Jump to content


style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 651 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Paul..... I think your thread would be better placed in the Employment forum to gain more qualified responses and advice how to handle this.

 

If you are in agreement I will move or copy this thread to that forum ?

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Ok Andy. Ill post those agreements up in the YB thread to show why they were unenforceable when I redact them as well.

 

Regards


An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul..... I think your thread would be better placed in the Employment forum to gain more qualified responses and advice how to handle this.

 

If you are in agreement I will move or copy this thread to that forum ?

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Ok Andy. Ill post those agreements up in the YB thread to show why they were unenforceable when I redact them as well.

 

Regards


An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The issue is that I was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy in June 2106. The Union say that a solicitor reviewed the case and advised against the union funding a tribunal claim.

 

I knew the claim was a winner so submitted a grievance to the regional secretary and subsequently met the legal officer who agreed id got a good case. My claim was then sent to employment solicitors and eventually the matter was resolved shortly before the start of a 5 day trial.

 

I have a feeling that the initial review never took place by an employment solicitor and this is why the union will not provide the reasoning why i was initialy declined support.

 

Cheers

 

So, what are you aiming to achieve even if you can show this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The issue is that I was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy in June 2106. The Union say that a solicitor reviewed the case and advised against the union funding a tribunal claim.

 

I knew the claim was a winner so submitted a grievance to the regional secretary and subsequently met the legal officer who agreed id got a good case. My claim was then sent to employment solicitors and eventually the matter was resolved shortly before the start of a 5 day trial.

 

I have a feeling that the initial review never took place by an employment solicitor and this is why the union will not provide the reasoning why i was initialy declined support.

 

Cheers

 

So, what are you aiming to achieve even if you can show this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, what are you aiming to achieve even if you can show this?

 

ill consider my options after I find out what went wrong for myself and others.


An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit rusty on this I'll admit, but legal privilege has a VERY narrow scope indeed and applies only to qualified lawyers (the definition of which has a wider scope). However, it does NOT apply to trade union officers, in house lawyers, consultants, etc.

 

What might apply is litigation privilege which has a wider scope. Basically, if any document or communication is produced primarily because litigation is ongoing, or even contemplated, then it doesn't have to be produced under a DSAR.

 

Unfortunately, you'd have to see the document in question to know definitively whether it is covered by litigation privilege or not!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh sorry - I cross posted. Loaded the thread this morning and came back a little late I see :)

 

Communication between a lawyer and their client is legally privileged so they are right - you have no right to see it.

 

However, if no such communication ever existed then they would have to confirm that to comply with the DSAR - they may also have to confirm that such communication DOES exist, but is legally privileged (it's the content of the communication that is privileged, not the fact that it happened).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does depend on union rules,

but you may find that this is all irrelevant anyway,

as, in my experience, no union has a carte blanche policy to fund tribunal cases

- it is discretionary guidance.

 

 

Many have a 51% threshold, which means that you need a 51% or better chance to win.

A few are even higher.

But getting that percentage doesn't mean you are guaranteed to have the case funded;

and getting lower doesn't always mean you will get one refused.

 

 

There is always an element of judgement and guesswork involved in any case.

And there are also finite budgets in most cases too.

 

 

the introduction of fees has an impact on the way unions can fund cases, just as much add it does on individuals.

Unless the union had an obligation to fund cases in some form, even what the solicitor might have said would make no difference.

 

 

In our union, for example, it is normally 51% before we will consider supporting the case; but we have dropped as far as 20% for the chance of case law - and actually won on such low odds at times, which demonstrates that the system isn't perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of exemptions to the Data Protection Act is as follows: Personal data are exempt from the subject information provisions if the data consist of information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/schedule/7


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In our union, for example, it is normally 51% before we will consider supporting the case; but we have dropped as far as 20% for the chance of case law - and actually won on such low odds at times, which demonstrates that the system isn't perfect.

 

Apologies in advance for slight thread drift into statistical theory, but surely a 20% chance of success means that if you had a large number of identical cases you'd win 20% of them, 1 in 5, if your 20% assessment was accurate. So the one you won could just be the 1 in 5! It would only be evidence that the system didn't work if you litigated a large number of "20% chance of success" cases and won far less than 20% of them.

 

Sorry for that digression, not very helpful for OP, I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello

 

I was unfairly dismised last year and I asked my Union to seek advice on whether i was able to take the matter to tribunal. The Union say they sought advice which wasn't favourable, but will not provide the reasoning why they would not back my case.

I have now sent a DSAR and they are claiming legal opinion privilege. Is there any way round this?

 

Im waiting for a case worker at the ICO to get in touch and ill see what they say.

 

Thanks


An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does this need merging with:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?478123-Legal-privilege&p=5031720#post5031720

 

(as it is the same question regarding DSAR and legal privilege).

