Tribunals and Tribulations: Point 2... dismissed for lots of little things? or...

Tribunals and Tribulations: Point 2... dismissed for lots of little things? or...: Which leads me to the second point: 2.1 The reason for the dismissal was given as 'Some Other Substantial Reason'. This has...

Point 2... dismissed for lots of little things? or for making disclosures? THAT is the question!

Which leads me to the second point:

2.1 The reason for the dismissal was given as 'Some Other Substantial Reason'. This has been upheld in spite of the fact that it has been admitted in the letter of dismissal and in Mrs Saunder's witness statement that the alleged 'misconduct' was not serious enough to warrant dismissal. As stated above: the allegations were based on 'lots of little things.' It seems to have been overlooked that dismissal under this category has to be 'substantial.' It has been overlooked that in her statement Mrs Saunders accepts that I did not know what 'misconduct' I had been accused of.

2.2 The Tribunal failed to look in detail at the 'breakdown in relationship' or 'trust and confidence' that was cited as the reason under SOSR. As the alleged 'misconduct' described did not cross the line, how could the allegations then be sufficient to lay the blame on me for the breakdown of the relationship? Please read point 34 of my witness statement and the extracts from my closing submission. I have described, with evidence, how my relationships with my colleagues were not irretrievable at the culmination of the grievance. It was the long suspension and the aggressive disciplinary that soured our relationships. As would be expected by any reasonably minded person, after such a long suspension and such an aggressive disciplinary, my colleagues were too embarrassed to face me or to accept me back into the workplace. Please read the section from my closing statement 'I did not contribute to my dismissal.'

2.3 The Tribunal failed to examine the circumstances of the suspension and the ultimate effect. My perspective was not considered.

I would like to refer to:

Crawford and another v Suffolk Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust[2012] EWCA Civ 138 CA

Suspending Employees During Disciplinary Hearings
In Crawford v Suffolk Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust, the employer referred a matter of alleged gross misconduct that arose out of the care given to a patient, to the Police. Describing this as "little short of astonishing", Elias LJ noted:

• Hospitals in this situation, although they must be seen to act transparently, owe duties to long-serving staff;
• Being under the cloud of possible criminal proceedings is a very heavy burden;
• Employers should not subject employees to that burden without the most careful consideration and a genuine and reasonable belief that the case, if established, might justify the epithet "criminal" being applied to the conduct.

Elias LJ also doubted whether suspension had been appropriate in this case, and observed that suspension should not be a knee-jerk reaction "if it is, it will be a breach of the duty of trust and confidence. Suspended employees will frequently feel belittled and demoralized".

Nothing I did even came near the category of 'criminal'. But the Respondent has been excused for suspending me without any explanation. My suspension cannot be described as a 'knee jerk reaction' to any misconduct as all of the alleged misconduct occurred months and even up to a year prior to the suspension. Any fair minded person would see clearly that it was a 'knee jerk' reaction to my disclosures about bullying in the workplace that were made through the grievance. Allegation three is in relation to an action I took while suspended: The further disclosures I made to the correct reporting officer four months into the suspension tipped the balance and caused my dismissal. It cannot be denied. The Respondent put it in an allegation at dismissal level and upheld it. See point 2.7 below.

2.4 All the evidence points to the same conclusion: namely that 'People Management' dealt with the grievance and the disciplinary in an aggressive and vindictive manner. There is open criticism throughout all the documents for my pursuance of a grievance and for making a formal confidential disclosure. There was no irretrievable breakdown between myself and my colleagues at the point of suspension. In my witness statement I cited evidence from the Respondent's own documents that shows that this is the truth.

