
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by SweetLorraine

  1. Nice break Larrysmith, at least you know of its existence and have a copy of it; it must be quite uncomfortable for the other side to know you have it. Also a pleasant thought to assume that someone on the other side is now housing one hell of rocket, up where the sun doesn't shine because of this error. Nice to read that the employer makes mistakes as well. Quite cheered me up that.
  2. Hello again P4J, I can't imagine the immense toil a 20+ day hearing must have taken on you. Clearly it has had adverse effects on you during the ET hearing itself..... and then to have it finish in such a manner. Terrible. Can't you take some time out from this - and how would you feel if it all ended right now, today, as it stands. Furious? Disappointed?.... a bit relieved the nightmare is over.... just a little? I do worry for you. You have clearly had a long battle so far. You are really 'living it' which isn't a good thing I'm afraid. I looked back at one of your earlier posts which included the line "AB’s Black African racial group was wiped out in a purported redundancy exercise". Now I read there was no 'group' - it's was just you alone. Can't you see how such an emotive and misleading statement immediately detracts from the focus of your complaint and undermines your credibility? Blustering on about media campaigns and open letters on corruption in the Court of Appeal? How does that help your claim? Please try to get a grip because frankly, if you're going to behave like a teenager no-one is going to take you seriously and you are playing right into your opponent's hands. (Tough love time I'm afraid!). You may still have a valid complaint, but I can't see it through all the other sandstorms you are kicking up. If it helps you at all, in terms of your writing style, I find some of your replies a veritable tsunami of cases, quotes and arguments. Again, I guess you have been slogging away at it for so long and/or so intensely, it mustn't be easy to lay things out without qualifying them and pointing out what was said, how that was countered etc; but to any 'new readers' you are trying to engage it is all a bit too much, far too much maybe. You are currently pitching about in a sea of EATs. Court of Appeals, LawWorks, Barristers. I don't understand how you got there (and I'm not going to wade through pages and pages of a blog to find out I'm afraid). The language you use is far too emotive, hyped up and over-engineered to the point that it is (unintentionally?) misleading. To corrupt a recent slogan, you really need to calm down if you want to carry on. How about just bullet pointing the main points of your story so far. A short digest nothing more. Say around 200 words..... and no nonsense about bringing down the establishment OK? It might help you (and others) focus on the main strengths of your complaint and to see whether it still has legs. Hope that helps (even the bits that might cheese you off a little?)
  3. Hi P4J, well, I get the impression you were made redundant and you believe that that was a race discrimination job - in fact you believe that a whole group of your workmates got zapped because of your shared ethnic background. When I asked if you are doing this as a group, or is it about you, it didn't get a response from you. I suspect it is just yourself - which leads me to the obvious question, if you can't persuade your fellow ex-colleagues of the merits of this claim, how do you expect to persuade a Tribunal? I get the impression from other contributors that there have been several Tribunal hearings/missed already, some of which you have missed? That isn't good. You are also banging on about corruption in the Court of Appeal (hardly going to give you a fair wind), and a getting a media campaign (ain't gonna happen, I suspect you wouldn't even be able to clearly summarise your case down to a manageable size); and there are other contrary bangs and whistles in there as well. From the outside looking in, your rhetoric appears sweeping and unfocussed, yet dense and nitpicking. It lacks credibility though clearly you seem to know about case law. Knowing it and applying are two different things of course. The impression I have got from your posts so far is that you don't have a claim, but you may have locked yourself into the idea that you do. I really don't think you might be looking at this objectively. Until you can you may be trapped in a downward spiral of your own making. Sit back, think about it, it may all be over. Not the end of the World is it? Move on with your life, that's what the rest of us who have lost at Tribunal have to do. (To quote Ray Davies, 'life goes on, it happens every day'.) It is OK, you'll find another job. make new friends etc; check out what your other ex-colleagues are up too now. Some of them will have moved on I'm sure. Give it a go yourself. Please do. All the best.
