ET1 advice please

[Bignick58]

Do you spend all your time on the web SarEl?

 

Thanks for the quick reply.

 

No Wifey doesn't know I'm referring to her in that way... yet!

 

I believe that the two cases were VERY related.

The supervisor who made a swearing allegation which (eventually) got my wife dismissed, was the subject of the concurrent harassment grievance which was upheld.

Evidence came to light during the grievance investigation that this supervisor was creating a false history of unreasonable behaviour about my wife in a very questionable "log".

She also convinced another employee to tell lies on her behalf. (Got good evidence in documents).

Also have evidence of cross investigation between the two cases.

 

Should I be saying this much on the forum?

Or doesn't it really matter... it'll all eventually be in the hands of the respondent anyway.

 

Thanks,

Nick.

 

ps I saw you were asking about adding a signature elsewhere on the forums... Click on "USER CP" at top of the page and you'll find an option to edit your sig down the left hand side.

[SarEl]

No - I spend most of my time (when not on holiday) working! And since, when not in court, most of that involves a computer, I usually have the web open at certain windows.

 

Do let us know when "wifey" finds out...

 

And it seems related to me, but I don't have full details obviously. But as I said, if it sisn't the tribunal will certainly let you know, so I would base your case on the argument you want to make (within obvious reason) and let then rule out aspects if necessary. It's better than risking leaving something out.

[Bignick58]

Thanks for your opinion,

 

I think most of this process for us non legal types is having the confidence to "do" things.

Your advice is certainly helping in that regard.

 

Nick.

 

(Where's your bright shiny signature?)

[Bignick58]

Hi SarEl,

Here I am again,

 

I've started drafting up a witness statement for the wife and on reading it back, I've noticed I'm putting things like "During the investigation, the respondent did xxxxxxx, although they put things right later."

 

I suspect I already know the answer to my next question, but...

Should I be admitting that things were put right later, or should I just be making the allegation and leave it up to the respondent to deny it and point out that things were put right?

 

In other words, should the statement just try to make the responent out to be pure baddies and make them defend themselves?

 

If I use this tactic, would the Tribunal think I'm trying to pull the wool over their eyes?

 

 

Also, another thing has occured to me.

If this goes to Tribunal and she wins, what would happen about references for job applications, and what would she put down as "reason for leaving" on application forms?

 

She is somewhat stymied filling out applications at the moment!

 

Any "creative" input from other Caggers on this point very welcome.

 

Thanks all,

Nick

[SarEl]

You are getting a tad ahead of yourself - it will be months (if not months and months) before you need witness statements - if ever (the employer may settle!). But I would tend (bearing in mind that I have absolutely no idea what happened here) towards a factual statement of truth rather than a story! So rather than saying they did this wrong and then put it right, more along the lines of "on XX date they did this; on XX date, they did this". In other words, not leaving out anything but not commenting on "right and wrong". The tribunal will decide what is right and wrong.

 

In terms of reasons for leaving, the tribunal will not order a reference (or a good reference, which is what I suspect you are really talking about) - if there is a settlement then you could negotiate this point, but the tribunal has no powers over references. I advise people to be not at all creative (creative means lying, and getting caught lying means potential dismissal). "Unfair dismissal - evidence of tribuinal ruling available" - obviously after you have a ruling in your favour. I accept this will scare of some potential employers - but only those who are worried you might take thenm to tribunal too. Which means they think they are likley to do something to warrant it! Most of my clients get jobs within a reasonable period after tribunal and tell the truth - some are even back in work before the tribunal happens!

[Bignick58]

Thanks again SarEl,

 

"Unfairly dismissed - awaiting tribuinal outcome" sounds good on application forms for the moment.

 

Any likelihood it may cause legal problems if word about this "statement" gets back to her ex employers?

(Which it presumably will, if a prospective employer asks them for a reference).

 

Nick.

 

Nice SIG by the way.

[SarEl]

If you have a reciepted letter from the tribunal - in other words, provided you have submitted a claim - then this is fine. She can elaborate if asked. Bear in mind that a letter from the tribunal saying that they have accepted your application is commonly misunderstood - it is a receipt and nothing else. They have not even accepted jurisdiction if this were to be challenged by the employer.