2.5 Members of 'People Management' decided that I would not be allowed to return to work. In the early stages of the suspension periodically I asked what was happening. I was offered a compromise agreement and then redundancy, the former of which came with a threat that I may be dismissed. Regarding redundancy, we were still recruiting in my department. SOSR was used as a smokescreen for another reason. As one of my fair minded observers commented – it was a 'cop out.' Referring to:

Leach v The Office of Communications (2012) EWCA Civ95

Unexpected difficulties are bound to crop up in the course of efforts to reconcile the statutory rights of an employee to procedural and substantive fairness and the legitimate interests of the employer. Underhill J commented, in particular, on the increasing number of cases in which an employer, as here, gives "breakdown of trust and confidence" as the reason for dismissal. The trust placed by an employer in an employee is at the core of their relationship, which can break down in a wide spectrum of circumstances. Some cases fall short of a "conduct" reason for dismissal. The legislation is clear: in order to justify dismissal the breakdown in trust must be a "substantial reason." Tribunals and courts must not dilute that requirement. "Breakdown of trust" is not a mantra that can be mouthed whenever an employer is faced with difficulties in establishing a more conventional conduct reason for dismissal.

Secondly, the ET was entitled to conclude, on the facts of the case as found by it, that the reason for the Claimant's dismissal was a "substantial reason" within s.98(1)(b). The mutual duty of trust and confidence, as developed in the case law of recent years, is an obligation at the heart of the employment relationship. I would not wish to say anything to diminish its significance. It should, however, be said that it is not a convenient label to stick on any situation, in which the employer feels let down by an employee or which the employer can use as a valid reason for dismissal whenever a conduct reason is not available or appropriate. The circumstances of dismissal differ from case to case. In order to decide the reason for dismissal and whether it is substantial and sufficient to justify dismissal the ET has to examine all the relevant circumstances. That is what the ET did with regard to the nature of the Respondent's organisation, the Claimant's role in it, the nature and source of the allegations and the efforts made by the Respondent to obtain clarification and confirmation, the responses of the Claimant, and what alternative courses of action were reasonably open to the Respondent.

In contrast to this case my case is highly significant in that the ET did not examine all the relevant circumstances, particularly the source of the allegations. There was no clarification of the allegations, and no evidence. My responses were not part of the investigation by the Respondent and then in turn by the Tribunal. This is very clear in the investigation report and in Judge Parker's reasons. Judge Parker quotes from the Respondent's statements which are just bare denials and overlooks my responses which include evidence that cannot be refuted.

Tribunals practice and Procedure Edward Jacobs: Point 4.280 – A Tribunal makes an error of law if it refuses to hear or to take account of evidence that is admissible on the issues in dispute. 4.286 Every finding for which there is no evidence is perverse.

In contrast to the case above, no alternative courses of action were considered. I was taken straight to dismissal level on euphemistic allegations that were sprung on me.

No alternatives to dismissal were offered. In the disciplinary hearing I was asked if I would want to be transferred in another area of work. I said I was happy in my job and it suited me because of my previous experience and background. I made the point in the Tribunal Hearing that I was not told 'another job or no job' and that nothing had been suggested.

2.6 It is apparent to anyone reading Judge Parker's reasons that he has made excuses for the Respondent at every point in the proceedings, overlooking essential details. These are excuses that the Respondent themselves have not put forward. In legal jargon I have read that this is 'stepping into the arena.' My fair minded observers would put this as simply 'siding with the Respondent regardless of what they did.' To give one example: In the reasons the long suspension is defended asserting that there was nothing to show that the investigation did not continue throughout the suspension period, that there were a number of bodies and persons to be interviewed and even that it took some time to arrange an occupational health appointment. I made this appointment, and it was only around one hour.

The only reason given by the Respondent for the long suspension was for me to have time to 'reflect on my behaviour.' I cited the evidence for this in the Tribunal Hearing. It is written in the Investigating Officer's Report prepared for the disciplinary.

Again my witness statement has not been considered. At point 26 I cited evidence that the decision to investigate was not made until 21st July 2009, four months after I had been suspended. I have attached the letter from Joanne Carpenter of 'People Management' that I included as evidence. She apologises for any stress this may have caused.

The fair minded observers who have considered these excuses put forward by the Tribunal have described it as utterly ridiculous, beyond belief and a disgrace to British Justice. There is clear evidence that cannot be disputed. No reasonable tribunal would reach such a decision.