  4. Hi mathieu, it reads like a [problem]. The cheque may never clear - it may have been your£200 they were after before you realised it was a trick. A variation on the [problem] of using someone as a money mule, and don't worry the police won't be knocking on your door at midnight. http://www.antifraudnews.com/money-mules-explained/ It might cheer you up to read some of the antics on this related website. Revenge is sweet,..... and hilarious. http://www.419eater.com/html/letters.htm
  5. Hello P4J, I haven't read all your posts on the other websites. As others have said, you appear to be on top of your game re: citing case law, but is that enough? I'm worried to read that you state that a whole African racial group was wiped out in a redundancy process. Really? That is very emotive language. You seem to be hanging a lot of your hope on an Impact report - that won't mean too much - I have been training courses to write gender/race impact reports - they are most window-dressing exercises by employers - that is how it felt to me anyway. You may be so wrapped up in this process now, and built up such a head of steam, that you cannot see that you may have reached the end of the line on this some time go..... and gone past it. You have fought the good fight, it may be time to walk away from it, there is no shame in that. I attended a lecture given by a leading human rights lawyer about six months ago. He is a well-known champion of the downtrodden in society. Many people were wreathed in smiles just to be in the same room as him. There was a Q&A session with him before lunch. Several questions in, for which he was applauded for his answers one person asked 'Everybody has a right to justice, can that right still be relied upon in this country' (there's one for the sixth form debating societies and BBC's Question Time). The human rights lawyer bluntly answered 'No. Not if you don't have the money to buy it'. Bit of a shock to the room (I think they expected a rousing speech) - but that is the reality of it, he said. Stunned silence. Maybe that is the awful reality of it all P4J, you seem to be trying to go to the Court of Appeal on the cheap.... that surely reduces further your minute chances of any sniff of success. You seem to have done your best. Time to move on perhaps? What are all your ex-colleagues doing now? Have they gone and got other jobs? Do they all feel they were wiped out in some sort of workplace genocide? Maybe not. Come to think about where are your ex-colleagues? Is this a collective claim or is it just about you?
  6. Hi becky2585, looking at the link grotesque posted (thanks for that grotesque) the court is referenced as CA (?). In fact under the summary it does have a couple of references.... Court: CA Date: 01-Jan-1984 Judges: May LJ References: [1984] IRLR 119, [1984] ICR 372 Cited By: Does that mean anything to your good self?
  7. Sound advice from smokejumper Nobbysnut. I'm afraid this happens quite often. The ET doesn't seem to clamp down on it - the attitude seems to be - well, forget the respondent's antics along the way, we are all here now (at the hearing) let's get on with it. Respondent's solicitors may seek to mess you around as much as they can in the processes that lead up to the hearing itself. It is meant to unsettle you and reduce your chances of success before you appear before the tribunal itself. Good luck with it.
  8. Hi reallymadwoman, I checked out the pdf and it isn't the case I was after. Never mind though, it is a useful site to trawl through. Ta.
  9. Hi maddiemay, looking at the advice the CAB has given you, all you may need to do is construct an email guided by the points you have listed. A short line or two for each point that needs it. As above Please explain the figures, please prove the loss with relevant supporting documents, reiterate that, as the employer is well aware, Susan couldn't work her notice, and include copy of the cert. that supports that fact. Short and sweet, as the CAB advised. A barrister once told me that brevity is everything when it comes to putting things in writing. The more you write the more you may limit your own ability to 'manoeuvre' at a later date. All the best.
  10. And normal service resumes.... Sorry, I give a hand, when I can, face-to-face, (word of mouth, ex-colleagues and all that) and I nip over to see Mugged if he is in town/library and needs someone to look over things. He had forgotten his password so I keyed in my bits..... the obvious oddity of it all only occurred to both of us when when we seen whose name came up! The look on his face etc; I did let people use my home pc if they needed free access to IT, but it spawned about three different user names coming off the same IP address frequently - which looks damned odd to the moderators! EATs are beyond my ken I'm afraid, as are the recent rule changes; which why he needs to access to your good selves. (I'm just so glad I never have to go through the process again). Apologies.
