Employment Tribunal

[sunshine.on.leith]

Alrite guys, Dundee East postie (sorry, ex postie) here. I got my emploment tribunal next week. I got a couple of problems though. I been speaking to ACAS and McGrigors. Firstly i do not have any representation. Union not doing it. I am going to represent myself though. ACAS have not been much help, they are being too neutral for my liking. A wee bit of advice now and then would have been nice. As for McGrigors (RM's solicitors), they have made offers starting from £500 then now up to 1k. I personally think I should go all the way, but some people have said take the dough. I personally don't need it that bad. Anyway my query:

Is it usual practice to offer before the tribunal? (according to McG's, RM offered cos i'm a decent guy. Aye right.)

Whats the chances against them? According to the guy from ACAS, he's only known 2 people to win a case, and he's been there 8 yrs.

I am totally pi**ed off at RM. As far as i'm concerned and looking at all evidence, there is no case to answer. I can prove that there charge of willful delay was not meritted. According to McG's they say that a tribunal is not about proving anything, only the fact that RM handled the proceedings correctly. Is this true?


Please advise on above 3 issues. Thanks in advance.

[Tall Guy]

Alrite guys, Dundee East postie (sorry, ex postie) here. I got my emploment tribunal next week. I got a couple of problems though. I been speaking to ACAS and McGrigors. Firstly i do not have any representation. Union not doing it. I am going to represent myself though. ACAS have not been much help, they are being too neutral for my liking. A wee bit of advice now and then would have been nice. As for McGrigors (RM's solicitors), they have made offers starting from £500 then now up to 1k. I personally think I should go all the way, but some people have said take the dough. I personally don't need it that bad. Anyway my query:

Is it usual practice to offer before the tribunal? (according to McG's, RM offered cos i'm a decent guy. Aye right.)

Whats the chances against them? According to the guy from ACAS, he's only known 2 people to win a case, and he's been there 8 yrs.

I am totally pi**ed off at RM. As far as i'm concerned and looking at all evidence, there is no case to answer. I can prove that there charge of willful delay was not meritted. According to McG's they say that a tribunal is not about proving anything, only the fact that RM handled the proceedings correctly. Is this true?


Please advise on above 3 issues. Thanks in advance.

1. yes, it is normal. it is much cheaper for RM to settle for that amount than to pay barrister/solicitor in tribunal
2. depends entirely on your case. if you can prove that you didn't do what you were accused of, then you'll win. if you can't then you won't. bear in mind rm don't have to prove your guilt to a burden of proof any higher than "is it more likely or not that you did what you're accused of".
3. No, it's not just about showing the proceedings were proper, as above ,if you can prove that the discipline hearing and appeal hearings both got it wrong, then this is your last chance.

i would say though, that if simpson miller / union legal dept have looked at your case and aren't supporting it, then your chances are very limited. I've never known anyone win on their own, without representation.

The question is "do you feel lucky"?

[kay_thebigbird]

Go for it ,RM just settled 1 day before my ET,after a year of being sacked, I got my job back & full backpay but I had a strong case & simpson & millar solicitors & Barrister to back me thanks to the CWU, high profile case in Bristol,but my point is my postie mate went to ET in june on his own with a cwu rep, but no legal backing & he won with a weak case & got reinstated.If they have only offered you a Grand what have you got to lose you could win who knows the big boys don't always get the last laugh.If you feel cheated go for it & they nearly always settle before because the Barristers fees are enormous.

[brothermagrew]

Go for it ,RM just settled 1 day before my ET,after a year of being sacked, I got my job back & full backpay but I had a strong case & simpson & millar solicitors & Barrister to back me thanks to the CWU, high profile case in Bristol,but my point is my postie mate went to ET in june on his own with a cwu rep, but no legal backing & he won with a weak case & got reinstated.If they have only offered you a Grand what have you got to lose you could win who knows the big boys don't always get the last laugh.If you feel cheated go for it & they nearly always settle before because the Barristers fees are enormous.