2.7 It is clear that if I caused the breakdown, it was by making disclosures under the Respondent's whistle blowing policy. This makes my dismissal automatically unfair. The third allegation makes this blatantly clear: the accusation that I : 'Created an intimidating, hostile or humiliating working environment by pursuing a grievance beyond the final stage of the grievance procedure' was referring to the confidential disclosure I made under the Respondent's own 'whistle blowing' policy. This was confirmed by the Reporting Officer, Mrs Hewitt in the disciplinary hearing. It is in the notes taken at the hearing. Until this point I did not know what the allegation meant. It cannot be true. It was my expectation that the disclosure would be kept confidential and investigated. I was reporting injustice and bullying in the workplace. I had every right to report that the recommendation from the grievance had not been followed, rendering the whole process a sham, and that I had been suspended for nearly four months without knowing why.

Mrs Hewitt victimised me for making this disclosure. Even if I had been mistaken it should not have been turned against me and used to dismiss me.

Section 47B provides, so far as is material:

"(1) A worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that the worker has made a protected disclosure."

This is the only allegation that specifies that the relationship was soured by my actions. Mrs Hewitt is on record in their own notes as saying it was not nice for my managers to have their names in front of the the reporting officer. As 'People Management' had made the decision to ignore the recommendation for mediation, it was her name as well. This on its own demonstrates that she was not an impartial 'investigating officer.' The bitterness towards me has not been hidden. It is in the reports and witness statements. Again this illustrates that there was not a reasonable investigation as established by the precedents established in British Home Stores v Burchell, BAILII case number: [1978] UKEAT 108_78_2007

The Tribunal overlooked these basic facts that I put to them in my witness statement, in the Tribunal Hearing and in my closing statement.

2.8 This part of my story cannot be refuted, and shows that the process was not only unfair, but that I was victimised for making disclosures both through the grievance and the suspension.

2.9 In his reasons, Judge Parker claims that there are no references to any disclosures in my witness statement. This is not true. I have attached my statement with these references highlighted. In the Hearing Judge Parker refused to let me use the term 'disclosure' and corrected me saying they were 'complaints.' It is well documented that they were complaints made under the Respondent's whistle blowing policy. In this policy it clearly states that in making disclosures the actual policy does not have to be specified. The jargon is not important. There is an assurance that any employee making disclosures will be protected from retribution. I put my faith in this policy. It was not followed and there was a breach of the duty of trust and confidence that I was entitled to under my contract of employment.

2.10 In the judge's reasons it is stated that I continually claim that I was suspended and dismissed as a direct result of making disclosures and taking out a grievance and that this was not true. Then later in these reasons the point that I chose to progress a grievance is cited as the point at which I caused my own dismissal 'whether I knew it or not.' This was in the first stages of the grievance. I have shared this with many fair minded citizens and everyone has come to the conclusion that this clearly shows that the decision is contradictory and perverse. In effect the tribunal have endorsed the Respondent's victimisation of me for attempting to address bullying in the workplace. I was using the correct procedures under my contract of employment. I have been urged to ask specifically for an explanation of this part of the reasons by the fair minded observers who have shared my story. We are awaiting a response.

2.11 During the Hearing Judge Parker put it to me that choosing to pursue a grievance over mediation was inflammatory – or words to that effect. I explained to him that the funding for mediation had to be approved, that it was not definite and was expected to take some time. I put forward that a grievance, if it was carried out professionally should not be aggressive. I also reiterated a point that is in my witness statement: that I requested mediation throughout all of the procedures. Again this is evidenced in writing. It was the employer's decision to delay mediation until the grievance had been concluded. I did not agree with the grievance outcome and was entitled to progress it to the final stage. I have now had my claim dismissed for asserting that right.

2.12 The Tribunal also have overlooked the fact that mediation was recommended by all of the persons conducting the grievance and that we had all agreed and requested it. This decision was overruled by employees in 'People Management.' They put themselves above the board of three councillors and decided that mediation would not work, wholly because I had taken out a grievance. Again this is all clearly documented. They made no secret of it.

2.13 Damned if I do and damned if I don't: I have explained to my fair minded observers that if a claim is taken to a tribunal and the claimant has not exhausted the employer's internal procedures that the claimant will be deemed as 'contributing to their own dismissal.' Even if the claimant wins, the compensation can be dramatically reduced. If I had not progressed the grievance this 'Polkey' reduction would have applied to me. To any fair minded person this shows that I have been in a 'no win' situation. I have been victimised for progressing a grievance but would have been deemed to have contributed to or caused my own dismissal had I not continued with the grievance process. In my witness statement I have described the grievance process that I had to endure. My grievance was not addressed and it was used as a forum to distress and intimidate me. This is evidenced from the Respondent's own documents. 