  11. Hello, could anyone post a url link to the (full?) written verdict/version of this important case. It is often summarised in textbooks but I can't find the actual judgement itself on the Internet thingie! Many Thanks in advance.
  12. OK bud1968, well I guess you are can just resign and work your notice period (or stay signed off). There is plenty of advice on the web here is one such website http://www.totaljobs.com/careers-advice/life-at-work/resigning. I'm sure one or two of the HR experienced contributors on here could walk you through the process. All the best for the future, maybe a fresh start after a break may be the best thing for you. Wishing you all the best for the future.
  13. Hi again bud1968, well, since October I guess you have had some time to size things up, and if you want to go that is your prerogative of course. I believe leaving your job while on sick leave is a possibility - one or two colleagues at my old workplace certainly resigned and left in that manner. Do you want to just leave/resign or are you looking for a severance package?
  14. I'm sorry to read about the terrible time you are having right now bud1968. I would hope your employers and GP are understanding and give you time and space, though the grieving process and its effects are individual to each of us. I was completely drained after my own mother's funeral - washed out. Personally I was glad to get back to work and it's banal moments; the photocopier getting clogged with paper, Old Rosie and her stories about what her cat got up to when she got home the previous night, the usual moaning about car-parking problems.... it just allowed me to hook back into a 'normal' existence and helped me steady my very emotional state at that time. But it is different for everybody. Could you afford to leave this job, without another job being lined up, and still pay the bills? If not you may be creating more stress for yourself at this very vulnerable time. How about asking your GP to signing you off for another couple of weeks - maybe things might be clearer then. Or you could ask your GP about signing you off on a phased return to work, perhaps two or three days for a month (or two) and see how you go from there? Most GPs would go for that I think. Wishing you all the best at this time; please remember that things will settle down eventually.
  15. http://www.external.ull.ac.uk/res/law/uk_caselaw.php Maybe? includes bailii. Sorry I can't help you with your other queries - maybe others on here can. All the best.
  16. Hi wiosna30, could I suggest you join a union, which you can do even though there may not be union representation in your work place. Think of some of the bigger union names, google a little and check out a few websites (can we recommend unions on this website?). You can get reasonably quick access to a union rep. familiar with workplace issues and they may be able to refer you to the union's own solicitors at no extra charge to yourself. I assume there is no rapid need to see one straight away - so have a look around for a union you think might best help. I can relate to your frustration of being incrementally put upon until you reach a point where you feel ground down. Heading to a solicitor for advise can be expensive,.... and fruitless. Maybe I can lay out a scenario for you.... You may pay for an initial meeting. It seems that you always get to see a partner of the firm, (always seems to be a partner) which will cost you around £150-£200 perhaps. You have paperwork? OK, the solicitor (naturally) is going to need time to work through those documents. Perhaps you will need to leave a deposit before they begin to look at the paperwork (say £500). They may need to see further documents relating to your job, and the time to consider everything. They will also need to see you again and talk through things; and with associated emails/phone calls etc; you may rack up another £500-£1,000 in fees. So what happens next? Nothing - you don't have any grounds for complaint. Or there could be a few issues. You may decide to ask the solicitor to write to your employer. (1) That will really cheese off your employer (2) you will also need to set aside a sizeable amount of money as your employer racks up your solicitor costs with exchanges of emails and phone calls - its a very old trick - it will cost your employer next to nothing to send an email, and you £30+ for each one sent by your solicitor. And even if you do gain a few concessions you will have seriously damaged your future relationship with your employer. A union rep. comes a lot cheaper. will be more familiar with how things work and won't upset the applecart.so much. Join a union. Even just that action may make you feel a little better about things straightaway. Go see a union rep. and talk things through. Even now, sit down and think through what do you want to achieve for yourself and your situation by bringing in an outsider? Is it more money, less duties, your employers to be more communicative and responsive, an apology? If you have a clear idea of what you want, the outside help can assist you more effectively - and tell you what expectations are achievable and what is unrealistic. Good luck and chin up!
