Bit of Advice for a friend

[dvbuk55]

The count on D2Ds is notoriously bad and so whatever the amount claimed for has nothing to do with the number received. There is a greater check on D2Ds and there is now a system of returns by each individual walk and paperwork to match - I don't know if all offices use this method but each Monday and Tuesday the walk count is taken on returns for each frame from the previous week.

[norbert]

fothsn

Get your close friend to view or failing that you could possibly print off for them a copy of this particular Industrial Tribunal decision it will at the very least give them an incline as to what they are up against.

http://libcom.org/news/virgin-rail-cate ... e-21072007" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; this was on reasonable belief providing the goalposts were moved first . Not RM but a interesting one that I was tipped off about .
http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2007/725_06.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There's a PDF of the Appeal Tribunal - Beardie Trains lost the original IT

[hantsman]

It also shows that if you have any evidence you have to use it within RM's conduct proceedures IE before dismissal as a tribunal will not allow the use of new evidence. Not sure if this applies to UK law though.

La Poste, I know your are trying to help,

however im not sure the above has any merit or truth! Are you using just hearsay or actual up to the minute factual information? I hope you dont take this the wrong way.

[La Poste]

It also shows that if you have any evidence you have to use it within RM's conduct proceedures IE before dismissal as a tribunal will not allow the use of new evidence. Not sure if this applies to UK law though.

La Poste, I know your are trying to help,

however im not sure the above has any merit or truth! Are you using just hearsay or actual up to the minute factual information? I hope you dont take this the wrong way.

I read it in another thread. A tribunal decides whether a dismissal is unfair by looking at the evidence available to RM at the time of the employees dismissal not at new evidence that has come to light after the dismissal has taken place, I'm sure Norbert can verify this.

The final issue for the tribunal to determine was whether, in all the circumstances, the dismissal was fair or unfair. In considering this issue, the tribunal was mindful that it was not for the tribunal to substitute its own view for that of the employer – see the Sainsburys case referred to at para 48 above. The tribunal was also mindful that it must consider this matter on the basis of the information available to the employer at the relevant time and not any information which has become available since or indeed evidence given for the first time at the hearing.

Reference from the link in the following post

[brothermagrew]

Again for further insight it may be worth reading in full:

http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2004/2550_02.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[hantsman]

The case dates back to 2002 thats approx 7 years old, it is also in NI, employment laws change.

[La Poste]

The case dates back to 2002 thats approx 7 years old, it is also in NI, employment laws change.

Maybe you should do a bit of hunting yourself then. Let us all know your results.

[hantsman]

The case dates back to 2002 thats approx 7 years old, it is also in NI, employment laws change.

Maybe you should do a bit of hunting yourself then. Let us all know your results.

Im very current however are you?

[La Poste]

The case dates back to 2002 thats approx 7 years old, it is also in NI, employment laws change.

Maybe you should do a bit of hunting yourself then. Let us all know your results.

Im very current however are you?

If you have any information would you mind sharing it?

[hantsman]

The case dates back to 2002 thats approx 7 years old, it is also in NI, employment laws change.

Maybe you should do a bit of hunting yourself then. Let us all know your results.

Im very current however are you?

If you have any information would you mind sharing it?

Maybe you did not understand my question?

I loved that fetz

[La Poste]

It's not your question I don't understand it's this statement.

Im very current however are you?

Could you explain what you mean by this?

[hantsman]

It's not your question I don't understand it's this statement.

Im very current however are you?

Could you explain what you mean by this?

Have you any legal knowledge or are you just coping and pasting?

[La Poste]

I have no legal knowledge, well very limited but if I find something out I like to share it and hope that this encourages other people to do the same. Discussion is the exchange of knowledge. That is the essence of a forum.
You say you are very current, I am asking you what you mean by this.
Have you any legal knowledge yourself to share?

[brothermagrew]

The case dates back to 2002 thats approx 7 years old, it is also in NI, employment laws change.

Very astute and observant bro and yes indeed employment laws do indeed change from time to time, but there again take the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 that's approx 35 years old and still very much applicable to this day as many an employer who do not take their health and safety responsibilities seriously can testify.