WANTED: fair minded citizens to read my appeal

In this Fresh Notice of Appeal I am selecting seven main points that were made in the reasons given for the dismissal of my claim that do not make sense. There are more. The reasons that were submitted by Judge Parker contain numerous inaccuracies that I can disprove with evidence from the Respondent's own documents.

This means that my case is arguable.

I have shared the reasons with many fair minded and reasonably informed citizens and the overriding impression is that these reasons are hopelessly wide and vague. We do not understand why I was turned down. In particular my witness statement and my closing submission has been totally overlooked. The indisputable evidence that I presented has not been acknowledged.

There are blanket agreements with the Respondent's blank denials. There is no reason given why the Tribunal chose to assert that one of the Respondent's witnesses was reliable and that my evidence was not. To comply with the precedent set out in Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250, CA. 16. we are entitled to know what relevant considerations were made in reaching this decision and in the decision as a whole. I am respectfully requesting that this basic point of law is explained. If there is no explanation the judgment should be vitiated and my claim should be remitted to a new tribunal.

I am respectfully requesting that I am given explanations of the following seven points: Under Rule 3(7b) it is stated that the appeal judge or registrar will inform me of the 'reasons for his opinion.' Merely stating that there are no points of law or perversity is an opinion or a conclusion. There is no reasoning involved when summarily agreeing with the Tribunal decision. I will explain below that the Tribunal summarily agreed with the Respondent's decision. My perspective was not considered. The case that I referred to in my closing statement was not responded to: Haddon v den Bergh Foods Ltd (1999) IRLR 672 EAT - 'The tribunal also forgot to consider the case from the employee's perspective, as is required by the reference to “equity” in s 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.'

If a precedent is quoted I am entitled to know how the case applies to my circumstances. To my mind and to that of each of my readers we cannot see how the judge's reasons are 'Meek compliant.' ( that the reasons given for the judgment are adequate) Simply naming a precedent does not explain how it is relevant. If this is not explained there is no transparency. The explanatory duty of judges is not being complied with. The growing band of fair minded observers of my case cannot understand why the evidence has been overlooked. The true test is that I cannot explain to anyone why my amendment and my claim have been dismissed.

Point One

1.1 Background facts: I was suspended one day after the employer's grievance procedure was completed. My grievance was partially upheld and we had all requested and agreed to mediation. I was suspended pending a disciplinary on two allegations. One of these was that I 'potentially put children at risk of not having their needs met.' I was shocked and distressed and asked for an explanation of this accusation. None was forthcoming. In the event this allegation was not pursued. Some six months later into the suspension, I was interviewed on these two allegations and still no explanation was given. When I asked what I had done to warrant the suspension and a disciplinary investigation, I was told it was ' lots of little things.' The Investigating Officer, Mrs Hewitt of 'People Management' would not or could not tell me how I had potentially put children at risk of not having their needs met. Six different allegations were eventually put forward to replace the two. These were first made known to me in the bundle for the disciplinary hearing around eight months after I had been suspended. Again there was no explanation and the investigation report did not contain my perspective. It could not include my perspective. I had not been interviewed on these allegations and had not submitted a witness statement. It is claimed that this report was impartial. I had asked for guidance on the disciplinary procedure, but none was forthcoming. This does not constitute a 'reasonable response' or a 'reasonable process' as set out in the precedent set by British Home Stores v Burchell, BAILII case number: [1978] UKEAT 108_78_2007. The Respondent submitted this precedent to dismiss my claim without any explanation and at Point 19 of the reasons the Tribunal gives a blank agreement. Neither the respondent or the tribunal have given the relevant considerations made in coming to this opinion.

1.2 In the reasons given by Judge Parker he asserts that the six allegations were exemplars and expansions of the original two. I cannot see how anyone can agree with this. In the main they are still vague and euphemistic and the details that were added did not correlate with the evidence that was put forward to support them.

