lost tribunal but employer lied and got away with it - what to do next?

[beastman1971]

I am definitely going to ask for a review as the main witness, the manager who sacked me, told a complete lie about a similar case where a fellow worker was not sacked for doing the same thing. In the final submissions, which were done in writing, as the case couldn't be completed on the day, I made it clear to the tribunal where the manager had lied ( I stated clearly it was a is a complete fabrication and therefore a perjurious statement) and there is documented evidence to back this up so it is pretty darn clear that he has done so.

 

I am wondering why the tribunal judgement (fairly detailed at 18 pages) has not even mentioned the issue of perjury and they have simply ignored it. I assumed this was a serous offence and as he was a key witness for the employer's defence and he lied about a key comparator case, can any advise if there is a clear case for not only review but an appeal as well?

 

thanks alot

[becky2585]

The "lies" are unfortunately a finding of fact, whether the correct one or not. You could therefore request a review asking to include the evidence, but unless there was an error of law you won't be able to appeal, sadly.

[beastman1971]

The "lies" are unfortunately a finding of fact, whether the correct one or not. You could therefore request a review asking to include the evidence, but unless there was an error of law you won't be able to appeal, sadly.

 

thanks. Not quite the response I'd hoped for though! Just to be clear when you have said I could request a review to include the evidence, bearing in mind the lying was highlighted in my final summary and therefore has already been in evidence (albeit ignored) is this worthwhile? Is it likely that say perhaps they have overlooked this crucial point and maybe this could overturn the decision? (I suspect they have rushed out this judgement as it took 6 weeks for them to post it to me and I mithered them several times- I suspect they are understaffed!)

 

Also, surely shouldn't there some form of censure toward the employer for lying?

 

thanks alot

[becky2585]

There's no proof they're lying, it's probably an "interpretation" of the truth. How do you know for sure what they say is untruthful?

 

I would say a review is worthwhile, but it still has to be on prescribed grounds. For you, that could be "new evidence" or it being "in the interests of justice". You have 14 days to do this, so act quickly!

[beastman1971]

There's no proof they're lying, it's probably an "interpretation" of the truth. How do you know for sure what they say is untruthful?

 

I would say a review is worthwhile, but it still has to be on prescribed grounds. For you, that could be "new evidence" or it being "in the interests of justice". You have 14 days to do this, so act quickly!

 

I was a postman and I was sacked for "wilful delay" as I did not complete my round. I brought a few bundles back to the office (after doing half an hour overtime) and found a manager and left the mail with them who arranged for the mail to be delivered that day. There were lots of surrounding issues that I won't bore you to death with but in the comparator case a postman around the same time as me at the same office failed to complete his round on a Saturday yet instead of bringing the mail back and reporting it to a manager he dumped it in the nearest red postal box (clearly just for the public to post their mail) and it wasn't discovered till the next Monday. In the evidence bundle the letter from the manager regarding his decision to not sack the other employee states:

 

""common sense should have told you that you should inform the office of these items which you could not deliver" and "I cannot accept that you did not realise that you were delaying this mail until Monday

 

In the tribunal the manager stated the member of staff called the office on the day to inform them that he had put the mail in the letterbox. He's told this lie in order to lessen the severity of what the employee had done but his own evidence clearly shows, at least I think its clear, that he was telling a bare faced lie. What that employee did was much more severe and a crucial element to my case is that I didn't telephone the office before heading back with the mail I didn't finish delivering, hence the manager's lie.

 

There are other surrounding issues concerning lack of proper training and procedures not followed by Royal Mail. The sickening thing is Royal Mail are guilty of deliberately delayed the mail on a daily, local and national basis but they use "wilful delay" as a tactic to get rid of staff when it suits them. They seem to be pretty much bulletproof in the way they can do this.

 

The tribunal decision letter states "there was not much to dispute on the evidence, and accordingly did not have much to decide issues of credibility or reliablity of the witnesses and parties. Where we did, we preferred on balance, the respondent's evidence which was consistent and well documented".

 

Bearing I mind I was up against a huge company with expensive solicitors, defending myself, up against what several manager's at Royal Mail who were clearly all going to be partial and consistent in the evidence presented to their side of things.

 

thanks again

[assisted blonde]

Can I just ask did you have any previous warnings/disiplinarys on your record before you were sacked for this issue.

