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 In July 2008 I had been told that the latter complaint had been withdrawn but it was resurrected in March 2009 as part of a bundle produced by 'People Management' for the final stage of the grievance.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.