1.3 Any reasonably minded person would consider that the accusation of 'potentially putting a child at risk of not having their needs met' warranting instant suspension with no warnings must be serious and clear cut. And yet the Respondent and the Tribunal did not or indeed cannot specify what I had done to warrant this accusation. In the reasons given to dismiss my claim this has now been incorporated into the six allegations that followed. It has been reinstated. Therefore I have a right to know the details. I am entitled to know who made this allegation, on what grounds, why it was dropped and then reinstated by the Tribunal.

Every finding for which there is no evidence is perverse.

1.4 As there is no evidence or grounds for this allegation, my contention stands: that it was put before me entirely to intimidate, distress and harass me. It was direct retribution and victimisation for pursuing a grievance. The records of positive feedback that I had received was documented and included in the bundle but were not considered. These spanned nearly five years, from the day I was appointed. My personnel records are all positive and I was thanked for mentoring new staff.

1.5 I asked the Respondent's witnesses in the Tribunal Hearing why I had not been told what my perceived shortfalls were and why I was not afforded the 'stepped approach' specified in the Respondent's disciplinary policy and procedures. In particular if the risk was 'potential' why wasn't I alerted to it and given the opportunity to put it right? I was not given an answer.

Again this does not constitute a 'reasonable process'. Any fair minded person would agree that an accused person has the right to know what they have been accused of and why.

1.6 This applies to all of the allegations. I quoted from the Respondent's policy which was part of my contract of employment and mirrors the ACAS guidance. It specifies that the process should be supportive and not used as a punishment. The only responses I had from Mrs Saunders, the Respondent's witness were blank denials. She continually repeated that she was 'satisfied that a fair process took place' but she could not justify this. When questioned she also continually repeated, 'I am entitled to rely on the evidence that was before me.' There was no evidence. When I asked her to elaborate and cite the evidence she gave the same reply, once saying 'they are all in the paperwork.' Judge Parker curtailed my questioning saying that she had 'answered my question.' She had not. Please read my witness statement for examples of the evidence in the investigation report that do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is quite the opposite. It is quite peculiar that the documents quoted show that I was innocent. I gave more 'samples of these acts complained of ' in the Tribunal Hearing in my questions. All of the examples I gave have been overlooked. I invited the tribunal members to question me on any accusations in the report prepared for the disciplinary. I was not questioned on my witness statement, the allegations or on the additional accusations that were added in the Hearing.

A Tribunal makes an error of law if it refuses to hear or to take account of evidence that is admissible on the issues in dispute.

1.7 This is the only allegation that could possibly have been serious enough to warrant suspension and dismissal, and yet the Respondent cannot give any details. The six allegations that followed eight months later were not of a serious nature. It has been admitted by the Respondent and was repeated by the Judge that I was suspended and dismissed 'for lots of little things.'

Autocracy rules in the 21st century - nothing has changed since Victorian days...

Point 30

Back to the complaint that was withheld from me:
At Point 30 of Judge Parker's reasons, with reference to the 'number of complaints' he states : 'Whether the numbers of settings involved were greater or smaller, these persons and bodies were clients of the respondent.' and that these 'had a significant impact upon the respondent.'
No 'significant' or detrimental impact was ever specified. I was the only one who considered a detrimental impact and looked at this from the perspective of the manager of the setting. My protest was that the one complaint that was in writing had not been investigated and that there had been no attempt to resolve it. The complaint was not specific, so there was nothing to be addressed. The client (service user) claimed that she had had better advice from my colleagues. It is in writing that I was 'itching to know' what this advice was and the recommendation from the grievance was that this should be 'explored.' I think anyone would agree that that would be fair.
 I did not ever find out where I was deemed to be lacking because I was suspended shortly after being given this information. It is important to read this letter of complaint. It starts by saying that she had only written because she was assured that it would be used in a positive way to improve the service, and that it was not a formal complaint. It seems clear that someone was urging her to write a complaint. In addition she asked for confidentiality. I am the only one who has respected this and I have not named the person.
My perspective was not considered by my ex employers or by the tribunal. In my witness statement I have sympathised with the manager and acknowledged that this had left us both in a difficult situation. It was not a fair solution to dismiss me. I have made these points clear, and cited the evidence in points 39, 40 and 60 of my witness statement. This evidence has not been considered in the judgment. The only 'siginificant' detrimental impact was in leaving this unresolved.