[beastman1971]

Can I just ask did you have any previous warnings/disiplinarys on your record before you were sacked for this issue.

 

Sorry should have said, no not a cracker a clean record.

 

Also I should add that the manager who I left the mail with let me go home without warning me I could be in trouble. Royal Mail have made out that I was experienced enough to know what I did was a serious offence, yet their manager (in fairness she was inexperienced but a manager all the same) admitted she didn't fully know the procedures. So its ok for a manager to not know the procedures!

 

I realise the tribunal is not a "fairness test" and its down to reasonable responses etc but I feel really stitched up.

[mariefab]

Was your comparator less experienced than you?

[beastman1971]

Was your comparator less experienced than you?

 

Yes he had 6 months and I had 2 years experience. However the manager played his BS card on that as he made out several times that he was inexperienced as he had only done 2 months under his belt but of course on checking it was actually 6. In fairness though length of service in reality is not so important if the procedures, concerning cutting off the delivery were clear cut and well trained (obviously generally being a postman is not a technical job that requires lots of training!) and the opposite was the case and there was lots of evidence in the case supporting that. I did 2 years and never once saw the official Royal Mail procedure written down and there were lots of guidelines and procedures not followed by the company.

Edited May 24, 2012 by beastman1971

[Durkin]

we preferred on balance, the respondent's evidence which was consistent and well documented".

 

 

You're a victim of procedure seemingly. Some judges love to make cases complicated. So complicated, that you need a lawyer.

 

Sadly, lawyers are expensive and it's almost impossible to recover all your expenses if you win.

 

If you're unable to find a lawyer, I think you'll struggle.

 

It's possible to find lawyers who'll help for free. Ask CAB.

 

Becky seems to be giving you good advice. You must act very quickly. (It's another aspect of law)

 

I've had to deal with lies myself. 13 years later, I'm still fighting. I really hope you can get through this with minimum stress.

 

Once, you've submitted your review, let your MP know what's going on.

 

Good luck.

[Durkin]

Just had another thought.

 

Perhaps, once you've submitted your review, you can get HSE involved. (Assuming your employers were expecting you to work until you dropped)

 

They may be able to help right that particular wrong. There are others on here that are far more knowledgeable.

[billybobyeeharrboy]

Hi Durkin,

 

do you have a contact for HSE, I have a similar problem, and my employers caused me phsychiatric injury. Therefore they breached the duty of providing a safe place of work.

 

Regards

 

BB

[billybobyeeharrboy]

Beastman,

 

sorry to hear of your plight Im in exactly the same position.

 

I have a very good case (wont bore u with details) on the day counsel was useless and I lost the case. I put in a review and got the judgement on the review, recently.

As you stated correctly the ET folks are v busy people and have a huge backlog (I suspect), my review was completely dismissed and the judge didn't even pass comments on the VERY valid and PERTINENT points I raised.

 

Therefore my solicitor, is drafting an appeal, as the judgement is perverse! the judgement sided 100% with the respondents, therefore 100% against me. This begs the question why would I even bring a claim in the first place, if I was 100% wrong in bringing the claim?????

 

My message to you is don't place too much hope in the review, it is clear the judge has made his/her mind up and is unlikely to overturn it from a review application. Please by all means carry on with the review, it wont hurt, but you should start thinking about an appeal, if you think another fresh pair of eyes over your case would help?

 

Saying that, cases are very difficult to get into the EAT. Either way best of luck and keep us posted as to the progression of your claim.

 

I thought tribunals very supposed to favour the employees, this is v clearly not the case.

 

Regards

 

BB

[beastman1971]

thanks for all the replies. I guess without getting an expensive solicitor involved theres no way back now. From whats been said here a review request is worthwhile but very unlikely to get me anywhere. Similarly I'm guessing without an solicitor an appeal isn't going to be successful.

 

Does anyone know if the tribunal has to address direct questions about the witness lying in my review request? I imagine they will just ignore it again or try and say its not a key element in the case. It's hard to see how they can do this when the witness was the main witness and his lying was a important issue in the case and they have claimed that their evidence was consistent.

