Unfortunately we have recently had a claim made against us by an ex-employee for unfair dismissal.  He is claiming that it was not a genuine redundancy and that he was only selected as a result of his having raised a grievance.

The role which was made redundant was a specialised, stand alone role and there were no others completing like or similar work.  There is no need for work of this role to be undertaken for the foreseeable future therefore the function itself is redundant and we are able to provide detailed evidence for the reasons for this.  It was unfortunate that a grievance was raised at the same time however the two issues were dealt with seperately and by independent Directors for impartiality throughout.  After a thorough investigation the grievances were dismissed and deemed to be totally ficticious, even libelous, to which Directors against whom allegations were made are considering legal action themselves.

We were expecting this to go to Tribunal as throughout it was obvious that the ex-employee was not looking for a resolution but wanted to go to Tribunal.

We are prepared to take advantage of ACAS consiliation however we are not looking to make on offer or make payment of any kind as we believe we acted appropriately throughout. 

My question relates to legal representation if/when this goes to Tribunal.  As a small Company resources are limited and we are therefore considering representing ourselves at Trubunal. 

Does anybody have any experience in this area and what would be your advice?  What are the advantages/disadvantages of a Company reprenting itself at Tribunal? 

Regards

Sam Hatton

A company can represent itself at tribunal but the representative of the company which is usually HR needs to be fully competent in the procedures having gathered together all the documentation for their defence.  The rep needs to be confident to put the company's case across and stand up to any questioning from the other side, which is often an employment lawyer.

If a company has someone who can undertake this role and it is tough then it is worth doing.  Alternatively the company should ensure the paper trail is there and pay a solicitor for a day to defend the case as that is their expert area.

I agree with Sandra!! You need a good lawyer!

We had an unfair dismissal case a few months ago and I was keen to know what happens in a tribunal and what the procedure is etc, (we are a very large company so have solicitors, however wanted to know what happens!)So  myself and my manager went to an actual Tribunal hearing for the day and it was a real eye opener!

 The case was a simple case, unfair dismissal. Employee was being represented by his trade union rep. A HR Director and an Ops Manager represented the company, no solicitor.

The employers were very disorganised, were not able to provide 'objective' evidence when  putting the case forward on behalf of the company, didnt even have half the case notes and started to bring in new evidence during the questioning. when cross examined/questioned, 'flipped' under pressure and started to discuss the employees unreasonable behaviour during his 10yrs service.. throughout the day it just got from bad to worse!

The employee was awarded a large some of money!

If you are absolutalty certain that you have a strong case, and someone  very confident/competant who is able to hold questioning from an employment law specialist, is fully aware of employment legislation and can apply the law like 'lawyers', then I would suggest that you go ahead without a solicitor.

If you are keen to avoid costs and want to settle this, then maybe you should utilise ACAS and reach a comprimise with the employee out of court.

Thank you for your responses.

Unfortunately ACAS are proving unreliable to say the least.  We are now nearly at the end of month 2 of 3 of our conciliation period and they haven't contacted us yet which doesn't give me much faith in them.  (I contacted them 4 weeks ago and they haven't got back to me yet).

As for any settlement, out of principle we are not looking to have to settle as this as it was a true redudancy of which all redundancy pay was made. 

Isn't it unfair that a Company is made to feel they should have to pay somebody off rather than have to go through the time and expense of a tribunal, all brought about by a disgruntled ex-employee who is out to cause as much trouble as possible.

Yours (feeling rather disallusioned today)

Sam Hatton