Guest post: Anne Redston

anne_redston

Completing your ET1

The ET1 is the form you complete when you begin your claim. It sets out the reasons you are complaining to the Tribunal. So in an unfair dismissal case, you must explain why you think your dismissal was unfair; in a discrimination claim, you must explain the incidents you believe amount to discrimination.

This seems straightforward enough. But there are two common mistakes. The first is to give too much detail, in an unstructured form, so that key facts get buried. This makes it difficult for the Tribunal to work out exactly what you say happened. In contrast the employer normally submits a carefully structured ET3, with legal help, which concentrates on the facts the employer thinks are important and presents them in the way most helpful to its case.

The Tribunal judges normally read the ET1 and ET3 just before they begin the case, but not very long before. In the short time available, they may be drawn to the employer’s comprehensible, coherent and legally persuasive account rather than your rambling 20 page ET1. And this is means you start the case on the back foot, having to convince the Tribunal that you have a good case.

The second risk is that you miss out important facts because you don’t realise that the Tribunal will want to know them. If you try and raise these facts later, the employer’s representative may suggest that you made them up, in order to strengthen your claim.

So, unless the issue is very straightforward – such as being racially abused by your boss – it is worth getting some legal help at this early stage if you can. There are various sources of free advice (see Getting Advice); or if you can afford it, you might want to pay an employment lawyer for a few hours’ work.

Anne is a visiting professor in law at King’s College, London, and a volunteer at FRU

0

FRU has spare capacity

The Free Representation Unit is a London-based charity that provides free representation at employment and social security tribunals. Law students and trainee barristers and solicitors volunteer for FRU work. For general guidance about how FRU works and what kinds of cases it takes on, see its own website.

In general, demand for free representation outstrips supply, so FRU can never guarantee to help until a particular volunteer has offered to take on a case. But there is one particular kind of case for which, at the moment, FRU actually has more volunteers than work for them to do. Those cases have a good chance of finding a representative.

Straightforward short cases

If your case is listed for only one or two days and is fairly straightforward, then as long as you get it referred to FRU in reasonably good time before the hearing, you are likely to get a volunteer to represent you.

Getting to FRU

If you have a case that you might want FRU to help with you will need to see one of their referral agencies. It is not possible to approach FRU directly and (despite our close links with FRU) it’s not possible to approach them via this blog.

A list of referral agencies is available on the FRU website. If you are in London your best bet is your local CAB.

0

Guest post: Rebecca Tuck

cp-rebeccatuck

Cross-examination

It is vitally important to have a plan of all the points you need to cover when questioning a witness. You will usually have page numbers of documents you need to refer to along side each point. I tick each point off as it is covered.

I think that it is best not to have a script. You should listen carefully to the answers you are given because frequently you will then “piggy back”, and ask questions on the back of the answer you have just received.

You need to make sure that you put to the witness all the disputes of fact – even if you are sure they are just going to deny what you ask. (Preferably without saying “I put it to you…”) But remember, while you must give them the chance to deny it, you should try not to give them the chance to re-state their version – ask closed questions.

Finally, it is important to bear in mind that to “cross examine” is not to “examine crossly”!

Rebecca Tuck is a barrister specialising in employment law at Old Square Chambers.

0

Counting days

If you are calculating loss over a period, you will want to know the number of days, weeks or years between one date and another. There are two ways of doing this.

The old-fashioned way

Count the whole years between the first date and the last date. Remember that number (call it ‘n’).

Take the anniversary of the first date + 1 day as your new ‘first date.’

Count the days from that date to the end of the month it falls in, and write that number down.

Write a list of the whole months after the month in which your new ‘first date’ falls and before the month in which your ‘last date’ falls.

Write down the number of days in each of those months, muttering to yourself “30 days hath September, April, June and November…” as necessary.

Add up those numbers, and write down the result.

Count the days from the beginning of the month in which ‘last date’ falls until ‘last date,’ and write down that number.

Add together the total number of days in all the whole months plus the odd days in the two incomplete months, plus 365 x n.

Re-do the whole calculation to see if you get the same result. If not, keep re-doing it until you get the same result twice running.

You now have the total number of days between first date and last date. You can do all those sums if it’s really the kind of thing you enjoy. Otherwise, there’s a more sensible way:

The more sensible way

Go to timeanddate.com

Enter your start and end dates, and press ‘calculate duration.’

The original version of this post recommended using the YEARFRAC function in Excel, but this is easier. The Excel instructions have now been relegated to a comment. Many thanks to Tom Royston for the tip about timeanddate.com.

4

Cutting

One of points made by the last post is that legal writing should be short.

The post itself is a good example of how much can be lost from most first drafts. The first attempt was 124 words. By judicious pruning and removing one unnecessary sentence it was cut to 78 words.

0

Avoid redundant writing

One common mistake in legal writing is excessive length. One of the causes of this is redundant phrasing.

For example:

We will provide a written witness statement.

This sentence is one word too long. There is no need to indicate that a witness statement will be written. What else could it possibly be?

This seems pernickety. In a sense it is, but if every other sentence is a word or two too long, the cumulative effect will be significant.

0

Use Excel for Schedules of Loss

In any trade ‘Use the right tool for the job’ is good advice. If you are writing a schedule of loss, the right tool is a spreadsheet program – probably Excel.

A spreadsheet presents you with a page of cells, in which you can enter numbers. It is designed for dealing with and presenting numerical information, in the same way that a word processor – eg Word – is designed for dealing with text. But Excel is much better designed than Word.

