I think I'm a marked man at work

[Loupylou]

'Prima facie' means 'on the face of it'. This means that (in the case of unlawful discrimination*) the individual has to reasonably show that discrimination might be occurring. Then the employer has to prove that it isn't.


* i.e. on the grounds of sex, race, age, disability, sexual orientation or religion/philosophical belief

cesare - please could you explain how someone shows discrimination on these grounds when employers have become adept at hiding discrimination ?

(I do know wouldn't be able to explain it as well legally except to say that if a person is treated differently in comparison to another employee, who is of a different gender, or race, then that is discrimination.)

One thing that is important to know is that a person can make a claim under discrimination law re race etc if they have only been employed for one day, whereas other claims you have to have been employed for a minimum of 12 months.

 

[cesare]

These are the employment tribunal statistics for the year ended 31 March 2007

 

[cesare]

cesare - please could you explain how someone shows discrimination on these grounds when employers have become adept at hiding discrimination ?

(I do know wouldn't be able to explain it as well legally except to say that if a person is treated differently in comparison to another employee, who is of a different gender, or race, then that is discrimination.)

It depends whether the claim is direct discrimination (i.e. treating someone less favourably) or indirect discrimination (i.e. a non- justifiable rule, criterion, provision or practice which operates to the detriment of a protected group).

If someone feels that they have been directly discriminated against - they have to make out a case to show why (a) their treatment was less favourable; and (b) why this was on the grounds of their sex, race, age, disability, orientation, religion/belief.

If someone feels that they have been indirectly discriminated against - they have to make out a case to show (a) what the rule/criterion/ practice/provision is; (b) the detrimental impact that operating that rule has; and (c) why the rule etc cannot be objectively justified.

If they can do that (by way of examples, evidence, witnesses etc) then the burden of proof switches to the employer.

One thing that is important to know is that a person can make a claim under discrimination law re race etc if they have only been employed for one day, whereas other claims you have to have been employed for a minimum of 12 months.

You do not have to be employed at all to be able to make a discrimination claim. Many such claims arise at recruitment and selection level.

 

[Wilf]

Seems like this thread has gone to stages 2 and 3 before looking at stage 1. Rather than thinking straight away about grievances, i'd say you need proper feedback as to why you aren't getting the jobs. If its a big firm there should probably be procedures for that. Anyway, depending on whether you judge you will get an honest answer, it would be worth asking your immediate boss for an assessment of the situation. You might just be messing up the interviews, simple as that.

[but still nick stuff]

 

[Loupylou]

You might just be messing up the interviews, simple as that.

[but still nick stuff]

that's so true !
altho it doesnt bode well that other employees are getting promoted when they have a worse safety record.

I think it's worth bringing in about tribunals, greivances etc, because there is a misconception that you can just go to ET & if you're in the right, you'll 'win' - not that having to go to a court of law to have your rights upheld is any kind of winning scenario......

 

[Loupylou]

It depends whether the claim is direct discrimination (i.e. treating someone less favourably) or indirect discrimination (i.e. a non- justifiable rule, criterion, provision or practice which operates to the detriment of a protected group).

If someone feels that they have been directly discriminated against - they have to make out a case to show why (a) their treatment was less favourable; and (b) why this was on the grounds of their sex, race, age, disability, orientation, religion/belief.

could you explain about the comparitor as this is how discrimination can be shown.
cheers

 

[cesare]

could you explain about the comparitor as this is how discrimination can be shown.
cheers

In general terms*, if a person complains that they have been discriminated against, they have to compare themselves with someone else - the 'comparator'. The comparator can be real or hypothetical.


* The exception is pregnancy/maternity

 

[ViolentPanda]

Thanks for that. I know thats the theory but how does it work in reality?

Because you can prove a causal link between the original case and the problems you're having.
It's one of the few things the Civil Service have historically taken VERY seriously, and one of the few things I've known management to be fired for, rather than be promoted out of trouble (which, as I'm sure you know, is the usual solution for shite management).

