Representing Yourself in Employment Proceedings is a Recipe for Muddle

Those who choose to represent themselves in employment proceedings, without the benefit of legal advice, often have enormous difficulty in getting their real complaints across. That was certainly so in the case of a woman who claimed to have been so badly treated by her employer that she was…

Jun 07, 2022

The woman had been in her job for less than three months when she resigned. The fees her employer had paid to a recruitment agency when she was taken on – which came to £945 – were deducted from her final wages. Acting in person, she launched proceedings to recover that sum on the basis that the deduction was unlawful. Her claim was rejected by an Employment Tribunal (ET).

Upholding her appeal against that outcome, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) noted that it was her case that she was forced to resign by a manager’s constant criticism, bullying and nit-picking. Such allegations would, to an employment lawyer, have provided obvious grounds for claiming constructive dismissal.

Her allegations of mistreatment were contained in two letters attached to the claim form by which she commenced the proceedings. However, she made no mention of constructive dismissal either in the claim form itself or during the ET hearing. As a result, the ET did not address any such issue.

The EAT found that the ET should have appreciated from the letters that she was, in substance, asserting that she was constructively dismissed. That issue was before the ET and it should have considered whether she had resigned in response to a breach by the employer of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, thus rendering the deduction of the recruitment fees improper.

The EAT sent the matter back to the same ET for consideration of the question of whether she was constructively dismissed. The employer accepted that, if she succeeded on that issue, the deducted sum would have to be repaid to her. Given the relatively small sum involved, the EAT urged both sides to carefully consider settlement of the dispute as an alternative to further litigation.

Employment Tribunals Can Spot a Sham Redundancy When They See One

It can be hard to distinguish an unfair dismissal from a genuine redundancy process. As was shown by the case of a property manager who found himself on the receiving end of his boss’s unjustified pique, however, Employment Tribunals (ETs) tend to know a sham when they see one. The founder of the business for which the man worked had taken strongly against him. During a recorded meeting, she made a number of offensive remarks about him in his absence. After he launched proceedings, an ET found…

Postman Sacked Following Flawed Investigation Wins Unfair Dismissal Claim

A finding of dishonesty against an employee is a grave matter that is highly likely to negatively impact on their future working life. In upholding a postman’s unfair dismissal claim, an Employment Tribunal (ET) emphasised that such a finding can only be justified following a thorough and reasonable investigation. The postman was accused of stealing a letter from a bank that had been left sticking out of a householder’s letterbox. The evidence against him included CCTV footage from a video…

Type 1 Diabetes Sufferer Wins Direct Disability Discrimination Claim

When employees disclose that they are suffering from a disability, it is an important moment that should always put employers on their mettle. The point was powerfully made by the case of a business development manager who was dismissed within days of his employer learning that he had been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. After the man launched proceedings, an Employment Tribunal (ET) found that his dismissal was significantly influenced by the employer’s knowledge of his disability. He had been…