It is perverse that Judge Parker has chosen to escalate this complaint to such a serious allegation by repeating the Respondent's unsubstantiated claims that 'settings were saying they had lost confidence' in me. This was the only one recorded. He states that 'these were having a detrimental impact on the respondent.' There is no evidence that any other settings made such complaints, and this one had not been investigated. How do we know that there was not a complete misunderstanding? - or that she did not like the colour of my hair?
Why wasn't the 100% positive feedback I had from training and conferences taken into account, the 99% + positive feedback from all of my other visits? The positive feedback that Mrs Barton recorded in her notes in the three months she was acting as my line manager? This is all in my witness statement and the evidence is in the bundle presented to the tribunal.
I do not believe that a reasonably minded observer would see this as a fair, balanced judgment.
I have now read that it is also a 'point of law' if evidence is disregarded, but the judge refusing my appeal has not responded to this. I have had another blank refusal - no reasons given. As my astonished observers have concluded 'because he can.' That is not giving the transparency that anyone is entitled to. If these are not 'points of law' or examples of a perverse decision we have a right to have this explained. Justice should not just be done, but must be seen to be done. If a judge is going to make these decisions he has an explanatory duty.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.
It seems that my main problem is that I keep forgetting that I am a pleb and should accept being downtrodden.

Read this - you will not believe it!

You cannot please all of the people all of the time.
I asked the Respondent's witness, Mrs Saunders if, while it was commendable to have a 100% positive feedback from clients or service users, whether it was realistic. She replied , ' I don't understand the question,' then when I tried to explain it further, ' Do I have to answer that question?' and then I believe she said, 'I am not qualified to answer that question.'
During the hearing and in the judgment my detailed written evidence was not considered but the Tribunal has accepted the bland accusations and blanket statements of the Respondent as 'evidence.'
As one example, in the Tribunal Hearing I asked Mrs Saunders, the Respondent's witness about her statement in which she claims that there were 'a number of complaints.' I asked her to specify the number and what the complaints were. She was allowed to answer, ' they are in the folder/ report.' In my witness statement I responded to the two detailed in the ET3, one of which had been resolved nearly two years before the disciplinary was launched, and the other which had been withheld from me until shortly before I was excluded pending a disciplinary hearing. In July 2008 I had been told that the latter complaint had been withdrawn but it was resurrected in March 2009 as part of a bundle produced by 'People Management' for the final stage of the grievance. This had not been investigated and there were no attempts to resolve it.
During the hearing the witness then mentioned two other settings which had not been previously specified. I was not prepared for these. In the hearing Judge Parker accepted these as 'complaints'. In the Investigation Report for the disciplinary there are several paragraphs with Mrs Hewitt's interpretation of these and one short sentence citing an email message to one of the clients and my claim confirming that it had been resolved. It had. The client was of the impression that our role was to interact with the child. She had also been told that we had a specialist on behaviour management, which was untrue. A lot of our 'complaints' were based on a misconception of our role. I explained this to the manager and she accepted it. There is a record in the 'bundle' of an email from my line manager thanking me for resolving this.
Yet it has been used to sack me and to dismiss my claim in the Tribunal.
In my witness report I have indicated that I had suspicions that one of my colleagues was implicit in initiating these 'requests for another visitor.' It is reported at Point 58 of my statement - 'I asked MB to investigate two further requests for another visitor, which seemed to follow after my line manager SH had paid a visit.' This is another example of the Tribunal accepting the statements in the Investigation Report as being reliable evidence, when they clearly are not. Mrs Hewitt, the person responsible for writing the Investigation Report for the disciplinary did not include my perspective. To any reasonable person it would indicate that this was in retribution for my grievance. The WSCC policy specifically states that employees taking out a grievance will be protected from retribution.
In some of the examples Mrs Hewitt gave in her report, she had not even asked me. In other examples she made scant reference to my perspective and dismissed it with no reasons given apart from the blanket statements that the report largely consists of. In this case she wrote that I refused to accept 'culpability' for the 'complaints.' They were not specific complaints about me. Each person had requested an alternative visitor. I had not even been working directly with these people. I did nothing wrong.
I believed that in the Tribunal Hearing my submission on 'proportionality' was a strong point and did not expect Judge Parker to include these two further settings in the number which he describes in his 'reasons' as 'large.' I put it to him in the Hearing that even if they were included it made the number three out of a possible 150 to 200 settings that I had visited over the five previous years.  When I explained our brief, every client accepted this and was happy to continue working with me. This is on record.
I can't imagine that these clients would be happy that they were implicated in my dismissal and the dismissal of my claim.

