Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Lost tribunal

Employment and Discrimination Law

Lost tribunal

Postby thinkfirst » Sat Apr 02, 2016 7:11 am

Just goes to show that no matter how good a case you think you have, on the day anything can happen.

In short, the judge said it wasn't the job title of 'Manager' that mattered, it was the training which the person had that mattered. As far as the judge was concerned, the occasions were there were no managers on site which led me to conclude there didn't need to be managers on site, there were in fact managers on site because the staff left in charge, although not employed as Managers, had done certain training. No evidence was ever provided of this training, it was just accepted by the judge that these staff had done it because the Respondent said they had done it. I've question the training of these staff from disciplinary to appeal and at tribunal and nothing has ever been shown that the staff had this training.

The Respondent didn't have to prove health and safety had been put at risk, according to the judge it goes hand in hand that if there was no manager on site then health and safety was put at risk.

The judge did say the dismissal was just within the band of reasonable responses.

There you have it.

I don't think I will be appealing, apparently it can only be on a point of law and I would have to pay for it myself this time because it wont be covered by my union.
thinkfirst
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 9:01 am

Re: Lost tribunal

Postby atticus » Sat Apr 02, 2016 8:34 am

I am sorry to read this.

Appeals on the basis that the judge decided facts wrongly are exceptionally rarely allowed*. The point is that the judge who has heard the evidence, seen the witnesses give their evidence, is best placed to decide.

Appeals are therefore on "a point of law", that is to say whether, having decided the facts, the judge correctly applied the law to those facts.

*There has to be a strong case that the judge's findings of fact were perverse.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20653
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Lost tribunal

Postby Hairyloon » Sat Apr 02, 2016 9:10 pm

thinkfirst wrote:In short, the judge said it wasn't the job title of 'Manager' that mattered, it was the training which the person had that mattered. As far as the judge was concerned, the occasions were there were no managers on site which led me to conclude there didn't need to be managers on site, there were in fact managers on site because the staff left in charge, although not employed as Managers, had done certain training...
The Respondent didn't have to prove health and safety had been put at risk, according to the judge it goes hand in hand that if there was no manager on site then health and safety was put at risk.

Seems to me that "manager" is perhaps not the right word, but if it is the word that the judge used, then there appears to be a logical inconsistency.
Either the position of manager is one that is appointed or it is not.
If the staff left in charge are people who have not been appointed managers, and that did not present a health and safety risk, then it cannot be true to say that if there were no managers on site then there was a health and safety risk.
I forget what your case was about, but if the finding of fact is as you have put it here, then it is perverse.

I don't think I will be appealing, apparently it can only be on a point of law and I would have to pay for it myself this time because it wont be covered by my union.

Get the written reasons and find out how much it actually costs to appeal before you make that decision. It used to be free, but the country has been run by the Love of Money for a few years since I last looked at that.
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10560
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Lost tribunal

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Sat Apr 02, 2016 9:45 pm

I'm afraid I don't see the inconsistency. There are Managers, and (for want of a better phrase) Persons Trained to Undertake the Duties of a Manager - the former being a subset of the latter. There are occasions on which there are no Managers on site, but there are other staff trained to undertake their duties. This is acceptable, because the job title is not important but the training is, and the properly-trained staff are on site.

Unfortunately it leads TF to believe that it is acceptable to leave the site without properly-trained staff, because he looks to the title and not the training. He leaves the site without managers, which he has seen before, but because there are no other staff with the appropriate training on site he has behaved wrongly.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6537
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: Lost tribunal

Postby thinkfirst » Sat Apr 02, 2016 10:38 pm

Some of the people the employer left in charge were not managers and were not trained persons to undertake those duties and there was no one else on site who was trained. When i left people in charge who were not managers or trained to undertake those duties, I based my decision on the fact that there was never any issues when the employer did likewise. The employer has never once shown any evidence, such as training records, to prove the staff they leave in charge are all trained to undertake management duties. I know those records don't exist for certain staff left in charge because they have never done any such training, and i even suggested the employer go look through the records to find out. The tribunal didn't require those records to conclude that those staff were trained to undertake management duties, they simply took the word of the employer despite me raising concerns about this all through the disciplinary process and at tribunal.

