skeleton arguments and witness statements

[Lanney50]

Good morning all ,can anyone sugguest a good site to look up on examples of preparing skeleton arguments for upcomming tribunal case thanks any advice gratefully recieved:?:

Edited January 31, 2011 by Lanney50
mis spelling

[SarEl]

Google works really well at doing searches! It isn't absolutely necessary to prepare a skeleton argument, but it does help, although what a good example is depends on what you are presenting.

[SarEl]

As I said though - you can find all the examples you want by doing a google search which costs nothing. Many people who represent themselves do not produce skeleton arguments, but if you want to do so there is no reason to have to buy guidance or examples.

[elche]

Hi Lanney

 

I know from personal experience that it - http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1903307708?tag=emplotribucla-21&camp=1406&creative=6394&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1903307708&adid=1VFA9SMMWR641JQ3SMZS&

 

is a good book especially when read in conjunction with - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Employment-Law-Advisers-Tamara-Lewis/dp/1903307694/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b

 

Why not check if your local library has a copy(s) and then it's free! I know my local library used to have a copy of T Lewis book.

 

Hope this helps

 

Che

[Lanney50]

thanks for your swift reply,my case is for unfair dismissal my ex employer failed to investigate properly also this was my first disaplinary in 15 years unblemished service,invited me for a disaplinary but never told me I could be dismissed it was a total farce from day one and after 6 appeal meetings I failed to win my job back,have been let down by unoiun so will have to go it alone ,very scary prospect ,sat in on a pre hearing were the claimant had a skeleton statement also a witness statement all of which was news to me so Im trying to look up exactly what I will need for my pre hearing thats in 4weeks, so I willbe busy reading up as much info as possible thanks again for your help

[ms_smith]

OK, but what exactly has happened before you were dismissed?

[SarEl]

I'd have to agree - I have asked the OP for details of what she is claiming, what happened, and also what the PHR grounds are... but the OP seems reluctant to share, so it is rather hard to give any advice at all.

[Lanney50]

sorry for the delay I have been reading up trying to make sense of what the hell Im supposed to do ,brief outline of my case,I was called in for a meeting to discuss an allegation of gving out my computer password to another manager,who admitted using it to adjust his overtime, this I was totally unaware of and as others shared passwords didnt think it serious I was suspended and the other manager was intervied he admitted changing one or two of the payments but not all I was invited to a disaplinary meeting were I was summarily dismissed for giving out my password and alledge colluding with the other manager,I was totally shell shocked,I did not ever think I would be dismissed just a slap on the wrist,I appealled and it took 3 months and 6 meeting but the company upheld the descion to dismiss,I appealled on other gave out passwords freely to other colleugues and the company were aware of this yet no action taken so wanted to be treat the same,they didnt take other factors into account and sent my p45 before my appeal had even started.I cant go into to much detail but I hope you get the jist of it

[meekmeek]

did the manager concerned get dismissed for fraud by adjusting his wages? if not then this alone should mean you should have been given a lesser punishment

 

out of box thinking if so

imagine it was a murder case and someone asked you for a persons address and you did not know why but gave them it- that person then gets murdered

is if fair the murderer gets a slapped wrist and you get the jail time simply because you gave the murderer access to the victim

 

but if both dismissed then it would be worth reading into employment terms and conditions about the privacy and access restrictions. as sometimes your not allowed to give colleagues your access details but you are allowed to give management access to your login [for multiple reasons such as audits-random security checks - etc]

if management were allowed access so they can check up on your work then this is your defense that you deemed it a standard practice work/security check thus not questioning the reasons - and it was the manager that then abused and misused his authority not you

[ms_smith]

Hi, sorry to hear that you were put through such a horrific experience.

 

First of all, as you are now an unrepresented claimant, do not assume that the tribunal will do everything for you. Nope, everything is now in your hands and your job is to convince the tribunal that you are innocent.

 

What exactly were the orders from CMD, such as the bundle or other directions?

 

It appears, that your former employer's main point of view is that although others were giving their passwords out as well, no gross misconduct was being committed - others were just lucky not to fall victim to someone else's mischief.

 

While in court, you should stress it out at all times that should you obviously been informed about that managers' plans of misconduct, you would not obviously have given your password to him.

Perhaps you are already in a possession of that manager's statement (from that lengthy appeal process) where he confesses to a misconduct but gives not a shred of information that he told you about such plans. I know that for experienced lawyer my arguments may sound childish, but at the end of the end, any comment in your favour does you a favour.

 

Also, was that manager dismissed? I assume he was. Otherwise, I see huge grounds for unfair dismissal and, if he's of other nationality or sex, a case for discrimination. (?)

Edited February 11, 2011 by ms_smith

[SarEl]

I am afraid that I do not agree with the previous posters. I feel that there is little point in speculating about hypothetical murderers, so I will stick the the actual facts of what you have said, which is, strangely, what a tribunal will also do.

 

A tribunal does not require an employer to have evidence of something. They are only required to have reasonable belief. There is sufficient evidence that you did give out your password to someone, so that is not in dispute. provided that they have a policy which requires the password to be kept to yourself (and this may be in a number of places - even in the computer screen when you lof in) then they quite certainly have you on that one; and it is debatable (which means it could go either way) whether, even without such a policy, the couldn't prove that it is reasonable to believe that a personal password should be kept secret.

 

It is therefore within the possible scenarios that you allowed this manager access through your own personal password to change records. or that your actions permitted this to happen. The problem that one has with a reasonable belief argument, and it cuts both ways, is that one cannot predict with any certainty what a tribunal will decide was reasonable. The fact that others do it may well be the case, but you will struggle to prove that the employer knows that they do it. All they have to do is say that they did not know, and your argument falls. They only have to treat others "the same" (a) if you can prove they didn't (and as I said, you will struggle to prove that the company does know that others do it) and (b) if the situations are exactly the same (which they may not be) and © if the mitigations are the same. There are a lot of scenarios in which an employer is able to come to a different conclusion in two broadly similar cases - even if there were any.

 

And the issue of the P45 is dead in the water. You were dismissed and the p45 should be issued immediately after you leave - it does not wait until the appeal, so sending you the P45 before the appeal was heard indicates nothing. Failure to be advised that the disciplinary could result in dismissal - that is a much better ground to base your case on.

 

Based on what you have said (and obviously that is all I can base it on) I think that the outcome is far from certain - it could go either way. There is also a risk that you might win on a technical point, but be subject to a Polkey deduction from any award for your contribution to the circumstances of the dismissal. I wouldn't even like to begin to guess odds on a win, but it is definitely not a clear cut case for you.

[meekmeek]

the OP gave access to the pc to a superior of theirs not a colleague.

-with following manager orders is a part of a persons job role.

-where managers have more powers and responsibilities MAY be allowed to access others logins for multiple reasons.

-where declining a request for access may have led to a breach of trust and faith as a manager could then have said they had "reasonable belief" OP was hiding something as they refused access when asked

 

employer just simply having a case of you gave manager a password which lead to your sacked is not good enough

OP defense should be to look into times when managers are allowed access to logins for hyperthetical reasons above - there may be more

also if OP mentioned in the investigations - disciplinarys that others shared passwords with managers before and company agreed it has - this will help too

and also becareful if the manager concerned adjusted OP wage as a thankyou for access - as that is the deathrow to the case.

 

anything else should be treated as a discommunication between the ranks that the OP thought it was for managerial duties which an employee should follow

[SarEl]

the OP gave access to the pc to a superior of theirs not a colleague. I think you misunderstand the word colleague - it includes anyone that they work with. Although I am not sure what relevance this has as I didn't use the word.

-with following manager orders is a part of a persons job role. Reasonable management orders - and giving your password to them is not reaosnable. But the OP did not at any point say that she was instructed to give their password to this manager, and not did they raise this in defence (at least in as far as the OP states). So this is pure speculation and not a fact,

-where managers have more powers and responsibilities MAY be allowed to access others logins for multiple reasons. No. Where managers have more powers and responsibilities they will be given access as appropriate under their own passwords. There is never a good reason for shared passwords.

-where declining a request for access may have led to a breach of trust and faith as a manager could then have said they had "reasonable belief" OP was hiding something as they refused access when asked In which case the manager should have reported anything that they thought was being hidden. That is the correct thing to do, not use someone elses password to sneak around. There are porper channels for suspected miscinduct - this would not be one of them.