Admirable advice from one has been dragged through the mill. However, and presuming that your ET will be held in Scotland - Advocates in Scotland perform the same role as barristers in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. Although you are representing yourself I have read that the average amount usually awarded has been about the £3,000 mark. This however always depends on the issues at stake and there is no harm on using your internet capabilities and reading up on past Employment Tribunal judgements to give you an insight and better understanding of how things may transpire.

My own flesh and blood recently won her Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal against her employer (5 fig. sum where they offered her to settle for a low 4 fig. sum) although she did have the services of a member of the legal profession. Ultimately you have to weigh up the pros and cons and having done that come to an informed decision on which way you are going to proceed.

Good luck and regardless of which way you decide, I hope you have a favourable outcome.

[kay_thebigbird]

Your right brothermagrew ET's are a gamble, but they have only offered him a grand, believe me, if RM were sure they were on a winner he would not have had any offer.

[norbert]

Alrite guys, Dundee East postie (sorry, ex postie) here. I got my emploment tribunal next week. I got a couple of problems though. I been speaking to ACAS and McGrigors. Firstly i do not have any representation. Union not doing it. I am going to represent myself though. ACAS have not been much help, they are being too neutral for my liking. A wee bit of advice now and then would have been nice. As for McGrigors (RM's solicitors), they have made offers starting from £500 then now up to 1k. I personally think I should go all the way, but some people have said take the dough. I personally don't need it that bad. Anyway my query:

Is it usual practice to offer before the tribunal? (according to McG's, RM offered cos i'm a decent guy. Aye right.)

Whats the chances against them? According to the guy from ACAS, he's only known 2 people to win a case, and he's been there 8 yrs.

I am totally pi**ed off at RM. As far as i'm concerned and looking at all evidence, there is no case to answer. I can prove that there charge of willful delay was not meritted. According to McG's they say that a tribunal is not about proving anything, only the fact that RM handled the proceedings correctly. Is this true?


Please advise on above 3 issues. Thanks in advance.

1. yes, it is normal. it is much cheaper for RM to settle for that amount than to pay barrister/solicitor in tribunal
2. depends entirely on your case. if you can prove that you didn't do what you were accused of, then you'll win. if you can't then you won't. bear in mind rm don't have to prove your guilt to a burden of proof any higher than "is it more likely or not that you did what you're accused of".
3. No, it's not just about showing the proceedings were proper, as above ,if you can prove that the discipline hearing and appeal hearings both got it wrong, then this is your last chance.

i would say though, that if simpson miller / union legal dept have looked at your case and aren't supporting it, then your chances are very limited. I've never known anyone win on their own, without representation.

The question is "do you feel lucky"?

I'm inclined to agree - but the settlement is also

basically to shut you up and keep RM out of the papers / internet

the danger is that you could get stitched up again by clever people who can make a dodgy disciplinary " look straight " and then have to pay costs and expenses - they may even do it out of spite to teach you a lesson for standing up to them and scare other people off in future - Simpson / Miller are running scared - it's in RM 's interests to win a case against the union's solicitors and run up a costs bill - they go on a certain percentage of winning .

RM's solicitors are being economical with the truth - there is an element of subtle or verbal bullying as they are saying what RM want you to believe - there's also the matter of did the employer act reasonably , did they have some other substantial reason

I agree with Kay in a way as RM want to put the s**ts up you - they are hoping you'll be stressed out and could bottle it and you'll go for a easy life - it is an arrogant attitude but no surprise

The problem is that you could be very outgunned by the solicitors RM hide behind - if they've botched it as they are known to do - you could have a chance but you need to pull everything to bits ( prosecution on RM ) - that offer needs improving- it does stink

GET ADVICE OFF A NO - FEE - NO WIN SOLICITOR - they may be better than the unions as they are less embriolied in RM V CWU politics - you'll get a free interview and you'll be advised whether they'll take RM on

[kay_thebigbird]

Alrite guys, Dundee East postie (sorry, ex postie) here. I got my emploment tribunal next week. I got a couple of problems though. I been speaking to ACAS and McGrigors. Firstly i do not have any representation. Union not doing it. I am going to represent myself though. ACAS have not been much help, they are being too neutral for my liking. A wee bit of advice now and then would have been nice. As for McGrigors (RM's solicitors), they have made offers starting from £500 then now up to 1k. I personally think I should go all the way, but some people have said take the dough. I personally don't need it that bad. Anyway my query:

Is it usual practice to offer before the tribunal? (according to McG's, RM offered cos i'm a decent guy. Aye right.)

