Mock tribunal’s lesson in law

AROUND 60 people from the Oldham business community experienced the realities of an employment tribunal thanks to the creative endeavours of staff at Pearsons Solicitors.

The mock tribunal was held at Hollinwood Business Centre and featured a real judge, Clare Grundy, and a barrister, Jason Searle, who acted for the claimant, with the respondent represented by Susan Mayall, head of employment at the Oldham legal firm.

Ahead of the “tribunal”, those attending had sight of what is known as a “bundle” — the host of documents submitted by both sides before proceedings begin.

The “bundle” sets out the case of both sides and also contains all the letters, minutes of meetings, memos, claims and counter claims of both sides.

Judge Grundy conducted the “tribunal” in a coldly professional manner and the audience was soon engrossed as Ms Mayall cross-examined the claimant, played convincingly by Pearson family law solicitor Tracy Crompton.

The silk, Mr Searle, was utterly assured as he attempted to tie down Simon Taylor, the “managing director” of the cutlery firm which had dismissed the claimant and led to the claim for unfair dismissal, including constructive dismissal. The questioning was tense and in depth and the whole event was utterly convincing.

After almost 90 minutes of cross-examination the tribunal was adjourned while Judge Grundy considered her decision.

Judge Grundy found that the claimant had been constructively unfairly dismissed and that Simon Taylor’s treatment of the claimant breached her employment contract, causing her to lose trust and confidence in her employer.

This was due to the manner in which Mr Taylor dealt with his employee — ignoring her continual requests for assistance and training, pushing on with a performance improvement plan without allowing her sufficient opportunity to make the necessary improvements, disregarding the terms of his own policies and procedures and ignoring recommendations contained within a medical report that he had obtained.

The Judge also found that Mr Taylor had called the claimant a “neurotic female”, “useless”and was “making excuses” by running off to her GP.

Motive
She also found that Mr Taylor was incorrect to rely on potential issues that the claimant was facing at home to disregard the issues that she raised with him.

The Judge also felt that Mr Taylor, by replacing the claimant with his nephew, suggested a motive to his treatment of her before her resignation.

The Judge indicated that she may have awarded more than £10,000 in compensation and Mr Taylor would have incurred a similar figure in legal fees fighting the case to trial.

Pearsons employer solicitor Ken Lees conducted a question and answer session at the conclusion of what was an educational, insightful and enlightening event.