ET1 advice please

[Bignick58]

Hi all,

 

I'm preparing an ET1 for my wife who's been unfairly dismissed.

 

I've read a fair bit of stuff on the web, but not sure how much info to put on the form. There's a lot of things happened and I don't want it to end up as a long "witness statement".

 

I've started with a basic timeline of events and think I now need to put down the reasons I believe the investigation was flawed/biased, etc.

 

I'm worried that I might miss something vital out and be prevented from using it later.

 

Bottom line is how much detail should I put in?

 

 

Many thanks for any advice.

Nick.

[rebel11]

Hi Big

 

Welcome to CAG

 

The guys will advise as soon as they are available.

[honeybee13]

Hello and welcome to the forum. I see SarEl, our pet employment barrister, is back today. [Hi SarEl, nice to see you again. ]

 

She or someone else with knowledge in the field should be along later with some guidance. We'll do what we can to get you and your wife through this.

 

My best, HB

[SarEl]

You do not need to put much information at all. The ET is only interesed in what the basic outline of the claim is - so, for example, unfair dismissal rather than unlawful deduction. So a very basic description of what you say the employer has done wrong and key dates will be quite fine, and you do not need to go into all the details of who said what and when. So something along the lines of "I was dismissed on XX date. My employer failed to hold a disciplinary meeting / the employer claimed that I had done YYY but refused to provide any evidence to show that I had and I didn't do this" - literally it doesn't need to be more than a synopsis of the story!

[Bignick58]

Thanks SarEl,

 

I suspected it might be something along those lines.

 

It is more complicated than a straightforward unfair dismissal. there was a counter harassment allegation by wifey (upheld) against the staff member who initiated the disciplinary by telling lies.

Wifey's disciplinary investigation was "claimed" to have been be suspended during her Grievance investigation... it wasn't.

There is evidence of "cross investigation" between the two cases, but all evidence wasn't produced at her disciplinary, and on and on...

There's other stuff as well, far too much to go into here.

 

I just don't want to be barred from referring to other evidence, which the respondent may try to discount as irrelevant and nothing to do with the dismissal.

This is what the respondent did during wifey's disciplinary and appeal.

 

I am hoping that the tribunal will allow any evidence which WE consider relevant or linked.

 

So, basically, I make "allegations" in the ET1 and then "prove" what happened at the tribunal. (If it gets that far).

 

The written statement's gonna be a long one!

 

Kind Regards,

Nick.

[SarEl]

Yes, that is correct. Tribunals generally allow evidence provided it isn't entirely irrelevant, so I wouldn't worry about them not allowing it. But obviously the most important thing will be whether the dismissal was "fair" in law - if it was then no amount of allegations and counter-allegations will change that. The tribunal do not substitute their own opinion for that of the employer - they do not, in other words, re-hear the case (this is something people get confused about). They hear what happened and then decide whether the employer acted correctly in law.

[Bignick58]

Hi again,

 

Just another quickie...

Looking at previous events and timelines, I believe there is also evidence of my wife being victimised due to a grievance entered against a supervisor in 2009.

The only mentions of victimisation I can find on the web relate to being victimised due to raising discrimination grievances regarding race, age, disability, etc.

My wife doesn't fall into any of these "discrimination" categories.

Would a victimisation claim be allowed or valid, based simply on being victimised for pursuing a harassment claim?

 

If it would be a valid claim, would she have to have raised it previously with the respondent?

 

I've read this through after writing it and it looks like I'm grasping at straws.

I aren't.

I've spotted numerous "tenuous" things to pursue and discounted them.

 

I just keep reading through all the paperwork and keep getting more and more annoyed at the way these scumbags have treated my wife!

 

They've totally destroyed her confidence and she is starting to believe that it's just not worth trying to do "the right things" in life.

 

I am a very laid back pragmatic person normally and it isn't like me, but I just feel that I want to nail these B******S!

 

(So it's great to have a "subjective" view from the outside. Thanks for the help so far SarEL).

 

 

Thank you all again in advance,

Nick.

[SarEl]

It is a commonly held misconception that bullying/ victimisation is against the law. Except in relation to the "-ism's" (discrimination claims) it doesn't exist. There may be liability under other parts of the law - so, for example, injury or unfair dismissal etc. But it is unlawful tio victimise someone in the way that you describe per se.

[Bignick58]

Hi SarEl,

 

So an employment tribunal has no jurisdiction on this type of victimisation?

 

If not, I'll untick the "other" box on the ET1 and modify the claim...

 

Thanks,

Nick.

[SarEl]

Yes - the alleged victimisation is part of the evidence (you don't have to ignore what happened) of unfair dismissal - it is the "story" of what happened. But unless there was some form of unlawful discriomination you cannot claim victimisation

[Bignick58]

Thanks again for the superfast response SarEl,

 

I'll untick the "other" box the form, leave the rest as is and send it off this evening.