Had the staff which the employer left in charge been trained, then yes i would have acted wrongly if i had then left untrained staff in charge; but then again i would have taken that training into consideration and not left untrained staff in charge in the first place.

This whole process has been a real education on many levels.
thinkfirst
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 9:01 am

Re: Lost tribunal

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Apr 03, 2016 11:35 am

Smouldering Stoat wrote:I'm afraid I don't see the inconsistency.

Then you have not read my post properly: it matters not a jot what you call them as long as you are consistent.

Unfortunately it leads TF to believe that it is acceptable to leave the site without properly-trained staff, because he looks to the title and not the training. He leaves the site without managers, which he has seen before, but because there are no other staff with the appropriate training on site he has behaved wrongly.

Is TF a manager? Or a PTUDM?
Surely an essential part of that training is of who is or is not allowed to be left in charge.
If TF is not a manager and has not been formally designated as a PTUDM, then whoever left TF in charge is at fault.
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10560
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Lost tribunal

Postby thinkfirst » Sun Apr 03, 2016 12:11 pm

I could keep going over this day after day, finding things I feel were wrong with the entire process, and I would stay in this moment for a long time if I did so. Whether or not I agree with the decision, I have accepted it and have decided to move on. Thank you all for the input you have given me during this process, as I said, it was an education, and I feel I am much better prepared should a similar thing arise again. Thank you.
thinkfirst
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 9:01 am

Re: Lost tribunal

Postby Waingro » Sun Apr 03, 2016 4:41 pm

thinkfirst wrote:I could keep going over this day after day, finding things I feel were wrong with the entire process, and I would stay in this moment for a long time if I did so. Whether or not I agree with the decision, I have accepted it and have decided to move on. Thank you all for the input you have given me during this process, as I said, it was an education, and I feel I am much better prepared should a similar thing arise again. Thank you.


Hopefully it won't but what would you do different if it did happen again in another job?
Nothing I say should be construed as advice because I really haven't got a clue.....
Waingro
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 11:37 pm

Re: Lost tribunal

Postby thinkfirst » Sun Apr 03, 2016 5:13 pm

First off I wont make judgement calls again, I will always pass it on for someone else to do.

As for disciplinaries and tribunals, im split on two thoughts now:

The first is I will make sure any investigation is done properly. Make sure correct notes are taken and supplied from investigation, disciplinary and appeal. The tribunal only received partial minutes for each which didn't included about 90% of my defence so it looked like I hardly questioned anything the employer did or put up much of a defence at disciplinary stage. I would question everything the employer states at meetings just to be clear what they say is what they mean. At tribunal a lot of stuff we put to them, which they had stated in the minutes and in their statements, they kept saying "I know I said that but I really meant ........(something else)". And the judge bought it. If I ever attend another tribunal I will make sure all the questions I feel should be asked are asked. I passed my solicitor lots of questions to lots of points which I felt were relevant; but he never passed them onto the barrister and of course I couldn't remember them at tribunal. And the judge referred to most of those issues in his summing up and he drew the conclusion they must be true because we never questioned them.

My second thought is: forget all that and just lie my arse off. Its less effort and it works for the employer even at tribunal so will no doubt work for employees too.

Knowing me though I will go with my first thought.
thinkfirst
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 9:01 am

Re: Lost tribunal

Postby donarebun » Wed Apr 13, 2016 10:39 am

My second thought is: forget all that and just lie my arse off. Its less effort and it works for the employer even at tribunal so will no doubt work for employees too.


That wouldn't work at all, because you were forgiven of their lies they wouldn't be forgiven of yours and will take you to task over that. No matter what you do, in life and in legal cases, make sure you don't lie as your opponents will attack you seriously on that.
donarebun
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 12:10 pm

Next

Return to Employment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests