employment tribunal judgement « Singletrack Forum

Chat Forum

employment tribunal judgement

88 posts & 30 voices | Started 8 months ago by flame | Latest reply from taysider

Tags:

Pages: « Previous 1 23

mk1fan - Member

indeed.

'at the start of the first post' is quite clearly refering to the first paragraph. And that was in repsonse to the post that was directly above it.

Regardless of how you, or indeed anyone, interprited the post, I have since clarified what I meant.

I can see how you've read it;

'The 'law' is a bit stupid is certain circumstances.

A prime example of the difference between Law and Morality;
I was talking to somebody (employer) yesterday who had lost a case dispite the employee being incapable of doing their job and refusing the support and training offered by the employer that would have given them the skills they needed.'

But that's not how it was written. Besides, I have repeatedly clarrified my point.

Junkyard, you've gone from making a point to acting like an adolescent bellend. Just repeating 'Yeah but you said..... Yeah but you said....' Grow up.

Posted 8 months ago #
mightymarmite - Member

To those of you that have had problems with this - learn the law. I have done dismissal from both sides. Its very simple to sack someone for poor performance and to make that watertight at tribunal. However most employers don't bother doing things properly and thus leave themselves open for claims

Less so when the "recipient" is either non-compliant to the process, or simply not at work due to whatever reason the medical profession want to sign them off for as per my example above.

Throw in every other accusation they can think of (discrimination / constructive dismissal et all) and even when water tight from an administrative perspective you can (and no doubt will) end up before the tribunals so yet more time / expense and effort is wasted. For a small business this can be crippling in itself.

Posted 8 months ago #
konabunny - Member

they haven't even announced any redundancies, let alone produced a criteria matrix to work from

I didn't know redundancies were planned! I was assuming they wanted to ditch him/her because they're crap or something.

Posted 8 months ago #
uplink - Member

I didn't know redundancies were planned!

nor did we until we all saw that email

Posted 8 months ago #
Junkyard - Member

Regardless of how you, or indeed anyone, interprited the post, I have since clarified what I meant.

and yet each time you have clarified it you have claimed you meant something different - hence the confusion

you've gone from making a point to acting like an adolescent bellend. Just repeating 'Yeah but you said..... Yeah but you said....' Grow up.

Is that the mature way of making a point that I need to aspire too?

Posted 8 months ago #
konabunny - Member

nor did we until we all saw that email

Maybe it's just him/her that's getting binned, then...?

Posted 8 months ago #
Junkyard - Member

you've gone from making a point to acting like an adolescent bellend. Just repeating 'Yeah but you said..... Yeah but you said....' Grow up.

Is that the mature way of making a point that I need to aspire too?

project - why is it sad that the law is on the side of somebody who's been unfairly dismissed?

POSTED 1 DAY AGO # REPORT-POST
mk1fan - Member
The 'law' is a bit stupid is certain circumstances - a prime example of the difference between Law and Morality.

I was talking to somebody (employer) yesterday who had lost a case dispite the employee being incapable of doing their job and refusing the support and training offered by the employer that would have given them the skills they needed.

so obviously you are not suggesting in the case you cite of the incapable employee that the law was wrong. It was just said as a non related aside. It was pure random chance that it was on the very subject and issue we were discussing and we should read nothing in to this at all and no inference can be drawn from it.. this seems highly plausible to me.

Posted 8 months ago #
mk1fan - Member

Junkyard - Member
and yet each time you have clarified it you have claimed you meant something different - hence the confusion

I haven't at all.

Is that the mature way of making a point that I need to aspire too?

How was it immature? You are acting as an adolescent bellend. You keep reposting something YOU misinterpreted dispite being informed otherwise. A bit like Vicky Pollard in those Building Society adverts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCsi9Vqv1jY

I'm not saying my post was perfect in structure or the use of language but you keep repeating it regardless of being told you're misunderstanding it.

1st paragraph was a statement about how the Law doesn't always arrive at a 'morally' correct decision.

2nd paragraph was recanting a conversation I happened to have had on Tuesday.

I accept you may have misunderstood things after reading my first post. Something we both have ownership of.

But continued misunderstanding is all you.

Posted 8 months ago #
Junkyard - Member

Personally I think you have successfully convinced almost everyone that they were not related , despite being on the same issue,and have admirably saved face rather than concede a fairly unimportant point. Perhaps another insulting stroppy retort comparing me to an adolescent, a bell end or a fictional character will be the tipping point if there are any doubters left.