Edited May 25, 2012 by beastman1971

[billybobyeeharrboy]

Hi Beastman,

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/ResolvingWorkplaceDisputes/Employmenttribunals/DG_180552

 

Asking for an Employment Tribunal review

 

If you want to ask the Employment Tribunal to review a decision, you need to apply in writing stating why you think the judgment should be reviewed. You should do this within 14 days of the date the judgment was sent to you by the Employment Tribunal office.

Decisions can only be reviewed if:

 

• they were wrongly made as a result of an administrative error
  
• you did not receive notice of the proceedings leading to the decision
  
• the decision was made in the absence of either you or the respondent (the person you claimed against)
  
• new evidence has become available since the conclusion of the hearing
  
• the interests of justice require such a review
  

Send your application to the Employment Tribunal office where you hearing was held.

 

 

I assume that you would choose the last point, as your point of review, the interests of justice. It is an uphill struggle I will say. I spent 4 days straight drafting my review, then when after the judge had seen it, the review was simply dismissed and stated all this should have been raised in the first hearing.

 

 

The problem in my case was that, the evidence was in front of the judge's view in my witness statement and was clear for all to see yet the judge failed to pick up on this crucial piece of evidence.

 

I gather you may have to go on 'mistake of the law', which you will need an employment specialist to identify, if there is one?, normally judges wont make this mistake, or you appeal on grounds of perversity, which doesn't usually go down too well with judges. I guess they don't like being undermined- (not saying that they cant do their jobs properly)

Still you have a tough battle mate, but if you are set in your ways and passionate give it all you got, I say!

[billybobyeeharrboy]

lie detector tests should be employed at the hearings (a la Jeremy Kyle show) hahahaha.

 

Seriously though the system is clogged up, could help unblock the ET system and would solve lots of disputes quickly and efficiently?????

 

Re the lying in your case, potentially the judge will just say the issue has already been dealt with, I guess?

 

Regards

[beastman1971]

lie detector tests should be employed at the hearings (a la Jeremy Kyle show) hahahaha.

 

Seriously though the system is clogged up, could help unblock the ET system and would solve lots of disputes quickly and efficiently?????

 

 

like that idea alot.

 

 

Re the lying in your case, potentially the judge will just say the issue has already been dealt with, I guess?

 

Regards

 

 

Don't know is that their BS way out of facing up to the bare faced lies nowadays - just letting it roll?

[billybobyeeharrboy]

fraid so matey.

 

following on from Durkin, try CAB, they are pretty good. Will keep an eye on the thread

 

regards

 

BB

[Durkin]

contact for HSE

 

http://www.hse.gov.uk/

[billybobyeeharrboy]

Cheers Durkin

[billybobyeeharrboy]

You're a victim of procedure seemingly. Some judges love to make cases complicated. So complicated, that you need a lawyer.

 

Sadly, lawyers are expensive and it's almost impossible to recover all your expenses if you win.

 

If you're unable to find a lawyer, I think you'll struggle.

 

It's possible to find lawyers who'll help for free. Ask CAB.

 

Becky seems to be giving you good advice. You must act very quickly. (It's another aspect of law)

 

I've had to deal with lies myself. 13 years later, I'm still fighting. I really hope you can get through this with minimum stress.

 

Once, you've submitted your review, let your MP know what's going on.

 

Good luck.

 

Are you serious Durkin? 13 years on you are still fighting? What were the circumstances? To be honest mine has been going on for a year already with room to a possible appeal, that is wild, 13 years. I sincerely wish you all the best!!

 

Any progress with you Beastman?

thought I would bump this thread.

 

Best regards

 

BB

[beastman1971]

Are you serious Durkin? 13 years on you are still fighting? What were the circumstances? To be honest mine has been going on for a year already with room to a possible appeal, that is wild, 13 years. I sincerely wish you all the best!!

 

Any progress with you Beastman?

thought I would bump this thread.

 

Best regards

 

BB

 

No joy with it. The judge ignored the clear lies and when I asked him give some sort of response as to why he found Royal Mail to be more reliable when they lied and I didn't I got feck all back.

Still I suppose in ignoring my request I guess he was consistent. I do wonder why he even took the trouble to write to Royal Mail asking for their response to the lies.

[breacher]

was you part time

[citizenB]

Unlikely you will receive a response to a thread over a year old, breacher ?

[citizenB]

was you part time

 

In answer to your question, beastman has advised that yes, (s)he was part time.