Jump to content

SweetLorraine

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    402
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by SweetLorraine

  1. Hi dempseydog, it may help clarify things for you if you were to find out the legal structure of your organisation, i.e. (a community interest company, CIC, a company limited by guarantee, CLG [which it might be given the terminology you have used], or a charitable incorporated organisation, CIO, [these are fairly new legal forms]). In theory not-for-profit organisations are there to help their beneficiaries/service users, not for the directors to help themselves. A social enterprise which is in the legal form of a CLG is run by directors and it should be regulated by Companies House. If a CLG is also a registered charity then the CLG will also be regulated by the Charity Commission. You could check out the Charity Commission website to see if your organisation (a) a registered charity and (b) has supplied a copy their annual accounts (which can be viewed online on the Charity Commission website). http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/find-charities/ I'm not sure what you actually seeking to resolve. If it is the back-pay issue you could possibly refer that to the regulatory bodies - but you need to be reasonably sure you have the right information before going down that route. If it is the present work load/conditions it seems a good idea to sign up with a union who will be able to advise you.
  2. I'm afraid the ET process has many shifting sands and there are many factors, other than the strength/weakness of your claim, that can improve/decrease your chances of success - such as whether you have legal representation or not, how good is the legal reps on either side.... what mood the judge is in that day, and so on. I sat in on a hearing where a unrepresented claimant was claiming unfair/constructive dismissal through bullying etc; and had left the firm after taking a compulsory redundancy package. The firm's voluntary redundancy scheme had an employee simply leave; the compulsory redundancy scheme gave the employee the same redundancy amount - but the employee had to go on a redeployment list for three months to see if he/she could be found a job elsewhere within the organisation. Now you might imagine that because the employee left through compulsory redundancy rather than voluntary redundancy that that was a (debating) point in his favour? However, because the claimant had been on the redeployment list the judge decided that that was an indication that the employee wanted to stay with the firm - not leave it, so how could the claimant subsequently claim that he had been forced to leave? An (uneven) circular argument then took place as the claimant politely/repeatedly insisted he had been forced/bullied to leave (through the redundancy process) and the judge repeatedly (and with increasing anger it seemed to me) challenged the claimant's desire/need to leave because he had been on a redeployment list. The claim was struck out. I left with my head spinning at the 'logic' of the judge - Lord knows what the claimant made of it all, he got steamrollered by the judge on that particular (seemingly insignificant) point. If you do go see a legal rep. ask them about the vagaries of the ET process while you are there. I can assure you though, the last thing an ET process offers a claimant (successful or not) is peace of mind.
  3. Do you want to stay or go? - if you take VR, you're gone - move on. It may be 'attractive' to think you might be able to nuance and tease a claim, of sorts, against your employer - you won't manage it. Search this site to see how those with reasonable claims have been turned over. Sorry to be a bit direct, tough love I guess, but I'm trying to save you lots of time and stress. If you want peace of mind though, please pay to see a legal rep. for an hour. Money well spent at such an early stage (really can be). Good luck for the future.
  4. Good luck at the hearing tomorrow claireloupul. One way or another it should bring things to a conclusion.
  5. Hi abeke22, all those meetings must be a slog. If it doesn't go well tomorrow there is always the EAT if you have valid grounds of appeal. If not, I hope you can shake the dust from your sandals and move on. I took a fair time to recover from my time in the Tribunal process - I put a lot of trust in the service and, on reflection, the worrying and the stress wasn't worth the effort given the Tribunal's day to day performance. Do try to seek out some free legal advice if you do go on. Good luck.
  6. Well good luck tomorrow abeke22, let us know how it works out. It sounds so cosy they may even have the Judge's leaving party before they start the hearing!
  7. Hi abeke22, when I had my claim a lot of my protests about Respondent's behaviour fell on deaf ears at the Tribunal. They too had discussions with the Judge in my absence and when I asked to be informed of the contents of those meetings I was told it was none of my business! Eight meetings so far? That is a right long innings so far isn't it? It might be worth seeking out some legal advice on the merits of your case to date. What was decided at the PHR? (Can you say?) As for the job reference moment - well, many legal reps may appear fairly regularly at the same Tribunal offices in front of the same judges. A 'club' atmosphere may prevail.... and you are the stranger in that club. (Mind you with eight meetings and counting, abeke22 it won't be long before you too may be entitled to ask for a job reference as well!)
  8. Good advice from both smokejumper and Derwent, particularly that these aren't reasonable people, you have already made them well aware of your emotional and financial position after all. Perhaps they are now seeking to exploit your vulnerability. If you can't afford £1k claireloupul, then that option is not open to you. Perhaps you can still explore this one step at a time. Email them and politely ask them to send you a copy of their schedule of costs straight away. If one has been drafted they should let you see it. If they don't you can always draw attention to that unreasonable behaviour at the hearing. By the way Friday emails are a common practice in this line of work - the idea being that they leave you unsettled over the week-end with little/no access to your own (professional) support. Don't worry unduly - that may be what they want you to do.