 

On that thread you were also seeking the opinion of the ICO. What did they say??

 

 

Still waiting, the 30 days the ICO has to respond has been extended to 60 due to increased pressure.

 

Thanks


An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to go in to too much detail,

but I submitted a grievance to the regional secretary because I knew more about the law than the regional officer and I knew it was a winner.

 

 

The case was eventualy took up by the Union after I met the legal officer and presented my legal arguments to him (I recorded the meeting).

 

 

The claim was was valued at £67k by an employment solicitor.

 

 

I want to find out why my case was rejected in the first instance when I was shop steward for 12 years.

If my valid claim was rejected then many more would have been rejected.

Like I said I recorded the meeting.


An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it any claim will be now against the Trade Union as your options with an employment tribunal wil have now expired.

 

Are the union solicitors in house as i know about a year ago the major trade Unions merged into a seperate company called Union Line with legal services.

 

If Dedicated in-house have you considered calling a National Disciplinary Committe if you feel the union has not acted in your best interests as to the Constitution?

 

If they still blank you have you considered a complaint direct to the regulator the Central Arbitration Committee?

Edited by obiter dictum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I take it any claim will be now against the Trade Union as your options with an employment tribunal wil have now expired.

 

No, the union changed its mind and the claim proceeded.

 

I knew the claim was a winner so submitted a grievance to the regional secretary and subsequently met the legal officer who agreed id got a good case. My claim was then sent to employment solicitors and eventually the matter was resolved shortly before the start of a 5 day trial.

 

Hence me asking in May:

So, what are you aiming to achieve even if you can show this?

 

Even if the OP can show the union was wrong initially, can he show any harm resulting?

 

The OP doesn't seem sure if what they'll do / what they are aiming for.

ill consider my options after I find out what went wrong for myself and others.

 

I suspect the most they'll get is an apology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't want to go in to too much detail,

but I submitted a grievance to the regional secretary because I knew more about the law than the regional officer and I knew it was a winner.

 

 

The case was eventualy took up by the Union after I met the legal officer and presented my legal arguments to him (I recorded the meeting).

 

 

The claim was was valued at £67k by an employment solicitor.

 

 

I want to find out why my case was rejected in the first instance when I was shop steward for 12 years.

If my valid claim was rejected then many more would have been rejected.

Like I said I recorded the meeting.

 

Depending on the timing of your seeing a solicitor, the union may have rejected the case as you clearly already had legal representation.


Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I take it any claim will be now against the Trade Union as your options with an employment tribunal wil have now expired.

 

Are the union solicitors in house as i know about a year ago the major trade Unions merged into a seperate company called Union Line with legal services.

 

If Dedicated in-house have you considered calling a National Disciplinary Committe if you feel the union has not acted in your best interests as to the Constitution?

 

If they still blank you have you considered a complaint direct to the regulator the Central Arbitration Committee?

 

The Union did eventually back me after i met with the legal officer and presented case law etc. I got them on the back foot because I was covered under my home insurance and was speaking with a solicitor who wanted to take my case on.

 

There was a few of us that got stitched up and one of the lads had been a shop steward for many years and a Union member for 40. The Union abandoned him/us!!!

 

The Unions legal officer told me that they changed policy about three years ago when the fees increaesed and that decisions on taking cases to tribunals were to be taken by regional officers (not employment lawyers) - I argued that this was wrong "because they haven't got a clue, are not legally trained" and therefore a lot of members would have lost out.

 

PW


An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Depending on the timing of your seeing a solicitor, the union may have rejected the case as you clearly already had legal representation.

 

 

Id been talking off the record with the employment solicitor who wanted to run my case through my home insurance policy. I advised the Unions legal officer that this was the case.

 

PW


An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Id been talking off the record with the employment solicitor who wanted to run my case through my home insurance policy. I advised the Unions legal officer that this was the case.

 

PW

 

That would be a really common reason for not taking on your case.


Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The treatment I and others received was disgraceful, especially as i was the person that put my neck on the block by recruiting members and then obtaining recognition agreement back in 2003.

 

I am no longer a member - Until the Union changes and puts its members first instead of the Labour party I won't re-join.

 

Im informed this is going to be brought up at a branch meeting and put forward for national debate.

 

PW


An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That would be a really common reason for not taking on your case.

 

Well the Unions legal Officer didnt have any objection to me having sought legal advice on the matter????? Think the Union could only refuse if a member has entered into an agreement with another solicitor.


An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I want to know is the reasoning why the solicitor initially refused to back my claim for breach of contract, unlawful deduction of pay, disability discrimination, wrongful dismisal. They continue to refuse to provide it. They are using legal opinion privelige to deny me this.

 

Im not sure they sought an opinion as the legal officer stated that tribunal cases were decided by regional officers. If this is the case then someone may have fallen foul of the Fraud Act!!!!!