Whats the chances against them? According to the guy from ACAS, he's only known 2 people to win a case, and he's been there 8 yrs.

I am totally pi**ed off at RM. As far as i'm concerned and looking at all evidence, there is no case to answer. I can prove that there charge of willful delay was not meritted. According to McG's they say that a tribunal is not about proving anything, only the fact that RM handled the proceedings correctly. Is this true?


Please advise on above 3 issues. Thanks in advance.

If you go all the way & lose what sort of legal or any other cost will you incur is it higher than what you have been offered or can you get help from the government,I was very fortunate CWU sorted everything out, but I don't know where you would stand cost whys.

[sunshine.on.leith]

Cheers for advice guys, have decided to get local rag involved, if only to highlight the case and see if i can get a solicitor on board. As i have said, I got nothing to lose.

I will keep you all updated.
PM me if you got some good advice to take forward on the day.

[Tall Guy]

Cheers for advice guys, have decided to get local rag involved, if only to highlight the case and see if i can get a solicitor on board. As i have said, I got nothing to lose.

I will keep you all updated.
PM me if you got some good advice to take forward on the day.

If you're on your tod, the best advice is to have all the points you want to raise with each witness written down, almost verbatim, so that when you get flustered ( and you will), you can keep the thread of the argument you're trying to make.

You should go through the statements of each witness for rm, and highlight to the tribunal where there is any discrepancy with the facts as you see them. ask the witness to account for any differences.

Do not lose your cool with any of the witnesses, no matter how much you may disagree with them. you have to pick holes in their story and make it look weak and inconsistent with policy or other similar cases. you're never going to score a knock out blow, you have to put the significant question in the mind of the tribunal, rather than trying to get the witness to admit they were wrong.

If you are on your own, the chairman will help you as much as possible, so do exactly as they say, so that they will continue to help you. they will be subtle at first, then not so subtle if you're going off course, read the signs.

Obviously, when it's your turn to be the witness, same rules apply, you have to be consistent in your answers and be consistent with the line you've been following through the case. don't lose your rag.

There aren't any costs you need to cover, so don't worry about money. Also, don't bother with a "family type" solicitor. You may find you know more about employment law than they do, and you'll certianly know more about working in a big firm like RM.

By and large, tribunals don't like RM policies, they think that they are too long winded and black and white in their judgment. If you can introduce enough grey ( ie everyone brings back mail every day and they don't get sacked, producing witnesses to back this up), then your chances will improve significantly.

[norbert]

What I should have said is try consulting a Employment Solicitor - not a "jack of all trades " - or someone who does divorce / family etc .

What has gone wrong here - and I'm not really pointing the finger is in the Tribunal Application - questions on issues should have been asked to pin down RM , the inconsistencies , the so called coincidences , relevant suspicious issues , the holes and weaknesses in RM's case as has been rightly pointed out - especially if there's contradictions

- with all those things adverse inferences can be drawn , it's basically building a case , not exactly calling RM liars and crooks - but undermining their credibility - there has been instances when RM's case has collapsed midway through ET's .

Most probably in Kay's case the union's barrister has nailed RM to the wall so it's made obvious that they don't have much chance in a Tribunal - that's why RM started backing down or tried to bully their way out of a corner they'd backed themselves into .

Where RM are weak on is vague allegations - if RM's managers can't answer questions properly a link can be made between the unanswered information and the most suspicious / relevant issues an adverse inference can be drawn .

Actually a inference can be made if RM can't answer questions and rely on legal people to answer them for them - or if the reply to questions is inadequate from RM

You have to contradict and challenge bit by bit as posted before everything RM state - however RM will be very good at excuses and evasive tactics - as posted before - keep RM pinned down - the trick they often use is to find something vague and obscure then try and make a mountain out of a molehill out of it as a smokescreen - don't let them do that - if they can't do that - an adverse inference can be drawn .

It's called sophistry or circumvention - don't let RM mislead the court . You have to call the shots .