[Bignick58]

INCOMING!

 

Well SarEl, it looks like the first salvo has arrived.

 

I've just had a worried phone call from the wife.

 

I haven't seen it yet, but a letter has just arrived from the respondent (special delivery).

It sounds like they're demanding a lot more detail about section 5 of the ET1, so they can answer in their ET3.

 

I must admit that I was fairly basic with section 5 of the claim form.

 

It also sounds as if they're threatening to approach the Tribunal for disclosure if she doesn't "tell all".

Aren't they being a little premature with the threats?

 

When I've seen their letter I'll post details from it (and my proposed answers), for your opinions.

 

Is sharing this sort of info on a public forum likely to give any "moles" too much help?

 

If it's considered "safe" posting stuff, I don't mind sharing. It can only help others in similar situations.

 

Thanks,

Nick.

[greendollar]

Hi Nick ,

 

Threats from respondants are something you'll have to get used to I'm afraid , try not to let them wind you up its all part of the 'game' apparently , the main aim is to bully you into dropping the claim . There's more to come I expect from Costs Orders /Deposit Orders and Wasted Costs Orders that they will threaten to/and will ask the Tribunal for ...just answer any queries promptly or they will go whining to the Tribunal that your being 'obstructive' .

In my case they've asked the Tribunal judge for numerous Orders against me but have been knocked back every time . Don't be intimidated by the threatening tone of the letters . Goodluck

[SarEl]

I agree. But if you are worried about saying too much - PM me.

[Bignick58]

SarEl,

 

PM sent.

Thanks.

 

For other Caggers,

 

If SarEl ok's it, I'll post later as promised.

 

"Forums are for sharing",

 

Nick.

[Bignick58]

Hi All,

continuing from my last post.

Advice on this has already very kindly been given by another board user. Thanks.

(Points, awards and medals given out at the end).

 

Further comments still welcome though.

 

The respondent claimed the details given in section 5 of the ET1 aren't sufficient to address the issues raised.

 

Here are the basics of what is in Section 5...

Victimisation by other staff, leading to unfair dismissal.

Victimisation started on xxxx and continued until dismissal on xxxx.

The investigation was manipulated, incomplete and biased.

 

 

-------

Respondent is asking for (amongst some other stuff)...

Details of each and every instance of victimisation.

Evidence of the incidents.

 

 

And, an explanation of how the investigation was;

 

1.Manipulated.

 

2. Incomplete.

 

3. Biased.

---------

 

 

 

This looks like far too much for them to be asking for right now, so I'll be asking the Tribunal.

 

 

I'll post again later.

Nick.

Edited January 20, 2011 by Bignick58

[honeybee13]

Hi Nick. I'm not one of the forum experts, but this sounds to me like the sort of stuff the ET would consider. I hope the other side don't see themselves as judge and jury. How much have they told you, not much?

 

I'm sure the others will have some comments for you.

 

My best, HB

[Bignick58]

Hi Nick. I'm not one of the forum experts, but this sounds to me like the sort of stuff the ET would consider. I hope the other side don't see themselves as judge and jury. How much have they told you, not much?

 

I'm sure the others will have some comments for you.

 

My best, HB

 

Hi HB,

 

Of course the other side see themselves as judge and jury.

It's the norm, isnt it?

 

The ET would probably consider most of the stuff we've got, but the point is, we haven't got that far yet.

 

The respondent is only (supposed to be) replying to the claims made in the original ET1 form.

From the demands they're making you'd think the Tribunal was next week!

 

Still, I enjoy writing letters, keeps the brain cells awake...

 

Thanks for your interest,

Nick.

[honeybee13]

It's tactics then . There seems to be a lot of it about.

 

My best, HB

[greendollar]

Hi Nick ,

 

I assume all the questions that they want answering will be included in the documents/evidence that will make up your part of the agreed bundle . As you say there is along way to go yet and they'll be throwing a few hissy fits about whats relevant or not , usually nothing you have in the way of evidence will be relevant and will ' add little or have no merit ' to your claim . The CMD will be the place to decide what goes in the bundle but that won't stop them from leaving out anything they don't like or will damage them . The ' agreed ' part is something they will have difficulty understanding . Have fun .

