NEZZAS NEWZ
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL - part 1
Anyone who is a victim of discrimination inside of work, will find that the Employment Tribunal Services is like walking into a brick wall when fighting for justice. It definitely is not designed to help victims of discrimination in any way at all.
​
It actually helps fraudulent documents/agreements to become legally binding!
In my case, after placing a claim of Disability Discrimination against Dunlop Tyres Ltd into the Employment Tribunals, I had no help from the GMB Union because part of my claim was about how the GMB Union tried to help Dunlop Tyres terminate my employment contract on illegal grounds.
Thompsons solicitors, who should have represented me, told me that if I wanted their support I would have to drop that part of my claim. I refused to drop that part of my claim because that would have meant that I would only be entering into the Employment Tribunal with half of the true story, which I believed, would make me lose my claim.
Because of this, I was forced to represent myself when I started going into hearing rooms of the Employment Tribunals.
At all hearings where I was representing myself, it was made clear to me by the Chairman, that because of my brain injury, I would not be capable of representing myself at the Tribunal.
​
I tried my best in looking for legal representation.
I was eventually passed to Gateshead Citizens Advice Bureau where I met a Mr Wilf Holt. Mr Holt promised to represent me at an Employment Tribunal for my claim against Dunlop Tyres Ltd.
The form I signed, Mr Holt stated “he would represent you at the ET”. So I thought I now had legal representation to help me with my Employment Tribunal against Dunlop Tyres.
At that time, I explained the present day situation, how I was waiting for vital evidence to be handed to me which proved I had been given phone calls from the GMB Union Shop Steward that he denied. And how if I didn’t receive the vital evidence, I was told by the Employment Tribunal Chairman that I could apply to strike Dunlop Tyres out of the Employment Tribunal, which would have meant that I would had won my claim.
I never received the vital evidence, so I applied to strike Dunlop Tyres out. A hearing was called for 12th August 2003 for me to do that.
Inside the Employment Tribunals building I met Wilf Holt, who on that day promised to represent me. I gave him instructions on what to do. That was if no evidence had been submitted, then strike Dunlop Tyres out. He agreed to do that.
But during the hearing, Mr Holt did the opposite. He stated to the Chairman, that after discussing things with me, we have decided to withdraw the evidence because it was not relevant to my claim.
That is totally untrue.
​
I stood up and raised this point with the Employment Tribunal Chairman on how my representative was stating the opposite to what I instructed him to say. The Chairman replied by telling me that I was not allowed to speak.
Mr Holt said the same thing again. Again, I stood up and made it clear to the Chairman that I would not accept what was being said. I made it clear that this was vital evidence that I needed.
This time the Employment Tribunal Chairman told me to sit down and be quiet or else I would be the one who is struck out. I had no option but to sit down and say nothing whilst my own representative told lies and misrepresented me.
So the Employment Tribunal Chairman knew that my own representative was stating the opposite to what I had instructed him to say. So the Chairman knew this was happening and continued with the hearing.
So how this can be classed as a fair hearing is beyond me.
Little did I know at that time that this would be the start of unfair hearings inside of the Employment Tribunals, which is part of the H M Courts and Tribunals Service.
After the hearing, Mr Holt went into a room with Dunlop’s solicitors. I was not allowed to enter the room. Everything they said was kept private. No reason has ever been given for this.
When we left the Employment Tribunal building, Mr Holt informed me that I am definitely finished from Dunlop and it would be best all round if I just give up with this claim. I made it clear that I wouldn’t. I remember having a big argument with Mr Holt and we parted company on bad terms.
Nothing seemed right!
Days later, without my instructions, knowledge or consent, negotiations started between Gateshead CAB and Wragge & Co solicitors regarding a settlement that both parties knew that I wouldn't agree too. (See Gateshead CAB and Wragge & Co pages for more details)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL - part 2
After negotiations; without me being involved or knowing anything about them taking place, this is what became legally binding by the Employment Tribunals on the 18th August 2003.
Where, as stated in a judgment made in my case in the Royal Courts of Justice on 9th February 2007, “For the settlement to be binding, it had to be recorded on form COT3, completed by an ACAS officer”.
Anyone (apart from the Employment Tribunal Chairman) can tell that this is not an ACAS document!
I have all the proof that ACAS took no part at all in the negotiations in the lie of a statement that was faxed through to the Employment Tribunals and knew absolutely nothing about it!
So it is an undeniable fact that the settlement became legally binding without being recorded on a form COT3 and without being completed by an ACAS officer!
This means that it is an undeniable fact that the Employment Tribunal Chairman allowed a fraudulent document/false instrument to become legally binding!
So I had to do something about it.
I was advised by solicitors that everything was wrong about the COT3 agreement, but there was nothing any solicitor could do about it, because it is an official judgment that has been made.
I was advised by solicitors to contact my MP. At that time, I had a good, honest MP called Joyce Quin.
So at a later date, after the fraudulent document/false instrument becoming legally binding; with the help of my MP (Joyce Quin), a preliminary hearing was called where I questioned the legality of the fraudulent document/false instrument that became legally binding.
I was told to just turn up on the day by the Employment Tribunal Chairman without any evidence or bundle. I believe this was the same Employment Tribunal Chairman who made the fraudulent document/false instrument become legally binding in the first place.
For this reason, I was suspicious of the Chairman straight away. I thought his only objective in this hearing was to protect himself!
Whilst sitting in the hearing room, I was stunned when my so called representative (Wilf Holt of Gateshead CAB) walked in side by side with Wragge & Co solicitors, placed a bundle in front of me and sat down together where Wilf Holt was allowed to talk and share highly private and confidential information about me to the defendant’s solicitors.
This by itself is wholly unjust, but carries on being ignored by all judges in the Great British (il)Legal System!
But all they actually shared was lies. Plotting together to make the Employment Tribunal Chairman believe they had done nothing wrong.
I was never given the opportunity to read through the defendants bundle. So it was after the event when I seen further proof that what I was saying was correct and everything they were stating on that day was false!
What was stated, was because I am a brain injury victim. I was accused of being a lunatic by both my representative and Wragge & Co solicitors. They jointly accused me of agreeing to leave work one day over the phone, then forgetting about agreeing to the agreement that would financially cripple me over the phone the next day. And the reason why I forgot about it was because of my brain injury which means I am a lunatic under some 1892 act of law.
​
This bizarre accusation was accepted by the Chairman.
-
He ignored the fact that none of the correct legal proceedings had been followed.
-
He ignored the fact that it was not an ACAS COT3 Form that had been submitted into the Employment Tribunals that he, himself allowed to become legally binding.
-
He ignored the fact that the settlement could be no way classed as being in my best interests, which makes it fraud.
-
He ignored the fact that my representative abused his position in making a decision without my consent.
So the fraudulent document/false instrument that he allowed to become legally binding, remained legally binding upon me.
I believe I had more than a just opinion in believing that the Chairman was protecting himself for the injustice he allowed too happen against me!
I believe that this was nothing but a stitch up by the corrupt Great British (il)Legal System!