An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All I want to know is the reasoning why the solicitor initially refused to back my claim for breach of contract, unlawful deduction of pay, disability discrimination, wrongful dismisal. They continue to refuse to provide it. They are using legal opinion privelige to deny me this.

 

Im not sure they sought an opinion as the legal officer stated that tribunal cases were decided by regional officers. If this is the case then someone may have fallen foul of the Fraud Act!!!!!

 

If you are going to talk like that, then they are very unlikely to want to deal with you. I very much doubt that there is any criminal act in this matter.

 

I don't know what your union process is, so I can't comment on what would or would not have happened. In our union regional officers would decide whether to refer something for legal advice - if we referred everything members wanted for legal advice there would be no time to look at the cases, and mistakes would be made. In many circumstances the situation is clear and legal advice isn't necessary, or even productive. I can say that consulting any other legal representative would mean that we withdrew from representation - and our legal officers don't need to have a problem with it because it isn't their call. Those are the rules, and they are what we operate.

 

The reality is that legal opinion - whoever makes it - is an opinion (that is why they are called that!) and the opinion might not be an accurate reflection of the end result. If that were not true, there wouldn't be courts - we could settle everything much quicker and easier by consulting a lawyer! Opinion is a best guess - an informed best guess, but a best guess. So sometimes people go on to win cases that aren't considered good; quite a lot more often people lose cases that we think are good! So the fact that you won the case doesn't mean that the advice was "wrong". It means that the assessment at that time was the best guess that someone could make. Courts, and especially employment tribunals, are known to act in perverse manners at times. They don't always get things right either. An entirely different panel could have come to a very different decision about your case. I'm sure you think that your case was so good that you could never have lost. Believe me, that isn't true.

 

In any case, what do you think you will prove? The union system worked. You disagreed with the opinion you first got, so they reviewed that decision and changed their mind. They did exactly what they are supposed to do. You are no longer a member, so they have no interest in appeasing you and no requirement to deal with you. The fact is, it would appear, that despite your previous membership, which I acknowledge, you simply got the representation through a system that worked for you, then resigned the minute you didn't need the union any longer. That is the sort of reason why unions no longer support newer members - because they resign the minute they get what they want. You are complaining because the system worked. That makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are going to talk like that, then they are very unlikely to want to deal with you. I very much doubt that there is any criminal act in this matter.

 

I don't know what your union process is, so I can't comment on what would or would not have happened. In our union regional officers would decide whether to refer something for legal advice - if we referred everything members wanted for legal advice there would be no time to look at the cases, and mistakes would be made. In many circumstances the situation is clear and legal advice isn't necessary, or even productive. I can say that consulting any other legal representative would mean that we withdrew from representation - and our legal officers don't need to have a problem with it because it isn't their call. Those are the rules, and they are what we operate.

 

The reality is that legal opinion - whoever makes it - is an opinion (that is why they are called that!) and the opinion might not be an accurate reflection of the end result. If that were not true, there wouldn't be courts - we could settle everything much quicker and easier by consulting a lawyer! Opinion is a best guess - an informed best guess, but a best guess. So sometimes people go on to win cases that aren't considered good; quite a lot more often people lose cases that we think are good! So the fact that you won the case doesn't mean that the advice was "wrong". It means that the assessment at that time was the best guess that someone could make. Courts, and especially employment tribunals, are known to act in perverse manners at times. They don't always get things right either. An entirely different panel could have come to a very different decision about your case. I'm sure you think that your case was so good that you could never have lost. Believe me, that isn't true.

 

In any case, what do you think you will prove? The union system worked. You disagreed with the opinion you first got, so they reviewed that decision and changed their mind. They did exactly what they are supposed to do. You are no longer a member, so they have no interest in appeasing you and no requirement to deal with you. The fact is, it would appear, that despite your previous membership, which I acknowledge, you simply got the representation through a system that worked for you, then resigned the minute you didn't need the union any longer. That is the sort of reason why unions no longer support newer members - because they resign the minute they get what they want. You are complaining because the system worked. That makes no sense.

 

I wasn't just a member I was shop steward that was responsible in obtaining recognition agreement back in 2003. As shop steward I have a written contract with the Union that requires them to fully investigate matters for discrimination in the event of dismissal. My colleague and Union member for 30 years was too let down badly and paid for reperesntation out of his own pocket, he subsequently suffered a loss after settling out of court. As a shop steward for 12 years I believe I have a right to see the legal opinion on my case. If for a cost saving exercise my/our case never went to an employment solicitor, but the regional officer claimed it did then, this representation, would be in my opinion would fall foul of the Fraud Act.

 

The Union cannot rely on legal opinion priveledge to with hold data pursuant my request if there is evidence of iniquity.

 

It appears to me that funding the Labour party comes before protecting reps and their members.

 

BTW, I am working in a different sector now and have joined the RMT.


An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...