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.'
No comments:
Post a Comment