 

To top everything off, the wife's just been told that they're suspending her jobseekers allowance.

She explained the situation on the phone.

Very helpful guy has asked her to take in a letter of appeal / explanation and evidence of her tribunal claim to see if he can appeal the decision on her behalf.

 

 

It never rains...

 

Nick.

[greendollar]

Hi Bignick 58 ,

 

I take it your wifes JSA has been sanctioned as they deem she has made herself ' intentionally unemployed ' .

Same happened to me , I appealed explaining that an E/T claim was in process and that by sanctioning my JSA they were pre-judging the Employments Tribunals outcome , it worked for me and my JSA was reinstated and backdated .

[Bignick58]

Hi Dollar,

 

Thanks for the info.

Wifey says that the chappie on the phone seemed quite helpful and was volunteering to help with her appeal.

She's going in tomorrow arned with a copy of the ET1 form and a copy of an appeal letter already sent to them.

 

Thanks again for your interest.

 

I'll let you know...

when I know...

Well...

You know...

 

Nick.

 

btw. Did you win your ET?

[Tams]

Hi Bignick

 

It really annoys me when I hear of people being victimised for raising grievances. It's something that employees should receive protection from.

 

However, they are only protected if their grievance can also be considered to be a protected disclosure. It is possible to make a protected disclosure unknowingly. For example, if your wife stated that a supervisor's treatment was damaging her health, or that the supervisor ws acting unlawfully, then that could be considered a protected disclosure.

 

Good luck!

Edited January 5, 2011 by Tams
typo

[greendollar]

Still on going , claim accepted by E/T Service Nov 2008 .....next scheduled date late Feb

 

My ex-employers are a huge multi-national company and have stalled , threatened and lied for the last 2 and half years ...... I think they thought I'd have gone away by now .....THEY WERE WRONG

[Bignick58]

I think they thought I'd have gone away by now .....THEY WERE WRONG

 

Yes Dollar know what you mean. The wife was on suspension fro 6 months while a lot of shenanigans went on.

I think they expected her to walk away from everything.

She's a little bulldog and I'm a plodder.

 

We won't be going away very quickly either.

 

Best of luck.

 

Nick.

[Bignick58]

However, they are only protected if their grievance can also be considered to be a protected disclosure. It is possible to make a protected disclosure unknowingly. For example, if your wife stated that a supervisor's treatment was damaging her health, or that the supervisor ws acting unlawfully, then that could be considered a protected disclosure.

 

Hi Tams,

Sounds interesting, but I don't think that circumstances/timings would be in our favour.

 

During wifey's (eventually) upheld Grievance, it came out that the harrasing supervisor was making entries in some kind of log or diary.

These records were never seen by anyone other than supervisors and line manager!

Her entries were shown to be lies and were added to/modified at a later time.

Wifey has been told by management that this log has now been discontinued.

 

Wife has now raised a victimisation grievance against the HR manager and the supervisor involved.

(Company policy allow grievances from ex employeees).

The log is specifically mentioned in the grievance.

 

However, she is already dismissed and the ET1 form has now been sent.

I believe there are time limits to claim a protected disclosure.

And I reckon she would also still have to actually be employed to claim protection.

 

My mindset is rapidly changing about the way to go about things here.

I used to think "fairness" when doing things.

I see from other threads that the way to think is like employers... "use and manipulate the law any way you can!"

 

Learning quicky,

Nick.

[SarEl]

Be cautious about becoming too cynical - it won't help you present your case well, and no matter what people think, the law is not in fact that easily manipulated, by employers or employees. It isn't perfect, no - but how can anything created by people and dealing with people, be perfect? But many of the complaints and arguments with the law that I see on forums like this actually arise because people think that they know what the law says, and they don't. So when people say, for example, "It wasn't fair that I got sacked" - what they mean by "fair" is something entirely different from what the law defines as "fair". Lwayers understand the way the law works (or some do anyway!), and because most employers are represented by lawyers that gives them an advantage. Not an advantage in terms of knowing more, but an advantage in terms of knowing what arguments to make that stand up to legal scrutiny. With the best will in the world (and it is one of the reasons why self-representing claimants get some dregree of lattitude that lawyers do not), many claimants don't know what they are arguing and often argue the wrong things! I am sure that Greendollar will agree with me that one thing you have to do is stop thinking in "lay terms" and think like the law.