[Bignick58]

Hi Nick ,

 

I assume all the questions that they want answering will be included in the documents/evidence that will make up your part of the agreed bundle.

Well, strictly speaking, not "ALL" the questions... ( I think I might have to answer 1 or 2 of them).

 

As you say there is along way to go yet and they'll be throwing a few hissy fits.

Now THAT conjures up an amusing picture!

 

The ' agreed ' part is something they will have difficulty understanding.

Well, speaking personally, I'm a very agreeable sort of chap.

 

Have fun.

I'll certainly try!

It's not worth getting wound up over nasty letters, after all what can they do?

MAYBE WRITE IN CAPITALS?.. Scary!

 

Thanks for the encouragement.

Nick.

[Bignick58]

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 .

 

Hi Greendollar,

 

Looks like the wife's JSA is likely to get stopped. It's been suspended since Xmas while they "investigate". (Questionnaires backwards and forwards wife ex employer.)

 

They've already had a copy of the ET1 and the acknowledgement letter.

 

How did you word your appeal letter?

 

Nick.

[SarEl]

I am surprised - I have never had a client whose JSA was stopped for a minute after they knew a claim was going in to a tribunal. But Greendollar is the expert on this one - I've never had one. In fact - I have known clients who have never gone past telling them verbally (no proof required) and the JSA have accepted that. It would appear we may have to add this to the list of "cuts".

[greendollar]

Hi Nick ,

 

Can't remember the exact wording but from what I remember I gave a detailed account of my dismissal and the reason why I thought I had a valid claim to take to the Employment Tribunal Service .

I let them have the case number so they could check and the date/venue the Tribunal was set for (in case they wanted check)

I have 2 young kids who would have suffered if my JSA was sanctioned , well it was sanctioned / reduced by 30% not stopped altogether .

I remember that I did put in that, by sanctioning my JSA , they were pre-judging the outcome of any Tribunal and would they , if I went onto win the Tribunal , be backdating the money they deducted .

It only took a 2 maybe 3 weeks and they decided reinstate my full JSA claim and any money deducted was also paid back .

Hope that helps , I would be surprised if they decided to stop any payments altogether , I thought they only took a percentage or you would get a reduced rate .

Like I say , if you ultimately win then DWP have unfairly decided you ' intentionaly made yourself unemployed ' , sanctioned your JSA unfairly and that you also lost your job unfairly ....hardly fair is it .

Edited January 25, 2011 by greendollar

[honeybee13]

Hi guys. Can I just add that if you need more information about benefits, there is a specialist forum here at CAG. Nice bunch of people.

 

My best, HB

[SarEl]

And besides which - if you win they get the money back from the award - don't forget that they get repaid any JSA benefits from a tribunal award!

[Bignick58]

Thanks very much for your input Greendollar. That's roughly the lines I was thinking along.

I've written the letter and reluctantly given a lot more detail about the case.

I've also asked them not to pass any of it on to the respondent, because of the possibility of compromising the case at Tribunal.

We'll just wait and see...

 

 

It would appear we may have to add this to the list of "cuts".

 

This is ringing a bell or two SarEl.

I recall hearing something recently on our local radio about the jobs situation improving due to the numbers claiming JSA falling.

It could be that DWP are actively culling claims?

 

 

And besides which - if you win they get the money back from the award - don't forget that they get repaid any JSA benefits from a tribunal award!

 

Also, a quick thought on this one.

If the respondent settles before the Tribunal, does the JSA recovery rule still apply?

 

 

Thanks all,

Nick.

[SarEl]

 

Also, a quick thought on this one.

If the respondent settles before the Tribunal, does the JSA recovery rule still apply?

.

 

No. It only applies to tribunal awards.

[Bignick58]

Hi again,

 

Just a quick update.

 

Wife's now got back her Jobseekers.

 

Respondent's written another letter along the same lines as the last one.

 

We've written back this time, telling them we'll supply more info when ET tells us to.

 

 

Just received the ET3 from the Tribunal, so they've managed to fill it in without the benefit of all the extra information they wanted.

 

I think we should possibly now add some more detail to the ET1.

 

How do we do this? Just write to the Tribunal office?

 

Thanks,

Nick.