 

[Jografer]

I've seen people try and fail to prove this at grievance, tribunal - the lot.

& I've provided free legal support to people who have won...

 

[cesare]

Sorry KbJ, I misread your post and skimmed over 'how' As VP says ... causal link.

The equivalent in the US - 'retaliation' claims - have been rising steadily over the past decade because they are often easier to prove, and often the damages awarded are even higher.

Hard to separate out the figures in the UK, mainly because the victimisation claims falls under whichever area of discrimination.

 

[Jografer]

Potentially, lots of cash & your mental health.

Going to ET is NOT easy. It is extremely stressful.

(a bit more info in my post above)

at the end of the day, it's like any court - a lottery dependent on the Judge you have. Also Employment Law is very woolly - it's not like other areas of law at all.

Having said that - it is very empowering to stand up for your rights & to fight if you have been wronged at work - just don't expect to win just because you are right.

Wouldn't argue at all, except that it doesn't neccessarily have to cost if you have a bona fide case, & either represent yourself, or get union or CAB/advice centre support.

Remember though, preparing a good case can & does put the shits up employers, they see it as a lottery as well, that statistically is in favour of the plaintiff.... most cases are settled at the ACAS stage, out-of-court so to speak, with a result for the plaintiff.

I was recently involved in a case where a teacher resigned from work, claiming bullying & therefore constructive dismissal. The casework was all prepared up-front at submission. The (rural) education authority had a reputation of NEVER settling & always going to litigation, even when the evidence was clearly against them. In this case we made such a strong case they settled even before the ACAS stage, with an offer @ 70% of the ET claim submission... <<< proud/smug >>>

... it's always worth fighting, even if only for theraputic reasons... you can always pull out once you've had your rant...

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Because you can prove a causal link between the original case and the problems you're having.
It's one of the few things the Civil Service have historically taken VERY seriously, and one of the few things I've known management to be fired for, rather than be promoted out of trouble (which, as I'm sure you know, is the usual solution for shite management).

Aha! Would this apply to the private sector as well? I've known people who've been excluded by management in the private sector following a successful grievance case.

 

[cesare]

Aha! Would this apply to the private sector as well? I've known people who've been excluded by management in the private sector following a successful grievance case.

Yes, it applies to the private sector. Don't forget that 'victimisation' claims only apply to discrimination. It's an entirely different route for general bullying/exclusion.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Yes, it applies to the private sector. Don't forget that 'victimisation' claims only apply to discrimination. It's an entirely different route for general bullying/exclusion.

Interesting. Friends who've been victimised at work have left and got new jobs as the victimisation following grievance was done by colleauges who felt that bringing the case was 'letting the team down'.

 

[cesare]

Interesting. Friends who've been victimised at work have left and got new jobs as the victimisation following grievance was done by colleauges who felt that bringing the case was 'letting the team down'.

Discrimination claims (of which victimisation is one) can be brought against individuals as well as employers ...

 

[Pingu]

something else to consider...

I was held back for promotion becasue I was too good at my current job (this was many years ago btw). If they promoted me then finding someone to fill my role and replace the knowledge I had would have been very hard for them.

so the reasons may not be something you are doing wrong.. but something you are doing right.


still sucks either way though

 

[poster342002]

I'm honestly starting to think that you are a boss's plant.

Yeah - I must be a bosses plant because I refuse to peddle illusions in the bosses system. That makes sense. Not.

 

[poster342002]

Why else would you continually pop up on threads telling individuals not to bother pursuing their disputes?

I don't - I simply advise what they can expect to happen at worst, having seen some truly awful shit hapen to people who've tried.

 

[poster342002]

No.

If someone is targeted as a result of pursuing a discrimination claim, they can make a claim for victimisation. The same holds true post-termination e.g. with references. It also holds true for witnesses.

You've still got to prove that the vistimisation wa s a result of bringing the claim - especaily when the employer will just try to make out it was your performance that was at fault.

 

[cesare]

Yeah - I must be a bosses plant because I refuse to peddle illusions in the bosses system. That makes sense. Not.

You discourage people from pursuing disputes.

I don't - I simply advise what they can expect to happen at worst, having seen some truly awful shit hapen to people who've tried.

You discourage people from pursuing disputes.

You've still got to prove that the vistimisation wa s a result of bringing the claim - especaily when the employer will just try to make out it was your performance that was at fault.

Can't you read? The individual does not have to prove. They only need make out a prima facie case and then the burden of proof switches to the employer. Claiming that victimisation was a result of poor performance and not causally linked to a claim is not that easy to do.

 

[dessiato]

Especially as they will inevitably close ranks and deny everything. Chances are they'll have got the union reps "on board" as well, if there is one. You'll be stonewalled, obstructed at every turn, overloaded with impossble tasks and eventually forced out on trumped-up charges if you persist in pursuing the matter.

This was my experience. When I put in a formal complaint, by the time I had written it and submitted it an investigation had already been undertaken and conclusions drawn. I was found to be making unfounded accusations, all of this before the complaint was given to the investigating manager. Life just got worse from then on. When I then tried to appeal the investigating manager, by his own admission, didn't interview anyone, nor did he read the complaint. He decided that, as I was a manager, I should 'have known better'.

Even though I no longer work there, it still angers me to have been treated this way.

 

[poster342002]

This was my experience. When I put in a formal complaint, by the time I had written it and submitted it an investigation had already been undertaken and conclusions drawn. I was found to be making unfounded accusations, all of this before the complaint was given to the investigating manager. Life just got worse from then on. When I then tried to appeal the investigating manager, by his own admission, didn't interview anyone, nor did he read the complaint. He decided that, as I was a manager, I should 'have known better'.

Even though I no longer work there, it still angers me to have been treated this way.

Well, cesare, care to explain this one?

Cesare - all the theory in the world means jack shit when it comes to practise. Employers are, de-facto, above the law most cases nomatter what it says. 10 Years ago I'd have been argung the same things you are - then I saw how it all works in practise. Again. And again. And again ...

In fact, barely minutes ago I had a phonecall from a distraught friend who's boss has - after weeks of fulsome parise - suddenly started piling on ridiculous amounts of work, finding fault with all of it, denying things that had been agreed previopusly and is probably getting ready to fail them of their probationary period.

The system is owned and operated by the capitalists and their stinking boss classes.

 

[cesare]

Well, cesare, care to explain this one?

Cesare - all the theory in the world means jack shit when it comes to practise. Employers are, de-facto, above the law most cases nomatter what it says. 10 Years ago I'd have been argung the same things you are - then I saw how it all works in practise. Again. And again. And again ...

In fact, barely minutes ago I had a phonecall from a distraught friend who's boss has - after weeks of fulsome parise - suddenly started piling on ridiculous amounts of work, finding fault with all of it, denying things that had been agreed previopusly and is probably getting ready to fail them of their probationary period.

The system is owned and operated by the capitalists and their stinking boss classes.

Explain it?

I've never ever said that people aren't fucked over by the bosses and/or the system. Of course they are.

I just don't advocate lying down and letting the bosses/system march all over people - or encouraging people to let them do that.

I think people should organise in their workplace and stand up for their rights. If people ask for advice or help, I want to respond in a way that's helpful rather than encouraging them to lay down and be walked over on the grounds that some people are walked over and that therefore there's no point in doing anything different.

I never say it's easy. I never encourage people in misconceived disputes. But where people are having genuine difficulties of course I want to try and add something to help rather than hinder or deter.

People's problems aren't a platform for me to mouth off about the state of the 'Left' or capitalism or the system etc. They're asking for help and if I've got any knowledge/experience/time to help then I will.