How ridiculous is this?

One of the 'reasons' given by the judge when dismissing my claim was that it was not the role of the tribunal to replace their decision with that of the employer. When I relate this to any fair minded member of the public their reaction is, 'Then what is the point of going to a tribunal?'
To illustrate my point further please consider the following report on a recent case:
Range of Responses Test
[Thanks to Naomi Cunningham of Outer Temple Chambers for preparing this case summary]

In an unfair dismissal case, is it for the tribunal to decide whether or not the dismissal was fair?

No, says the EAT in Bryant v Sage Care Homes Ltd.

Ms Bryant, a nurse with a long and unblemished record, worked at the Respondent's nursing home. She instructed a care assistant to administer a drug to a patient. The care assistant gave the drug to the wrong patient, and Ms Bryant learned of the error shortly after.

Ms Bryant was dismissed for failing to record or report the error. The tribunal held that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. The EAT held that although any reader of the tribunal judgment might think that Ms Bryant had been harshly treated, the decision was not perverse.

There is nothing new or startling in this judgment. But those who persist in thinking the 'range of reasonable responses' test an impermissible gloss on the language of section 98 may derive some wry amusement from a judgment of which the judge's own summary puts the point this baldly: 'It was not the task of the employment tribunal or the EAT to decide whether the dismissal was fair.'
My comment:- It is my opinion that any 'fair minded' person's reaction would not be 'wry amusement' but rather one of shock and horror. When putting in a claim for unfair dismissal, the expectation is, and should be that the tribunal will make such a decision. There seem to be a growing number of mantras used by judges which denies this role. Another which is commonly quoted in many cases is ' the tribunal must not replace their decision with that of the employer.' In the reasons given to me, after a long tirade the judge finally adds this mantra. To me this negates the need for any of the preceding pages. If there is no such thing as 'unfair dismissal' in the eyes of the tribunal why isn't it in the rules? I cannot see how that equates with the pledge to 'do right by all manner of people.' If the judges work on these principles the employer only has to put forward a token resistance and they cannot lose. If it is deemed that the employer is always right, any tribunal hearing is a complete waste of time and resources.

My story in brief - abuse of power

My story in brief - abuse of power

On my own I am powerless:

Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.
Paulo Freire

About me and my blog

In 1974 I achieved my childhood ambition and became a teacher in UK schools. Since then I have had a number of roles, in the latter years specialising in early years and children with additional support needs. I have positive records and references from all of my posts. I produced these for the Tribunal Hearing.

In April 2004 I was appointed an an advisory teacher for West Sussex County Council ( WSCC). From that date until March 2009 my 'Individual Development Records' were positive and I had good feedback from managers and our service users.

This turned from the point that I reported bullying in the workplace. I requested that the word 'bullying' was not repeated as I knew it would be emotive and make conciliation more difficult.

I tried to resolve this informally but was not given any support, so I followed the advice given to me and initiated a grievance, in accordance with the WSCC policy which was part of my contract of employment.

The basic facts are:

The grievance procedure took nine months, and throughout that time the bullying escalated to include 'People Management.' I have a record of the incidences, which I reported to People Management and ultimately to the correct 'reporting officer' appointed to listen to my concerns under the WSCC 'confidential reporting policy.' My disclosure to this officer was not kept confidential, and some four months later it was used in an allegation against me at dismissal level.

Even if the officer believed I had no cause, I had the right to have it acknowledged, kept confidential and investigated, not turned against me and used to dismiss me. 