 

But I really would not recommend trying to overcomplicate your claim. The advice on protected disclosures is really over-complicating things. There is a nice amount of debate - mostly in the web - about whether bullying of this sort should be considered a protected disclosure, and there are even some fine "amateur" legal arguments around. But unfortunately few of these have been successfully argued in a court yet! The ability to meet the defined limitations of protected disclosures, including that they should be "in the public interest", has meant that the legislation does not lend itself easily to general application, and it could perhaps be argued that it should not be generally applied - it would be better, if we are to have laws on bullying / victimisation to make them specific and unequivocal rather than attempting to push round pegs in square holes.

 

However, the point here is to keep your claim and your argument as simple as possible and not get bogged down in attempting to throw in the kitchen sink, "write or speak legalese", be a court room drama (or a mystery thriller!) or anything else. These are the most common mistakes people make, and would be laughable if they weren't so tragic. Simple, straightforward stories with evidence to support them are always the best way, and I have seen plenty of examples of people who have thrown away what was probably a very good case because they ignored the obvious and tried to be too clever.

[Bignick58]

Again the subjective view...

 

Be cautious about becoming too cynical -

Can't help turning cynical, everything's so FRUSTRATING!

 

However, point taken...

 

(and it is one of the reasons why self-representing claimants get some dregree of lattitude that lawyers do not)

Good to know, I thought it was a myth that latitude was given to us "mere mortals".

 

stop thinking in "lay terms" and think like the law.

Gottit... Think LAW.

 

However, the point here is to keep your claim and your argument as simple as possible.

KISS (Keep it simple, stupid)... Will do.

 

 

Thanks again SarEl.

[greendollar]

Hi ,

 

Hope you don't mind Bignick but I'd like to ask SarEl a quick question about my claim . We are expecting my ex-employer to get in contact and make another offer to settle . Would it be prudent to contact them first informing them of my wish to settle rather than go through a costly Tribunal ? Would I be right in thinking the Tribunal would look more me favourably for trying to settle out of court ?

Any settlement offer will more than likely another derisory amount which I will decline anyway , I just want to been seen to have done everything possible to avoid a Tribunal . OR do I wait for my ex-employer to make the first move ?

[SarEl]

Hi ,

 

Hope you don't mind Bignick but I'd like to ask SarEl a quick question about my claim . We are expecting my ex-employer to get in contact and make another offer to settle . Would it be prudent to contact them first informing them of my wish to settle rather than go through a costly Tribunal ? Would I be right in thinking the Tribunal would look more me favourably for trying to settle out of court ?

Any settlement offer will more than likely another derisory amount which I will decline anyway , I just want to been seen to have done everything possible to avoid a Tribunal . OR do I wait for my ex-employer to make the first move ?

 

No and no! It is best never to approach the employer as it gives the impression that you are running scared. If they have any intention of settling reasonably then they will be in touch with you - if not, then don't give the impression that you think you might loose. That is what gets derisory offers! And the tribunal have no interest in whether you have attempted to settle or not. They will only be interested in your attempts to resolve the issue before them - the dismissal. So not appealing can be a bummer. But failing to ask for a settlement is of no interest to them.

 

PS - I ususally let an employer phone twice and then wait 24 hours before I have "enough time" to return their call But then, I can get away with it!

Edited January 6, 2011 by SarEl
Addition

[greendollar]

Thanks for the tip Sarah and sorry Bignick for jumping in .

[Bignick58]

Thanks for the tip Sarah and sorry Bignick for jumping in .

 

No probs Dollar,

 

Mi casa, su casa.

 

(or whatever it is)

 

Nick.

[Bignick58]

Hello all again,

 

Just looking at my options and think that it could help my wife's case a lot if I could link my wife's grievance investigation to her disciplinary investigation (there's some damming evidence in the grievance notes).

 

ACAS guidance apparently says that with overlapping grievance/ disciplinaries, that if the cases are related, then they can be investigated concurrently.

If not, then the disciplinary investigation could be suspended.

 

Her ex-employer claims that the disciplinary was suspended during her grievance investigation. It plainly wasn't by the dates on interview notes.

It looks like the only part of the disciplinary investigation which was suspended was my wife's own interview, (for several months).

 

If the disciplinary process was not actually suspended, are the two investigations deemed to be related?

(And should evidence from both have been considered during wifey's disciplinary?)

 

Thanks,

Nick.

[SarEl]

Does your wife actually allow you to call her wifey? I would clatter you around the head if I caught you doing it to me - especially in public

 

But I am afraid there isn't really enough information to give you an answer. The employer does not have to suspend the whole investigation into a grievance if there is also a disciplinary investigation running, even if they are related. The test would be whether one had any bearing on the other, and may be something that you simply have to "suck and see" - the judges will quickly slap down any none relevant information in the nicest possible way. I think I mentioned before that you get a certain amount more lattitude if you are self-representing. So it won't be held against you if you try to do something they won't wear - but they won't give you anything that you shouldn't get either. So it isn't a big deal.