But all you do is pop up and encourage people to lay down and accept what you think is inevitable coming to them. Fucked up imo.

 

[poster342002]

Explain it?

I've never ever said that people aren't fucked over by the bosses and/or the system. Of course they are.

I just don't advocate lying down and letting the bosses/system march all over people - or encouraging people to let them do that.

I think people should organise in their workplace and stand up for their rights. If people ask for advice or help, I want to respond in a way that's helpful rather than encouraging them to lay down and be walked over on the grounds that some people are walked over and that therefore there's no point in doing anything different.

I never say it's easy. I never encourage people in misconceived disputes. But where people are having genuine difficulties of course I want to try and add something to help rather than hinder or deter.

People's problems aren't a platform for me to mouth off about the state of the 'Left' or capitalism or the system etc. They're asking for help and if I've got any knowledge/experience/time to help then I will.

But all you do is pop up and encourage people to lay down and accept what you think is inevitable coming to them. Fucked up imo.

Sorry, but there's a limit to the number of times I can see the same scenario played out over and over again before I realise that the end result will almost inevitably be the same.

It strieks me that the bosses, the left and the unions have a shared interest in pretending that the system "works" and will fairly resolve workers' greivances. They're all doing very nicely out of it, thank you, while those at the bottom are routinely chewed up and spat out aftywerawards - while for the above-named outifits the sweetlife continues as normal.

 

[stretchy18]

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you

I'd look for another job, once you have that horrible little thought in your head it will probably eat away at you and affect your performance anyhoo

Sometimes your in the firing line what ever you do

 

[cesare]

Sorry, but there's a limit to the number of times I can see the same scenario played out over and over again before I realise that the end result will almost inevitably be the same.

It strieks me that the bosses, the left and the unions have a shared interest in pretending that the system "works" and will fairly resolve workers' greivances. They're all doing very nicely out of it, thank you, while those at the bottom are routinely chewed up and spat out aftywerawards - while for the above-named outifits the sweetlife continues as normal.

In terms of giving some help to posters experiencing workplace problems - so what?

How does your world view matter unless you're actively encouraging them to desist with their dispute and comply?

Cos that's what you're doing.

 

[stretchy18]

Sorry, but there's a limit to the number of times I can see the same scenario played out over and over again before I realise that the end result will almost inevitably be the same.

It strieks me that the bosses, the left and the unions have a shared interest in pretending that the system "works" and will fairly resolve workers' greivances. They're all doing very nicely out of it, thank you, while those at the bottom are routinely chewed up and spat out aftywerawards - while for the above-named outifits the sweetlife continues as normal.

Gotta go with poster on this, unless an employer cataclysmically drops the ball in their treatment of you and you have an iron clad case, you're out of the game.

Fair? No, realistic? Yes

Simple human behaviour

 

[cesare]

Gotta go with poster on this, unless an employer cataclysmically drops the ball in their treatment of you and you have an iron clad case, you're out of the game.

Fair? No, realistic? Yes

Simple human behaviour

Roll over and let them walk all over you? Pathetic.

 

[stretchy18]

Don't be a dick. At what point did I say roll over?

Stamp your feet as much as you want, you will only get so much, unless as I said, they have dropped the ball terribly

"Desist" "Comply" "Walk over" "Pathetic" This language spells out a righteousness tinged with naivety that I love to see, it is normally followed by how an employee has been wronged by the system, how damaged an employee is and how much renumeration the employee requires to make them feel better

This falls by the wayside when the employers case against the employee comes down to the fact that the employee is un productive, has a negative attitude and doesn't get on with anybody in the work environment

The employee will be got rid of, it will cost them a couple of months money but employers are fairly happy with this as it moves on a problem child without the bolloks of tribunal which costs money.....................

Most workplace disputes come down to personalities (like it or not) and this can't be legislated for this

 

[chainsaw cat]

That's no reason not to steal stuff, though.

Have a care; he might work at a sewage farm.