  9. When I had conversations with "the other side's" legal reps I found it rather one-sided and I found that they would later deny things they had said and twist/clip things I had said to fit their own agenda. (I wish I had recorded those conversations). Of course you end up having to address these half-truths rather than putting across your own points. One of their favourite tricks was to state 'we have here in our notes' before trotting out some nonsense that I would not have said/agreed to beforehand. Bad memories. I would prefer an email exchange - they can stick a 'WP' on it surely? Whatever media you choose I would also say when dealing with legal reps that brevity is important. If you meander around a point of discussion they can pick up on it and take you for a spin down a wrong turning.
  10. Hi SM, is that 3 months from the date of your resignation or 3 months from the act which caused your resignation? Once you have stripped away all the irrelevant stories about other employees and customers do you have a story of your own that demonstrates you have a legal claim?
  11. Good, if you can afford legal representation that should see you through the vagaries of the process.
  12. Hmmm, charming people! If you have resigned and now left I would hope you see that as a positive move on your part. Was there a specific incident that prompted your resignation (you don't have to detail it at all) - if there was such a 'turning point' when did that act happen (approximately) and how long afterwards did you resign? I assume you have not submitted a claim to the Tribunal service yet? [i'm just checking timing issues].
  13. Hi again SM, From your initial post are we to understand that you have engaged in targeting BME employees for redundancy because of their ethnicity and that you have been extremely insulting to women (employees/customers)?
  14. Hi, you say the company is less than two years old - how long have you worked for this organization?
  15. Hi claireloupul, so it looks as though the hearing on the 25th is on. If the respondent is now quoting totals it is perhaps reasonable to assume they now have drafted a costs schedule. If they have drafted such a schedule it would be reasonable to expect them to send you a copy in advance of the hearing. A failure to send you a copy in advance is not reasonable behaviour on their part. Worth flagging up at the hearing itself perhaps? (comments welcome).
  16. Hi, I'II just use the quote option to 'bump up' these latest little queries for other caggers to consider again. Just to clarify again claireloupul - when did the respondent warn that they might apply for costs (was after the first hearing date and before the second hearing date?) and when did you first hear that the figure would be £3k?
  17. Hi again claireloupul, well it could be resolution of sorts by Thursday then. If you do have to go forward to a hearing then hopefully we can improve your chances of a successful hearing with some of the ongoing questions and answers in the thread.
  18. I don't know if they are required to provide the schedule before the hearing )but how else could you be afforded time to inspect/challenge the aggregated total figure?) Perhaps this is another point that other caggers could please clarify? Also there has been some advice along the lines that respondents can either apply for the cost of external legal advice, or internal legal time spent preparing for the hearing, but not both sets of costs. It might be worth knowing for the hearing which rule/procedure sets out that distinction - could other caggers advise please? Your hearing is on Friday 25th isn't it? How are you shaping up - feeling OK?
  19. Thanks for the clarification becky2585 and steampowered. Hi claireloupul - have the respondent's sent you their schedule of costs yet?
  20. Hmmm, I'm only aware of some actions you could consider, I'm not a legal professional by any stretch of the imagination. You could ring around and pay for an hour or two of advice from a legal professional (if they could fit you in at such short notice). You could write/email to the Tribunal asap asking for a postponement detailing why you are requesting it (which may be refused so close to the hearing - but you never know). You could turn up to the hearing and proceed in spite of these bundle issues. You could turn up to the hearing and raise your concerns with the Tribunal Panel before the hearing begins. You could turn up to the hearing and ask the Panel for a short adjournment to study any new documents before the hearing begins. You could even withdraw and risk a costs application. That could be costly. These are a few options you might consider.
  21. Could I ask for some advice just here? 'Without prejudice, save for costs' - a phrase that is often used - but what does it mean in layperson's terms please? What are the benefits and implications of using this phrase? 'Without prejudice....' - One side (using this phrase) can make an offer, or send some correspondence and the other side cannot use it's contents against their opponent in a hearing/court? '....save for costs' - ???
  22. ....another thought (seeking advice from those with a legal background really), the Respondent's apparently 'warned' claireloupul about a costs application before the second hearing, yet did not supply the claimant with any information on figures etc; before the hearing. Surely that cannot be considered reasonable behaviour (i.e. a valid warning) if the figures have not been supplied beforehand?
  23. Hi claireloupul, it might be worth establishing whether your hearing will be heard under the old rules or the new rules especially if the new rules give the Respondent a little more chance of success. (I'd imagine it might be under the 'old' rules - but the Respondent's might try it on with the new rules if it gives them a competitive edge). With regards the bundle - do you and the Respondent have to agree one for this hearing or can you submit your own bundle? (I don't know).
  24. Hi indistress, sorry to read you lost your job. To your credit you faced the reality of it head on from the moment it all started to unravel and I hope you aren't out of work for too long. In an odd way I hope you feel positive about the open way you discussed things with your mangers at work and, if needed that 'positivity' might carry over if you have to explain things to your family. We all make mistakes, blind choices and on occasion, just wing it, and hope things pan out OK. Most of the time they do - sometimes they don't; this is one of those occasions when it didn't. In the long term though it might be a turning point that sends you in off in an even better direction! Good luck.
×
×
  • Create New...