 

employer just simply having a case of you gave manager a password which lead to your sacked is not good enough In your opinion. But not necessarily in the opinion of a tribunal. There have been untold numbers of fair dismissals for suh things, so clearly not all tribunals agree with you - which is why I said that there is no certainty either way.

OP defense should be to look into times when managers are allowed access to logins for hyperthetical reasons above - there may be more The OP did not say that the manager had the password to look into "hyperthetical" situations - the "hyperthetical" situation was entiely in your head and not in the post!

also if OP mentioned in the investigations - disciplinarys that others shared passwords with managers before and company agreed it has - this will help too As I have already pointed out, there is no evidence that the company have agreed to it - and since they have dismissed the OP for doing it, quite a lot of evidence that they don't agree to it. They may know it happens - but proving someone knows something is not at all easy. Simply because people do things does not mean an employer knows about it. Or that you can prove that they do.

and also becareful if the manager concerned adjusted OP wage as a thankyou for access - as that is the deathrow to the case. But it doesn't say that anywhere and the OP wasn't dismissed for this

 

anything else should be treated as a discommunication between the ranks that the OP thought it was for managerial duties which an employee should follow I have absolutely no idea what this means

 

The problem that you seem to keep falling over is that tribunals operate only on what happened, or what can be proven to have happened. They do not judge cases based on hypothetical situations, and if the OP goes to one with made up facts that suit her, but bear no relationship to the facts, then the OP will loose.

[ms_smith]

sorry for the delay I have been reading up trying to make sense of what the hell Im supposed to do ,brief outline of my case,I was called in for a meeting to discuss an allegation of gving out my computer password to another manager,who admitted using it to adjust his overtime, this I was totally unaware of and as others shared passwords didnt think it serious I was suspended and the other manager was intervied he admitted changing one or two of the payments but not all I was invited to a disaplinary meeting were I was summarily dismissed for giving out my password and alledge colluding with the other manager,I was totally shell shocked,I did not ever think I would be dismissed just a slap on the wrist,I appealled and it took 3 months and 6 meeting but the company upheld the descion to dismiss,I appealled on other gave out passwords freely to other colleugues and the company were aware of this yet no action taken so wanted to be treat the same,they didnt take other factors into account and sent my p45 before my appeal had even started.I cant go into to much detail but I hope you get the jist of it

 

I am posting again as this has just came to my mind - if your former employer allege that you colluded with the other manager, why your own wages weren't altered as well? In theory and practice, if you were ready to collude with others to commit an offence (such as that of that other manager; I understand you are a manager yourself), you would be more likely than not to commit such malpractice to yourself, to your own case of wages, therefore, the position of your former employer is not consistent, as there is no evidence that your wages were altered. Make sure you put this in your written submissions given to the tribunal .

I don't think your former employer would be ready to fabricate such evidence...

 

We then come back to how you should plan your PHR as this is the hearing when your former employer' legal team will try to strike out the case altogether. To prevent it from happening, you will have to prepare yourself a list of bullet counter-points - refer the judge's attention to some parts of the initial bundle of documents (if such has been ordered to be prepared) that will speak in your favour.

Edited February 11, 2011 by ms_smith

[meekmeek]

back to the point before the pointless flaming began

 

its normal to think that a manager - a person of authority when asking a worker

"can i see what you are doing on screen"

or

"can i check what is in your documents folder"

or

"for routine security checks i need to gain access to your user profile to do random security checks"

 

a worker would deem it fine to allow this in fear of saying no will lead to questions such as "why not what are you hiding"

 

so if a manager asks a worker can i use your user profile to check something then a worker would deem it fine as that person is a authority figure of theirs

 

so yes its a idea - a hyperthetical - but its a possible defense that is why the OP allowed access to the manager as its normal practice to allow managers access

 

dont flame me sarel - its just a idea - leave it for the OP to correct or ignore me the OP wants ideas and hints about possible defenses not simply saying if you cant reveal every detail we cant help [not verbatim]

 

atleast pointing the OP into directions is a start if they cant reveal enough.

