Jump to content


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3047 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi all, hoping someone can point me in the right direction here. I did search the forum but couldn't find

 

I have sumitted an ET against my current employer which has ended up including direct sex discrimination, indirect sex discrimination, breach of contract, and most recently, victimisation.

 

At the case management discussion the judge asked for me to make a scott schedule, and gave the column headings. I'm fine with most of it (eg 'date of incident', 'nature of incident' etc), and the judge did explain it to me at the CMD (I am unrepresented). However, when I received the notes from the tribunal, it asks for an extra column that the judge didn't mention at the time (or I would have questioned it) called "jurisdiction".

 

So - what does this mean? What am I supposed to put in this column?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi all, hoping someone can point me in the right direction here. I did search the forum but couldn't find

 

I have sumitted an ET against my current employer which has ended up including direct sex discrimination, indirect sex discrimination, breach of contract, and most recently, victimisation.

 

At the case management discussion the judge asked for me to make a scott schedule, and gave the column headings. I'm fine with most of it (eg 'date of incident', 'nature of incident' etc), and the judge did explain it to me at the CMD (I am unrepresented). However, when I received the notes from the tribunal, it asks for an extra column that the judge didn't mention at the time (or I would have questioned it) called "jurisdiction".

 

So - what does this mean? What am I supposed to put in this column?

Roughly "jurisdiction" means

(a) is your claim the type of thing the Employment Tribunal is allowed to deal with or should you be going to another court

 

(b) has your claim been submitted within the 3 month less one day time limit demanded by the Employment Tribunal.

 

Iin complex discrimination cases there are often incidents which date back months or even years - was your claim submitted within 3 months of the last incident? Did important issues or incidents happen more than 3 months ago? The Tribunal has some discretion about the timing of the incidents in your claim but a judge needs to rule on that.

 

If you feel that the incidents and issues which occurred 3 months prior to the date you lodged your ET1 are enough to prove your case you can include any older stuff as background so the Tribunal will still get to know about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jurisdiction largely has two meanings in law. One is a field of law such as, "access to children is the jurisdiction of the Family Court". The second is an physical geographical area, such as the last section of each Act passed by parliament normally states the area it applies too (its jursidiction), or it could also be "where you were stopped speeding falls within the jurisdiction of Edinburgh Sheriff Court".

 

So if no one with more experience of the form comes along to answer soon, and given there are two ways of looking at it, calling the clerk in the court is the best way to fix it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brown Cow: yes my claim was submitted within 3 months of the last incident, however the full situation dates back almost 3 years from the date of the submission of the claim. All of it was in my ET1 which, as the tribunal date has been set, I had assumed meant the judge was accepting it all - or is this not necessarily the case?

 

If the answer is a) in your answer - how am I (the claimant) meant to fill in that column? As far as I'm concerned, yes the ET should be sorting it all out....but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm right! :) It seems an odd thing to ask me to fill in, especially as I am unrepresented, and Bang!'s explanation supports the first one....again surely not my place as claimant to 'decide' whose jurisdiction it falls under?

 

I will of course call the relevant ET office (but I posted this out of working hours!) when they are open, but I have asked them questions before and they were a bit "computer says no..." kind of responses that I didn't feel very confident with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brown Cow: yes my claim was submitted within 3 months of the last incident, however the full situation dates back almost 3 years from the date of the submission of the claim. All of it was in my ET1 which, as the tribunal date has been set, I had assumed meant the judge was accepting it all - or is this not necessarily the case?

 

If the answer is a) in your answer - how am I (the claimant) meant to fill in that column? As far as I'm concerned, yes the ET should be sorting it all out....but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm right! :) It seems an odd thing to ask me to fill in, especially as I am unrepresented, and Bang!'s explanation supports the first one....again surely not my place as claimant to 'decide' whose jurisdiction it falls under?

 

I will of course call the relevant ET office (but I posted this out of working hours!) when they are open, but I have asked them questions before and they were a bit "computer says no..." kind of responses that I didn't feel very confident with.