RM's weaknesses is their arrogance can be their Achilles heel - keep digging at it - there's more than one way of skinning a cat - people are right about them being too black & white /inflexible on things - I agree about putting the shades of grey into it

RM basically work this way Verdict - Guilty - then a suitable charge - the "witnesses" - the "evidence as everything is purely to impress more senior managers and is to a foregone conclusion - basically a 70's style fit up that explains the bluff and bluster from Mc Grigors trying to bully you out of it , it's be a good boy and not give RM a problem but if you are not a good boy , we''ll bluff and bluster our way through it .

That's an arrogant belief in that they can prove to criminal standard of proof - what RM don't get - is on the bounds of probabilities - it's to get the Panel to be inclined to accept your version not RM's and then act as judge , jury and executioner - but RM have always regarded themselves above the law - just got worse with :lfo & :cfo - that needs picking at [/b]- being too judicial

the other weakness is is RM's "investigations " and "fact finding interviews " - they are very rudimentary - the managers have set questions to ask which require "desired " RM answers - if someone is on a H&B charge - RM will interview people that don't like you - in a court it would be stopped as it's leading the witness but that's how RM manufacture cases .

This needs picking to bits too , the other weakness is the mentality / personalties of some of the managers - as said by other posters - don't let them put a oversimplified structure on things - these cases are not simple and as rightly said RM are too longwinded and very devious and underhand - that needs picking to bits on



I'd use that it's not if you are guilty or not it's if RM followed procedure - an inference can be drawn - it's up to RM to prove they've an immaculate paperwork trail - that paperwork should have been requested then picked to bits - similarly RM can request your diaries , notes by law - there has been instances of DUM's going white when things like recordings have been presented or RM's legal people suddenly backing down - again that's their arrogance - pick at it

[sunshine.on.leith]

The replies are excellent guys, but there's 1 thing i'm not quite sure on. "witnesses". Can I take witnesses along on the day, who can back up parts if not all of my story. And can i expect RM to have all the managers who have dealt with the case to be in attendance? Or is it just a 1v1 situ.

[kay_thebigbird]

The replies are excellent guys, but there's 1 thing i'm not quite sure on. "witnesses". Can I take witnesses along on the day, who can back up parts if not all of my story. And can i expect RM to have all the managers who have dealt with the case to be in attendance? Or is it just a 1v1 situ.

Yes you can but they have to do statements which the chairman & other side view before hand & you can only be cross examined on that information, if your ET is next week your cutting it abit fine.

[marky]

go get the xxxxxxxs and goodluck,

[norbert]

The replies are excellent guys, but there's 1 thing i'm not quite sure on. "witnesses". Can I take witnesses along on the day, who can back up parts if not all of my story. And can i expect RM to have all the managers who have dealt with the case to be in attendance? Or is it just a 1v1 situ.

Yes you can but they have to do statements which the chairman & other side view before hand & you can only be cross examined on that information, if your ET is next week your cutting it a bit fine.

yeah - don't fall for that all those managers swearing blind that you did this or that routine - and closing ranks on you - that's a prison one that - it's funny how all those "witnesses " get promoted

as someone said - RM will take advantage of the lower standard of proof when it suits them

[Tall Guy]

The replies are excellent guys, but there's 1 thing i'm not quite sure on. "witnesses". Can I take witnesses along on the day, who can back up parts if not all of my story. And can i expect RM to have all the managers who have dealt with the case to be in attendance? Or is it just a 1v1 situ.

RM will usually have the dismissing manager plus the Appeals manager. They won't have anyone else unless you ask now through the tribunal for other people to be present.

You will need to provide a witness statement in advance to the tribunal and to RM of any other people you want to appear.

Don't call anyone unless it is absolutely necessary to prove a particular point. I'm guessing that you've already had your tribunal date set and the chairman won't take kindly to having a bus load of witnesses if it's scheduled for one day only!!

If you talk to the Tribunal secretary straight away, then you'll find out if you're too late. if you feel that you need the witnesses then you can ask for a reschedulign so that their evidence can be heard, but once again, you are risking a "tut,tut" from the chairman if it's at late notice.