Using Audio Recordings

[roddyn66]

I have a cliam into the ET.

 

I have a PHR with the usual things from the other side: Weak case no chance of winning, seeking deposit, Seeking costs, Time dis-barr

 

The time dis-barr has been checked many times by the ET, ACAS, Union and all agree it's fine.

 

My question is regaurding evidence at the ET.

 

At my initial compliant i had no represetative, and had problems with the minutes as they were skewed to the companies favour.

 

At my Grievance i had a union rep

 

At the outcome my rep walked out as i had taken legal advice re the ET and he could not represent me any longer, the minutes were agaian skewed and missing large tracts.

 

At the appeal i took in a tape recorder (concealed) and taped everything.

 

There are very important parts that are missing from thier minutes.

 

Can i use the audio evidence in the Et to show the disparity between the offical record and the actual event even though i did not have permission to do so.

[Conniff]

You can make a transcript of the recording and present that and let it be known there is a recording.

[elpulpo]

Aye, I agree with Conniff, make a transcription. It's far easier for someone to cast their eyes over a document than to concentrate on an audio recording of a converstaion, possibly between more than 2 people. It probably makes more sense to you, simply as you will recognise who's speaking, where as to an ET it might just seem like gobbledygook.

Make sure it's accurate though.

 

Several years ago, I took a recording of a disciplinary hearing to a solicitor, with a view to making a claim at the ET.

Initially, she was very dismissive, and didn't want to even listen to it.

Once I'd transcribed it, so I could clearly point out that it included my former employer making some pretty damning admissions (as well as being downright abusive towards me), she changed her mind.

 

There seems to be a great deal of ambiguity as to whether recordings are admissable or not - seemingly ET's are fairly relaxed about evidence though, so you might be OK.

I'd say the more a respondant objects to the use of such evidence, the more relevant and incriminating it probably is.

[Uncertain]

As I understand it an ET appeal (chaired by a High Court Judge) has ruled that such secret tape recordings of meetings CAN be used at an ET but not any part that of the tape was made when the former employee was out of the room. I think the case invloved a school teacher so sould be quite easy to turn up on Google.

 

I think this follows from the the fact that is is not illegal to tape record (even secretly) a conversation that you are party to. Obviously when you are out of the room (perhaps while they are considering their decision) you are not party to the conversation so it would amount to "bugging".

 

Do rememeber though a natural response to a secret recording it to suggest that, as only you know the recording was being made, you had the advantage of manipulating the meeting to sound the way you wanted.

[madari]

Do not under any circumstances tell them that you taped the interview.[make a transcript by all means]

This action [tape recording]could be considered as a breach of trust and confidence.

 

I suggest you read the case of: Aziz v Trinity street taxis 1988

 

Good luck

[GuidoT]

You will have some difficulty producing a transcript and then saying that you did not record it. I would not recommend this course of action.

 

There is a lot of misinformation regarding the admissibility of recorded evidence.

 

I work on the basis of use it. Then the other side may need to be careful objecting to such as it shows they may have something to conceal.

[madari]

As I understand it an ET appeal (chaired by a High Court Judge) has ruled that such secret tape recordings of meetings CAN be used at an ET but not any part that of the tape was made when the former employee was out of the room. I think the case invloved a school teacher so sould be quite easy to turn up on Google.

 

I think this follows from the the fact that is is not illegal to tape record (even secretly) a conversation that you are party to. Obviously when you are out of the room (perhaps while they are considering their decision) you are not party to the conversation so it would amount to "bugging".

 

Do rememeber though a natural response to a secret recording it to suggest that, as only you know the recording was being made, you had the advantage of manipulating the meeting to sound the way you wanted.

 

You are referring to the case of: Chairman and Governors of Amwell view school v Mrs Dogherty........I suggest you google this case.

[monkeychicken]

Do not under any circumstances tell them that you taped the interview.[make a transcript by all means]

This action [tape recording]could be considered as a breach of trust and confidence.

 

I suggest you read the case of: Aziz v Trinity street taxis 1988

 

Good luck

Madari

 

I dont think its as clear cut as this. The Aziz case involved taping everyday goings on at the workplace. The employer could not trust Aziz not to make recordings of everything that went on, every day. Employers do not take minutes every day.

 

The issue at hand is an appeal, minutes (taken by R) of which the OP wanted to check for accuracy. Remember, someone minuting it does from notes and memory, OP has a right to ensure issues are not missed by taking their own notes, recording they could argue is similar to notes, given there was no Union rep, and taking notes would have disrupted the flow. The reason for not telling them is because OP did not want recording to affect how the proceedings were carried out.

 

OP recorded the appeal as an aid memoire (I don't know about you, but I tend to forget everything after a minute, so I simply record meetings just to enable me to check minutes for accuracy).