The main advantage of a spreadsheet is that you can get the software to do the calculation for you. Suppose you have calculated a weekly loss of £78.65, and the period of time between dismissal and the hearing is 57 weeks. You write 78.65 in one cell (say D7) and 57 in another (say D8). To get the total past loss, you need to multiply £78.65 by 57. At this point, you could reach for your calculator, do the calculation, and then write £4,483.05 into cell E9. But the clever thing is to tell cell E9 that it should do the sum: (number in cell D7)x(number in cell D8). You do this using Excel’s ‘formula builder’ function.

How to use ‘formula builder’

Open a new Excel document. Write some numbers in cells D7 and D8, and imagine that you wish to add them and put the answer in cell E9.

Write “=” in E9. Then click on D7 and D8 in succession, and you will see that cell E9 now reads “D7+D8.” Press ‘return’ and you will see the answer in E9.

You don’t always want to add, of course. Excel defaults to addition because it is the most common operation people want to do in spreadsheets. But you can subtract, multiply or divide, too. Write “=” in another cell, and this time click on D7, then write “-”, then click on D8. That will subtract the number in D8 from the number in D7. To multiply you use “*” and to divide you use “/”.

The reason this is so clever is that it allows you to change your mind about any of the numbers that go into your calculation without re-doing all the consequential calculations the hard way. Change the number in cell D7 or D8, and the number in E9 will change automatically. If you use ‘formula builder’ every time you do any calculation, by the time you have finished you will have a lot of automatic calculations built in to your schedule. Your ‘weekly loss’ will have played a part in past loss, and future loss; you will have added up various heads of loss; you may have calculated interest, or done a ‘grossing up’ calculation. Lots of these figures will depend on each other.

Download this sample schedule and play around with it to see how it works. Try changing the ‘Week’s Pay, Net’ figure. Most of the figures will change, because they depend on the weekly pay.

The more complicated a schedule of loss is, the more this helps. In a difficult case your schedule may go on for a dozen pages and include a hundred separate calculations. You won’t get it right first time – or even second or third – so there will be many changes. If you’re doing the sums manually, you’ll end up doing hundreds of separate recalculations, which will then have to be double and triple checked. You will spend a lot of quality time with your calculator; and even then, you’ll probably get tired and end up with some errors. You can make mistakes with a spreadsheet, too of course – if you tell ‘formula builder’ to subtract instead of adding, or add instead of multiplying, or if you fail to add all the figures you ought to, or add some figures twice. But the point is that they are easier to spot; and once spotted, easier to correct.

Your spreadsheet can help during the hearing, or during negotiations, too. If you are using a laptop, you can have your spreadsheet open, and adjust it on the fly. Say, for example, the tribunal finds that the Claimant’s weekly wage is £15.50 less than you were arguing for. You adjust one cell, then see exactly what the result of the change is. Or your opponent suggests that the tribunal is likely to take this approach and says you should therefore accept £6,000. You’ll be able to see immediately that this is bad argument, since such a reduction will only take the total claimed down to £7,211.05.

Learning to use a new tool always slows you down a bit while you do it, but if you are going to prepare a lot of schedules, this is an essential investment of your time. You’ll soon get the hang of it, and from that point on it will make your life much easier.

0

Guest post: Benjimin Burgher

benjamin-burgher2

What did you find out the hard way?

I found out something I already knew but decided to ignore. Simply do not ask a question you are not reasonably sure of the answer to!

I was involved in a lengthy discrimination claim acting for the Claimant. A key issue was the recollection of one of the Respondent’s witnesses in relation to a meeting that had taken place some 2.5 years previously. There were no notes of the meeting and under cross examination the Respondent’s witness accepted that he had not taken any notes of the meeting . The level of detail given by the Respondent’s witness of the meeting was stark in its depth and precision. I suggested to the witness that he could not possibly have that level of recall.

Nothing wrong with that question. If only I had left it there. When he said that he did have that level of recall I asked him to recount the first question I had asked him during cross examination. We were, by this stage, 15 minutes into the cross examination. He responded by recounting word for word, in the correct order, what I had said including the mistake I made in turning to a bundle page number and the tribunal member’s interjection confirming the bundle page number and then proceeded to recount my subsequent question before I had to stop him and move on. He had a photographic memory and as far as his recollection of the meeting 2.5 years previously was concerned the issue was clearly against the Claimant and need not have been. Very painful at the time.

Benjimin Burgher is a barrister specialising in employment, discrimination and commercial law at Outer Temple Chambers, and a fee paid Employment Judge.

1

Employment tribunal statistics: headlines

Claimants in person

The number of individuals representing themselves in the employment tribunals has remained fairly constant over the last 3 years: 30,195 in 05/06; 31,694 in 06/07 and 31,780 in 07/08

Maximum and median awards

The median award for unfair dismissal was £4,000; the medians for race, sex and disability discrimination were £8,120; £5,200 and £8,363 respectively. The highest award for unfair dismissal (including basic award) was £76,536; and the highest for race, sex and disability discrimination were £68,991, £131,466 and £227,208.

Costs

The costs figures are badly explained in the published statistics, but costs seem to have been awarded against claimants in 327 cases (out of a total of 189,303: that is, in 0.17% of cases) and against employers in 134 cases. The median award was £1,000, and the maximum was £17,775.

These figures would seem to exclude those – very rare – cases in which costs in excess of the limit of £10,000 are sought, and the costs question sent to the county court for assessment.

Appeals

There were 671 appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, of which 303 were dismissed at either a full or a preliminary hearing 235 were allowed (in full or in part) and 133 were withdrawn.

These numbers do not include those that were dismissed on the papers under rule 3(7) and either not taken to an oral hearing, or dismissed at an oral hearing under rule 3(10).

0

Employment tribunal statistics

The Employment Tribunal Service has at last published its statistics for the year to 31 March 2008.

0