Query about respondants reply to ET for unfair dismissal

[Longitude]

Hi. Wondered if someone could help with my ET please. I am doing this alone so any help would be very much appreciated. My complaint is quite long so Ill just keep the headlines.

 

In reality I was made redundant due to a breakdown in work relationships. My notice of dismissal and paperwork shows I was dismissed because of redundancy. My role was still in existance and therefore my argument is that I could not have been made "redundant". I was given redundancy pay.

 

I submitted my ET claim for unfair dissmissal. The organisation sent a load of gumpf back. Most of which doesn't seem relevent and I think is designed to confuse but they have put:

"The reason for dismassal was redundancy which is a potebtially fair reason under section 98(2) of the employment rights act 1996. Without prejudice and as alternative to the above the claimant was dismissed for "some other substantial reason" which is potentially fair reason under section 98 (1)(b) of the employment rights act 1996".

 

Can I just check that I have understood this please? Part 2 states they can dismiss me for:

A. capability,

B. conduct,

C. redundancy or

D. because of law/regulations

And Part 1b says they can dismiss me for any of these reasons or for any other "substantial" reason.

 

They stated they have dismissed me for 2c (redundancy). All my paperwork says 2c. They can't now say it was for another reason as per part1b can they? Surely then it would not have been redundancy and they would have put "dismissal due to break down in relationships" or sonething to that effect on my paperwork?

 

I'm getting myself worked up that I'm missing something.

 

As an aside, I may have to start using "without prejudice and as alternative to the above" as an argument!

 

Also - they are not abiding by deadlines. We were meant to have exchanged our document list by last Thursday and I still haven't received theirs. Is there much I can do about that?

 

Thank you.

[Longitude]

Sorry for all the typos. I'm on my phone.

[honeybee13]

Hello and welcome to CAG. People should be along later with advice for you.

 

Best, HB

[Longitude]

Thank you.

[Manxman in exile]

This might be better posted on the Employment Board?

[steampowered]

I've moved your post to the employment forum as you may get better responses here.

 

You are correct that 'some other substantial reason' can be a potentially fair reason to dismiss someone.

 

But it needs to be a very good reason. A vague reference to dismissal for 'some other substantial reason' is going to convince the Tribunal. Remember that the burden of proof is on the employer to demonstrate the reason for dismissal. They would have to convince the Tribunal of what that 'substantial reason' actually was.

 

You can write to them to point out that they haven't complied with the Tribunal's orders. You could also seek an order that their case is struck out unless they comply or that they are disbarred from providing evidence at the trial unless they comply.

 

There is a tactical decision to be made as to whether you think it is worth chasing the employer's documents or not - sometimes it is better to let sleeping dogs lie, and if they try to ambush you with new documents at the hearing, invite the Tribunal to disregard them as the documents were not disclosed.

[OneDrop]

Hello

 

 

So, what's this breakdown in relationship then? What happened?

 

 

I'm in a similar situation actually but I have lawyers on the case so just wondering if I can see anything in your situation that matches my own, that way I can give you my lawyers advice to me and you can use it for yourself.

 

 

In my case the former employer tried to disguise my dismissal under the 'capability' category but we all know that's BS, everyone concerned knows why I was sacked so I'm very much looking forward to my day in court so I can stick it to these b*stards.

 

 

Good on you for going it alone, I've gone it alone before, if you have the time then it's a breeze. The respondent's lawyers try to direct you thinking you're wet behind the ears, never follow their direction also in future if the ET gives a deadline for the exchange of documents make sure you exchange with the respondent at the same time, call the respondent's lawyers and agree a time and date and exchange method and if it's to be electronic then make sure they're on the phone with you at the time and you're both hitting send at the same time, especially if witness statements are involved.

 

 

Don't worry about seeming to be petty or anything, they're trying to turn you over and wear you out, don't let them do it. Now they're having a good look through your list and seeking out the hard copies etc. and then you'll get some last minute response whereby you'll be rushing around trying to put your case together.

 

 

Since the ET have accepted the ET3 they must be satisfied that there's a potentially reasonable legal defence to the claim but if the ET3 doesn't spell out what their defence is other than "redundancy" then that's all you need to disprove. So, just prepare your case focusing on disproving that you were not made redundant and since your termination letter doesn't make any mention of any other reason for your dismissal you don't need to spend time on trying to disprove every other potential reason, focus only on redundancy and show that you were fired because the former employer didn't want to deal with the underlying issues. If at any time the respondent tries to give another reason for your dismissal (other than redundancy) then inform the ET that there's no mention of that in the ET3 or termination letter and invite them to ignore such last minute representations.

 

I hired a lawyer because I'm certain of victory and his fees will be miniscule compared to my award. I think you may find also that if you get a lawyer on board even now, the respondent may stop ****ing about and start taking it more seriously which might result in an offer of settlement way earlier than otherwise might be (depending on the strength of your case of course).

 

 

But I understand if it's a cost thing since most lawyers don't work no win no fee for ET's because of the risk and so you'll have to pay upfront and are unlikely to get costs back in a normal scenario where you haven't been messed about etc. so sure, if you decide to continue without then keep coming here and we'll try to see you through it ourselves!

 

 

I'll be rooting for you.

 

 

All the best