  17. Hi muggedbyosmosis, I don't know how much EAT experience is on here amongst the contributors (I have none) and I'm not familiar with the new rules. The preliminary hearing may just be a fact-finding one before the main hearing? It may not though. Hopefully someone on here can offer more insight - sorry. You should seek out some legal advice perhaps? Good luck.
  18. Thanks mariefab, that is a large fall off in claims! SL
  19. At one place I worked at one of the top managers willingly left, quietly taking a huge redundancy package with him. He was replaced by someone with the same job title and the same duties. Of course there was never going to be a challenge from Mr. Moneybags who had left, but it shows perhaps that an organisation doesn't have to tweak a role too much to successfully claim that it is not the same job at all. They have given you redundancy, and offered you alternative employment as well, which you turned down - I don't think you would be getting much from a Tribunal decision if it did go in your favour. As for discrimination, how so? I think you may just need to put it behind you and move on I'm afraid. Sorry.
  20. Thanks for the valuable insights. I had a bad enough time when I went to Tribunal ages ago - Lord knows what would have happened nowadays?... Perhaps some people still hope to engage with the process and simply play it by ear. Not a good idea at all. Though the reading that I did beforehand did not prepare me for the shenanigans that took place. Ancient history to me now thankfully.. Maybe the charges help stop some people from becoming their own worst enemy, by stopping them beginning the process in the first place. It would be interesting to see the number of new claims since the introduction of the new changes/charges compared with the 'old' days!
  21. Hi, last week I went down with a friend to the local ET centre, she is considering an ET (but I don't think it is a strong claim) and she wanted to see a case in action. We dropped in on what seemed to be a PHR, and which appeared to be somewhat fractious. The claimant was unrepresented and, during the course of the time that we were there, complained more than once to the lone judge that (a) he, the claimant, had no idea that he was going to be attending such a formal hearing that day - he had come along with some notes/bullet-points and no bundle, rather than formalised legal arguments etc; backed up with examples (which the other side's solicitors had done!). The Tribunal had not informed him it was to be such a formal hearing, which left him wholly unprepared - especially lacking in supporting documentation for his notes. The judge had no sympathy for him. We left after half an hour or so, it was a bit of an eye-opener for my friend (not a bad thing I suppose!) Can anyone tell me if there is an onus on Tribunals to clearly inform unrepresented claimants what sort of meeting they are letting themselves in for before they turn up? It is not an unreasonable assumption for a new claimant to make - that all meetings, prior to the main hearing, will be somewhat more 'relaxed' (especially if they have already gone through a 'harmless' CMD). The guy we saw was clearly left floundering due to his ignorance. Should the judge have postponed the meeting perhaps?
  22. Hi et1978, on the upside you may have been spared the vagaries and anguish of the et process, it is not as 'user' friendly as you might imagine. As a non-legal person I have no idea about what you might do in a civil court. You may take some sort of satisfaction if the manager's sacking makes you feel vindicated. Perhaps its time to move on. How would you feel about that?
  23. The organisation is following an accepted routine. The consultation period is exactly that - a time to access restructuring, number of employees to go, whether that be by voluntary or compulsory redundancy, and who will go. Until that those sort of things are sorted out employees cannot be still given final dates etc; They are still being paid, and if the consultation was extended they would continue to be paid until their last day of service...... though job losses are regrettable, this aspect of it is hardly hell on earth! The real problems start once you are out of work - that is what they should be focussing on.
×
×
  • Create New...