Posted 8 months ago #
mk1fan - Member

Posting points about Industrial Tribunals on a thread about Industrial Tribunals. How very odd. The mere thought of it. What would the elders think? And would someone please think about the children?

There's been no stroppyness in my responses. Regardless of your age (whatever that is), your continued repetition of a misunderstood post despite being told you had misunderstood it, is childish and you fully deserve teasing/ridicule over behaving like that.

Now run along Timmy and let the adults talk.

Posted 8 months ago #
Junkyard - Member

Posting points about Industrial Tribunals on a thread about Industrial Tribunals.How very odd. The mere thought of it.

Steady there tiger, You said that the statement had no relation to the issue being discussed as you were
recanting a conversation I happened to have had on Tuesday.

You are not now claiming there was a point there are you - like the three of us said at the top of this page

as kona paraphrased you

The point I was making...was that the Law doesn't always work as it should...I didn't express any opinion on whether it was the correct outcome or not

as aracer said

Though if it was the correct outcome, it's not a very good example of the law not working as it should, hence that point is crucial to your argument. By presenting it as an example of "the law not working as it should" you are implying your opinion on the quality of the outcome.

I agree you did make a point rather than just recount your day...and that point was a poor one. you could have just accepted this rather than argue on like this which is becoming pretty unedifing.
I leave you to your denials and increasingly bitter ad hominems

Posted 8 months ago #
aracer - Member

the claimants advisor was a proper prima donna....he was desperate to get into a tribunal despite my best efforts to settle.

I'm a bit confused by this statement, first time poster. You appear to be upset about the claimant's advisor taking you to tribunal, which presumably means you lost out due to this by having to pay more than you offered to settle. ISTM in that case that you didn't actually make as much effort to settle as you could have done, and that the advisor is good at his job and the decision to go to tribunal was nothing to do with being a prima donna and all to do with getting the best deal for his client.

Posted 8 months ago #
flame - Member

the advisor kept changing the responses to the offers i made without consulting the claimant...true i could have offered more as a settlement but i have a strong feeling he wouldnt have settled...this was backed up by his general attitude to me at the tribunal...he may have watched too many courtroom dramas on telly

hes a volunteer i think..cab

Posted 8 months ago #
mk1fan - Member

Junkyard - Member
You said that the statement had no relation to the issue being discussed as you were

No, I said that the two paragraphs in my first post were not directly connected to each other. I made a point, then finished with a tale. You (and others) read them as 'one' and you continue to do so.

Repeating what I replied to aracer, I was not expressing any opinion on the 'case' I mentioned. I also clearly said that I was not using it as an example in support of my point about the Law and Morality.

It is a coincidence that happen to have a conversation this week with somebody about their experience with an Industrial Tribunal. Mentioning it on an informal thread about Industrial Tribunals in the Chat Forum of a Biking Website would seem a reasonable action to take. Indeed others have.

Again, I accept that the wording / arrangement or my first post wasn't of the quality of Shakespear but this is an informal forum. But I have clarrified my posts. You continue to deny that I could have possibly meant anything else but your interpretation of my first post and perpetuate things.

You could just accept that you've;
1. read something
2. misunderstood it's intention
3. commented on it
4. been told 'no that's not what was meant'
and leave it at that.

But you choose not to and return to repeat action number 3.

Pityful really.

Posted 8 months ago #
cynic-al - Member

PRoject my first point was really simple and You failed to get it.

My second point, accordingly, is that you are thick.

HTH

Posted 8 months ago #
mk1fan - Member

Funny

Posted 8 months ago #
Junkyard - Member

Yes you told us a story about the issue we were discussing[ that if true supported your first statement] but it really had no relevance to anything and you just liked to tell us what you did that day?
I could accept it if it was not preposterous.

I wish I could just have been as brief , cruel and funny as al.
Unfortunately I fear both of could labour this point for days shall we just stop ?

Posted 8 months ago #
taysider - Member

What a load of TOSH!
You sacked him because you did not like him
You tried a cover up - it failed
Keep digging - £11300 as an award says it all

Pay up and shut up !

Your offer was derisory but it was so close to being accepted, only arrogance stopped you really discussing it.

Someone who knows!

Posted 8 months ago #