On one of my claim forms I put "Jurisdiction" as a heading and wrote something like " all incidents occurred between May 1oth and July 14th 2011 and claim submitted on August 8th - therefor I submit that the claim is in time.

 

Look at the events of your case in chronological order - are the events/incidents that are within the 3 month less one day time limit sufficient to prove your case or do you need to strongly rely on something that went before? If so you can ask the Tribunal to consider the events as a "continuous course of action" and consider them all.

 

As for the Tribunal sorting things out for you, well, although other GAGGERS have found judges helpful, the level of support varies. It is difficult for an unrepresented claimant to frame a discrimination case as the law is complex. You might be able to represent yourself at Tribunal but I think you need some advice from a lawyeron the legal aspects of your case and the strength of the evidence you have to support your claim.. Have you tried any of the free legal services?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as i know it is also called the "Schedule of Issues" you will be able to find that on google :)

I am not a legal professional or adviser, I am however a Law Student and very well versed areas of Employment Law. Anything I write here is purely from my own experiences! If I help, then click the star to add to my reputation :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the responses.

 

Browncow, I want them to consider everything - they've made my life hell and I'm not going to let them get away with it. My career is destroyed by taking this action (due to the nature of the industry) as I will find it hard to find another job in the same field, so I want them to be hit as hard as possible by this, to show they cannot just do what they want because of their size and that there are people willing to stand up against them.

 

I'm unrepresented because I can't afford representation. I've used up local solicitors' free half hours. I've just started on maternity leave (baby is now overdue, eek!) (and employer are refusing to pay, that's part of the et!) So I have no chance of affording even an hour. As the highest earner, we are about to lose 3/5 of our household income, and its looking like I'll be made redundant soon as I am no longer protected by maternity laws (they've started the ball rolling unofficially on that already) so I really can't afford it - hence coming on here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, just realised my post is quite "poor me" ....I don't mean it to be ,I'm just so frustrated with this whole ridiculous situation. My employer have already spent more in senior staff and solicitor time than the amount of money they are refusing to pay me - and yet they've deliberately treated me like sh!t since I put the ET in, knowing damn well I'm pregnant, and the whole thing is ridiculously stressful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

unfortunately tribunal claims are stressful, and unfortunately it will continue right up to the hearing itself.

I am not a legal professional or adviser, I am however a Law Student and very well versed areas of Employment Law. Anything I write here is purely from my own experiences! If I help, then click the star to add to my reputation :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, just realised my post is quite "poor me" ....I don't mean it to be ,I'm just so frustrated with this whole ridiculous situation. My employer have already spent more in senior staff and solicitor time than the amount of money they are refusing to pay me - and yet they've deliberately treated me like sh!t since I put the ET in, knowing damn well I'm pregnant, and the whole thing is ridiculously stressful.

 

Large employers, according to my former solicitor, always take cases all the way regardless of the cost, usually to the tax payer. This does not mean that their case is strong and they certainly are not acting on principle. It is just that they can put financial pressure on you and price you out of continuing with your case.

 

As for your jurisdiction issues - the Respondent is likely to claim that incidents occuring more than 3 months ago are out of time.

 

In your position I would do a brief chronology of events underheadings like Mpre than 3 months ago and within 3 months of claim being lodged - then I would say that in the interests of justice incidents going back more than 3 months should be considered because the Respondent's actions constitued a continuous pattern or course of discrimination which forced you to make an ET claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you - that makes sense about them arguing against older things - didn't realise they could do that, I thought they could only 'defend' against what I've accused them off (which so far has entailed them lying in my ET3 and also eq&div questionnaire - luckily I have evidence of the untruths, thank goodness).

 

Due to them dragging out the company's formal grievance procedure to being 4 months long, I almost missed the deadline. I scraped by with days to spare for the most recent incident, and continued to finish the grievance procedure while waiting for my CMD. It was pure chance I found out what I needed to do in the time frame I needed to do it, it is incredibly disgusting that they clearly drag things out to abuse the 3 month rule - I dread to think how many people must have missed out due to thinking they are doing the right thing and waiting for formal grievance responses before going to an ET.

 

Thanks to both of you for your help and support.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...