Justice For Jane - Jane Brookes PCS Rep Land Registry

[norbert]

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/inde ... full/84882" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I put this in here because it's a who is going to be next scenario . RM apparently are fond of patrolling as " managing staff " & the IB seem to be desperate for work / justify their jobs .

http://www.pcs.org.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The union believes that the surveillance is a breach of the Data Protection and Human Rights Acts and “an affront to common human decency”.


http://www.tuc.org.uk/the_tuc/tuc-17364-f0.cfm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PCS has launched a campaign to defend a rep sacked from her job at Land Registry in Weymouth. Jane Brooke's only offence appears to have been to make an industrial injury complaint against her employers.

Surveillance was conducted on six members of staff at the Weymouth Office in breach of both the Data Protection and Human Rights Acts. The Land Registry pursued this seemingly dubious investigation, conducted a hearing in breach of its own procedures and then acted as both prosecutor and judge.

As a result of this process Jane was summarily dismissed. She was given five minutes to collect her personal effects, while a senior member of staff stood guard. Having worked in the same office for 31 years with an unblemished record, this is absolutely devastating for both Jane and her colleagues.

Her union, PCS, are building the campaign to defend Jane and demand her re-instatement.

Messages of support should be sent to Jane via justiceforjane@pcs.org.uk

From the local rag in case anyone says it's the " comrades " trying to make trouble

http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/localn ... t_filming/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[La Poste]

Thanks Norbert.
I've only had a brief look at the case but this stuck out to me:

PCS group secretary Brian Shaw told the meeting that Land Registry often loses cases at industrial tribunals and is not in the habit of settling at ACAS.
However, this does not mean that its victims get their jobs back.

Pay them a bit of compensation and adios.

[norbert]

Thanks Norbert.
I've only had a brief look at the case but this stuck out to me:

PCS group secretary Brian Shaw told the meeting that Land Registry often loses cases at industrial tribunals and is not in the habit of settling at ACAS.
However, this does not mean that its victims get their jobs back.

Pay them a bit of compensation and adios.

Bit like Karen Reissemann , three days into the Tribunal , Manchester NHS settled but the Chairman said there was no evidence seen of the alleged " gross misconduct . The Director Sheila Foley also made a constructive dismissal case against Manchester NHS when she had fell on her sword and resigned .

Still it's a cheap way of getting rid of a rep who was a thorn in their side / pain in the arse .

http://gtrmancfabians.blogspot.com/2008 ... tarts.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.poblish.org/article.jsp?id=90154" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles ... lement.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=17050" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ( This is the very , very interesting one )
http://www.labournet.net/ukunion/0711/karen13.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ( Good overview of the case )
http://johnmcdsunionblog.blogspot.com/2 ... smann.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.workersliberty.org/node/9537" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/ ... nhs.health" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[La Poste]

The chair of the tribunal made a number of interventions during the cross-examination of Foley. In each case he narrowed the possible scope of Karen’s defence.

And

She also pointed out that, in general, employment tribunals reflect a system that benefits employers.
She said, “About 87 percent of cases brought to tribunal are won by employers. And, even if you win your case, tribunals do not have the power to demand your reinstatement.”

I'm starting to see a pattern emerge here.

The problems in the tribunal system are a matter for the whole trade union movement, and it is urgent that an organisation with significant resources tests the chair’s interpretation of the law in a higher court.

I won't hold my breath.

[norbert]

The chair of the tribunal made a number of interventions during the cross-examination of Foley. In each case he narrowed the possible scope of Karen’s defence.

And

She also pointed out that, in general, employment tribunals reflect a system that benefits employers.
She said, “About 87 percent of cases brought to tribunal are won by employers. And, even if you win your case, tribunals do not have the power to demand your reinstatement.”

I'm starting to see a pattern emerge here.

The problems in the tribunal system are a matter for the whole trade union movement, and it is urgent that an organisation with significant resources tests the chair’s interpretation of the law in a higher court.

I won't hold my breath.

They go on European Law which will be neo- liberal influenced and previous case precedents , not as black and white as some would think . It's much fairer than under Major i.e. you had to work two years to get a day in court , however New Labour tend to go for the watered down version of any Employment Law to keep the CBI sweet .
http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=589&issue=124" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Good Link - Tribunals & Tribulations

[La Poste]

Where claims actually make it to a hearing the claimant’s chances are, on the face of it, relatively high: 72 percent of wages claims that made it to a full hearing in 2007-8 were successful, as were 53 percent of unfair dismissal claims, although this figure fell to 19 percent for race claims and 15 percent for claims for religious discrimination.
A total of 63 percent of all cases submitted to tribunal were settled in 2007-8.5 The reason employers compromise is that it usually costs them more to defend a hearing than a successful claimant stands to win in compensation. In 2007 the average tribunal case was estimated to cost an employer £9,000 to defend,6 more than twice the median amount paid in compensation to successful claimants (£4,000).7 Thus the employer will usually be able to offer the employee, say, 50 percent of their maximum possible winnings in a settlement agreement, and, where the employee agrees, finish the claim with less losses than if they had fought on and won

http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=589&issue=124

Fuk me this sounds better.
Things are looking up.
Happy Christmas.