 

i laughed at your point you tried to make totally misinterpretting its meaning

 

where declining a request for access may have led to a breach of trust and faith as a manager could then have said they had "reasonable belief" OP was hiding something as they refused access when asked In which case the manager should have reported anything that they thought was being hidden. That is the correct thing to do, not use someone elses password to sneak around. There are porper channels for suspected miscinduct - this would not be one of them.

 

imagine the manager went up to the OP and asked for access and the OP declined the managers reason for asking was for fraud!!! so why would they then report the OP for anything that they thought was being hidden.

the point was that the manager was abusing his authority to gain access to a login to commit fraud so would be unlikely to then report if someone said no in fear of the manager then being asked - why were you even asking for access

[yes above is another hyperthetical to explain the details of the initial hyperthetical]

 

remember the managers intention was for wage increasing not to get OP in trouble!!

 

i just offering ideas and hypertheticals - please if you dont have imagination to understand that its just advice or some possiblility then stick to your legal advice about how to file papers and let others freely offer their advice the OP can decide to use the hyperthetical if it sounds like wat happened as only the OP truly knows -

 

so if the OP cannot tell us the full details of what happened there is nothing wrong with us posting possible occurances and then use the defence of the advice of the yperthetical that sounds closest to their story.

 

after all when OP reads this and starts forming their defence its better to be giving some advice then simply stating we dont knwo so we cant say - or it hasnt happened yet so we cant say

 

thats not advice thats avoiding being accountable - remember this is a non legal forum no one should be held accountable its just offering free friendly support and options so relax and let everyone offer any advice.

 

if you dont have the answer dont reply if you want to flame someone dont reply leave it for the OP to disregard as i have read your posts to others [not just me] seem narrow minded - avoiding answering a question and then getting agressive when the person still feels they need support

 

so relax you stick to your experties and leave others to offer ideas [imaginary hypertheticals] to start the OPs thinking

 

do not reply to me just give op advice no need to argue

OP wants answers and suggestions so give suggestions not flame others without offering suggestions of defense

 

so again advice to OP is to find out when it is appropriate for a authority figure to request access to your login for whatever reason and use that as your defense that you allowed them in as you thought it was a all above board managers task they needed to persue on your login and that you had no idea they would cause fraud using it as they seemed genuine about the way they asked for the access

 

hope this helps - as its only a idea and i cannot be held accountable so feel free to ignore if it sounds rediculously nothing like what happened

Edited February 12, 2011 by meekmeek

[SarEl]

I will continue to correct any erroneous or misleading advice given, whether by you or by anyone else. This is not "flaming" - this is ensuring that the OP is not misinformed by entirely fictional "advice" based on what someone has made up on the spot. The OP can then decide for themslelves wheter they want advice or "hypertheticals".

[ms_smith]

I will continue to correct any erroneous or misleading advice given, whether by you or by anyone else. This is not "flaming" - this is ensuring that the OP is not misinformed by entirely fictional "advice" based on what someone has made up on the spot. The OP can then decide for themselves wheter they want advice or "hypertheticals".

 

SarEl, don't get me wrong, but I am the victim of an erroneous and incomplete advice given by a trained solicitor so I have learned to trust rather my own instincts, especially that those instincts have proven to be correct. It is sometimes a much better advice to follow, as these were the claimants that have been in the heart of a dispute and there is probably no-one else that will understand them better than they themselves.

 

There is no harm in a brainstorm of ideas on such forum groups as this one. After all, it can be inspirational to many other users.

Anyway, I believe OP is innocent and meekmeek's and mine own energies concentrates on giving him/her the best possible advice.

Say what you want but I also believe in the power of truth. You just have make sure you get with it to the tribunal with the right route, before you give up in the beginning.

 

Have a nice day to all.

[SarEl]

SarEl, don't get me wrong, but I am the victim of an erroneous and incomplete advice given by a trained solicitor so I have learned to trust rather my own instincts, especially that those instincts have proven to be correct. It is sometimes a much better advice to follow, as these were the claimants that have been in the heart of a dispute and there is probably no-one else that will understand them better than they themselves.

 

There is no harm in a brainstorm of ideas on such forum groups as this one. After all, it can be inspirational to many other users.

Anyway, I believe OP is innocent and meekmeek's and mine own energies concentrates on giving him/her the best possible advice.

Say what you want but I also believe in the power of truth. You just have make sure you get with it to the tribunal with the right route, before you give up in the beginning.