 

OP entirely trusts R and has total confidence. It his own memory that he does not trust.

 

An ET will almost certainly allow the recording - do a transcript.

 

Also if R tries to dismiss OP on the basis of loss of trust and confidence, it is most likely that OP will win a victimisation case.

[Flossrock]

As I understand it an ET appeal (chaired by a High Court Judge) has ruled that such secret tape recordings of meetings CAN be used at an ET but not any part that of the tape was made when the former employee was out of the room. I think the case invloved a school teacher so sould be quite easy to turn up on Google.

 

I think this follows from the the fact that is is not illegal to tape record (even secretly) a conversation that you are party to. Obviously when you are out of the room (perhaps while they are considering their decision) you are not party to the conversation so it would amount to "bugging".

 

Do rememeber though a natural response to a secret recording it to suggest that, as only you know the recording was being made, you had the advantage of manipulating the meeting to sound the way you wanted.

 

 

I would be very grateful if you could tell me the source that says it is not illegal to record (even secretly ) a conversation that you are party to. I have a very nasty appeal coming up against my employer and recorded what was said to me by my manager about how much my employer disliked me and wanted me to fail my performance management.

What I have recorded could help my case tremendously if I can use it with confidence.

[papasmurf1cx]

I agree with make a transcript and present it as your notes. You have nothing to lose by using a transcript. You could of course just transcribe the bits that are absent / relevant to show they manipulated the evidence.

 

Another thing you can do is ask for an electronic copy of their notes WITH the electronic history of the document to show where amendments deletions were made. If you are saying they deleted items in their document and you can prove what was actually said that would open another can of worms???

 

The employer will do everything to avoid disclosure though!!!!

[SarEl]

I would be very grateful if you could tell me the source that says it is not illegal to record (even secretly ) a conversation that you are party to. I have a very nasty appeal coming up against my employer and recorded what was said to me by my manager about how much my employer disliked me and wanted me to fail my performance management.

What I have recorded could help my case tremendously if I can use it with confidence.

 

It is not illegal to record a conversation which you are party to covertly - but it is unlawful (slightly different) to then disclose that recording (including a transcript) to a third party. It is, amongst other things, a breach of Human Rights, possibly RIPA (depending on the circumstances) and other possible legislation. However the legal situation is not clear cut because there have been cases where courts have accepted such evidence in limited circumstances, and these are the cases from which the application of the law (as quoted in posts above) derives. They are specific and meant oly to be applied to the same types of circumstances. However, some of the "lower courts" -including tribunals and county courts may choose to accept such evidence in transcript form. They have no legal basis to do so, which means that they automatically open up any judgement based on such a recording to appeal. The reason why this rarely happens is because most people do not bother to appeal as it is costly - hence the lack of lots of case law to clarify this point! So the answer is that it will be down to the decision of the judges whether they will accept it or not - and if they do and find in your favour, then it will be down to the employer to choose whether to challenge it. It is an entirely unsatisfactory position - and one which we lawyers deplore - because there are enough uncertainties around the law, without having more of them! And whilst I doubt anyone will feel sorry for us (yes, I have heard all the jokes about bus loads of lawyers going over cliffs!) it makes our lives very hard. Our professional standards require us to refuse to represent someone who has, to our knowldege, obtained evidence by unlawful means - and as soon as someone gives us the recording we are the third party that makes it unlawful! And sometimes that evidence is crucial to a case. So we end up in a delicate dance of "do we refuse to represent someone who actuallly has a case?" / "can we prove it without this evidence - or obtain the same evidence but without the covert recording?" / "do we take a risk of being reported and potentially struck off" Obviously, someone pressing their own claim doesn't have these concerns, as the worst that can happen is that you loose. But the law has not yet caught up with technology - although some employers (a very few) have. The decent ones record hearings and share the tapes (damned difficult to argue with a tape!) with the permission of both sides. The other ones insert clauses in policy or contracts stating that any covery recording of anything on their premises is gross misconduct - in which case you are scerwed because your evidence may prove one thing and leave you open to fair dismissal for the other!

[Flossrock]

phew - I think I understand - thank you SarEL. How about if I describe what was said to me by this person, (who will most likely deny it as it would probably lead to him being sacked) at my appeal, and state that I am prepared to use a recording of him admitting having said it as evidence should my case get as far as a tribunal? ( This is what I actually have recorded, me referencing what he said to me at the previous meeting in some detail, and him saying 'yes, I did say that').

[SarEl]

The employer at appeal can accept anything they like. Cases against people for doing this type of recording are very rare - all I can do is say that there is a risk and it is up to your whether you take that risk or not. But the strategy for the appeal sounds reasonable. And you know that there is a chance that this recording or a transcript will not be accepted by a tribunal. The rest is in the laps of the gods.