 

I was summarily suspended one day after the grievance procedure was completed. The recommendation from the councillors at the final stage was for 'mediation from qualified personnel' as soon as practicable. There is a record of myself and the managers involved in the grievance asking for mediation, throughout the process and in the final grievance hearing. This was ignored, making a sham of the whole grievance procedure. This was just one of the points I brought to the attention of the reporting officer.

I was suspended from March 2009 to my dismissal on 10th December 2009. I continued asking for details of the two initial vague allegations, but was not given a response, apart from ' you will be supported on your return to work.'

The next shock was in May 2009. I was offered a compromise agreement to leave, with a threat that I 'may be dismissed.' I have been told by lawyers to 'leave my feelings out of it', but I felt like I had been punched in the stomach. I still did not know what I was supposed to have done wrong to warrant dismissal. This was closely followed by an offer of redundancy, even though we were still recruiting in my department.

The evidence I produced to defend the allegations was ignored. I have explained in my witness statement for the tribunal hearing that the evidence collated by the investigating officer does not support her accusations. In fact it is quite the opposite, they show that I was innocent. The intention was to dismiss me, and the reason was that I had taken out grievances, which were essentially disclosures about bullying and then made a confidential disclosure under the WSCC 'whistle blowing' policy.

I believe that any reasonable person would agree with me that the disciplinary, to put it in simple terms, was a kangaroo court. Again the WSCC policy was not followed.

This abuse of power has continued through to the tribunal procedures. No reasons have been given for the decisions, just blank denials and unsubstantiated accusations. The evidence I presented was not acknowledged. My witness statement was ignored. The latest accusation is that I am being vexatious, simply for appealing a decision. No other reason has been given.

 

In the final tribunal hearing the respondent and the judge referred to minor misunderstandings with our service users that had been resolved years previously. These were all regarding misapprehensions about my brief. I found myself defending 'requests for an alternative visitor' which the Judge would only allow me to describe as 'complaints.' There are no records of such complaints. Within the folders of evidence produced for the tribunal hearing, there are records of these issues being resolved, including thanks from my line managers for doing so. The judge told me that it was not necessary for me to find these.

My identity, my vocation and my livelihood have been taken away from me. I did nothing wrong. I am now virtually unemployable.

There are strict time limits on Tribunal procedures but there are no time limits for telling my story. I am telling the truth and have documentation to back up all of the facts I will present. I am asserting my right to freedom of speech and will not insult or lie about anyone.

QUOTES:

My hope:

“There is a power that can be created out of pent-up indignation, courage, and the inspiration of a common cause, and that if enough people put their minds and bodies into that cause, they can win. It is a phenomenon recorded again and against in the history of popular movements against injustice all over the world.”
― Howard Zinn, You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train: A Personal History of Our Times

I have been told constantly that I will fail:

 

The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just.

Abraham Lincoln

“I don't know about you, but I only have one life, and I don't want to spend it in a sewer of injustice.”
― Wallace Shawn

“Some things you must always be unable to bear. Some things you must never stop refusing to bear. Injustice and outrage and dishonor and shame. No matter how young you are or how old you have got. Not for kudos and not for cash: your picture in the paper nor money in the bank either. Just refuse to bear them.”
― William Faulkner, Intruder in the Dust

 

 

 

Unfair dismissal

Please read my story about bullying in the workplace and unfair dismissal. I want to describe my experiences with my ex employer, West Sussex County Council and the subsequent tribunal processes. At every stage my complaints have been summarily dismissed. This to any fair minded observer constitutes a blatant abuse of power. I know because I have consulted such people. Those who are involved in law accept this, and by doing so condone it. People not involved in law who are not familiar with this kind of oppression are shocked and angry.
I have also faced apathy -' life is not fair'. Some things in life are not fair and no one can change them. But some things can and should be changed. I would like to hear from anyone who has had similar experiences. At the very least we can be angry together.

Read my story...

I want to share my experiences in the British Employment Tribunal. I have had a long journey.

I was not given a fair trial. I have read that Article 6 does not allow a judge to 'exclude evidence that has substantive probative value.' The judges ignored my evidence, which is clearly documented. I have been accused of being vexatious, just for appealing a decision. No other reason has been given.

I need to make a public disclosure to some fair minded, reasonably informed members of the public.