 

Have a nice day to all.

 

Whether I believe the OP isn't relevant, although it is neither here nor there - but OP did share the password so "innocence" is not the issue. The issue is whether there are grounds for this dismissal to be fair or not. I have not commented on your own posts because they express opinions - which the OP is able to decide upon themselves. The other posts, however, introduce arguments which are not in evidence and which are erroneous in law. Where this is the case I continue to point this out. As I said - the OP is perfectly entiled to make up their own minds, and if they wish to take that advice they may do so. But they should do so based on understanding the risks that they take in doing so. The only "quality assurance" on sites like this are people pointing out that there are errors in the information being given to OP's. Do you suggest that these should then be ignored and deny the OP's the right to make informed decisions about their situation?

[meekmeek]

however, introduce arguments which are not in evidence and which are erroneous in law. Where this is the case I continue to point this out.

 

how is

back to the point before the pointless flaming began

 

its normal to think that a manager - a person of authority when asking a worker

"can i see what you are doing on screen"

or

"can i check what is in your documents folder"

or

"for routine security checks i need to gain access to your user profile to do random security checks"

a worker would deem it fine to allow this in fear of saying no will lead to questions such as "why not what are you hiding"

so if a manager asks a worker can i use your user profile to check something then a worker would deem it fine as that person is a authority figure of theirs

so yes its a idea - a hyperthetical - but its a possible defense that is why the OP allowed access to the manager as its normal practice to allow managers access

- how is the blue statement erroneous in law - its a real life experience many people have allowed their managers to access their logins for managerial tasks as they are their superior. we do not know if managers are or are not allowed to borrow passwords in the OPs workplace - so rather then dismissing a possibility purely because you dont know the facts is less then helpful, then to guess a possibility and to try and offer advice

leave it to the OP to accept or reject

where managers have more powers and responsibilities MAY be allowed to access others logins for multiple reasons. No. Where managers have more powers and responsibilities they will be given access as appropriate under their own passwords. There is never a good reason for shared passwords.

actually many managers are allowed to use other peoples logins for security purposes where files are encrypted and only accessable with said persons login and managers can access their login to ensure that no bad activities are being commited or where a manager needs to audit information on said persons login as part of their managerial duties plus in this case concerning the OP situation the managers intention was to abuse his powers to alter his wages. most businesses would not allow managers access to their own payroll information so this is why the said manager would use someone elses - also possibly to avoid suspicsion that it was them that done it.

so there are real life reasons managers are allowed access and there was a reason this OPs manager done it

 

so dont red writing me

 

leave it for the OP to read and if the hypothetical is incorrect then they can reply with a more detailed account

 

any advice is better then no advice

 

sarel dont reply if your just going to red writing it - stick to the OP comments not other posters

 

that being said we do respect your advice when giving it but you are not a moderator and there is more to employment then just law

[citizenB]

Whether I believe the OP isn't relevant, although it is neither here nor there - but OP did share the password so "innocence" is not the issue. The issue is whether there are grounds for this dismissal to be fair or not. I have not commented on your own posts because they express opinions - which the OP is able to decide upon themselves. The other posts, however, introduce arguments which are not in evidence and which are erroneous in law. Where this is the case I continue to point this out. As I said - the OP is perfectly entiled to make up their own minds, and if they wish to take that advice they may do so. But they should do so based on understanding the risks that they take in doing so. The only "quality assurance" on sites like this are people pointing out that there are errors in the information being given to OP's. Do you suggest that these should then be ignored and deny the OP's the right to make informed decisions about their situation?

 

 

-

so dont red writing me

 

leave it for the OP to read and if the hypothetical is incorrect then they can reply with a more detailed account

 

any advice is better then no advice

 

sarel dont reply if your just going to red writing it - stick to the OP comments not other posters

 

that being said we do respect your advice when giving it but you are not a moderator and there is more to employment then just law

 

meekmeek.

 

There is no hidden agenda in writing in red. It makes the responses stand out, especially when responding to individual points in closely packed posting.

 

I am sorry.. your statement "any advice is better than no advice" is naive and dangerous thinking.

 

It is totally irrelevant that SarlE is not a moderator. The advice given is sound and based on the information given.