Day Two: Is victory too much a price to pay?

 

By: Simon Peter

Day two
27th January

Sheila Foley who essentially had no other alternative, and was left to dismiss Karen from her position, Ms. Foley seems to express guilt after she declared ‘Karen was essential’.

The trust was still adamant about its position on the dismissal after talks in the chambers with the claimant.

The Dismissal came about after discussions between Unison side and staff side there was a great deal of talking and writing before terminating Karen’s contract.

However a surprising turn of event’s lead to whispers of a settlement, although negotiations are fragile and the outcome is uncertain it could be very good for service users. Manchester User’s Network, brings you an exclusive.

Dialogue – Respondent v Claimant

Karen’s legal team, cross examined Ms. Foley, asking her if she thought the discipline procedure policy was binding on the trust?

Ms. Foley replied: Yes I think it should be binding on both parties.

Claimants responded: Being familiar with the procedure was necessary but at what point in time did you familiarize yourself with the discipline procedure policy, did you read it before Karen’s suspension?

Ms Foley: Yes absolutely

Claimants: The purpose of ‘the procedure’ is to encourage employers to uphold standards in matters of discipline, when there are difficulties. What process of improvement in terms of dismissal did you consider?

Ms Foley: I considered how we could move forward with Karen.

Claimants: You have been in management for quite a number of years, when the human rights act was introduced did you at that point become familiar with the obligations, or the broader duty under human rights act.

Ms. Foley: I’m sure I must have done.

Karen’s defence now relies on exceptional circumstances under the human rights act. The facts were becoming slightly blurred but she did allegedly speak out as a Unison Representative which is of cause her legal entitlement, to speak out in that capacity, but also a universal right to express concerns to the press.

Claimant: Have you worked in an organization previously that produced a human rights act statement?

Ms. Foley: No I haven’t.

Claimants: As far as Karen is concerned your understanding is that there has never been any complaint about Karen’s clinical work or competence?

Respondents: There is no question on clinical grounds. However the allegation by the trust is gross misconduct by breaching internal polices on investigatory procedures.

However the trust themselves breached procedures on numerous occasions such as not appointing an appropriate line manager for the investigation. This binding policy in terms of the investigation wasn’t followed by the trust. Karen Reissmann states she exercised her human rights to freedom of speech.

Karen’s legal team raised the issue that the trust also shouldn’t seek to influence matters.

Yet the trust stated to Karen ‘you will not speak to employees’; the claimant declared to the court, is that not influencing matters?’

The degree of seriousness of the Karen Reissmann article is debatable said Mr. Bridge Coles, chairman of the tribunal. Karen sought to have the whole process open but Mr. Bridge Coles said ‘If an employee chooses to speak out, you can’t be locked up – not in this country. It nether-the-less, amounted to misconduct.’

Whether it was unfair dismissal would have to have had a fundamental breech by the employer. He also stated ‘Our duty in this court, our jurisdiction, is to employment law rather than universal rights’.

Karen’s comments on the matters were ‘you can have freedom of speech, but you can be sacked for using it, essentially deterring people from speaking out which completely ruins the whole concept’

However those surprising turn of event’s, leading to those whispers of a settlement – could mean loosing ground on some important issues.

Sheila Foley who essentially had no other alternative, and was left to dismiss Karen from her position, Ms. Foley seems to express guilt after she declared ‘Karen was essential’.

The trust was still adamant about its position on the dismissal after talks in the chambers with the claimant.

The Dismissal came about after discussions between Unison side and staff side there was a great deal of talking and writing before terminating Karen’s contract.

However a surprising turn of event’s lead to whispers of a settlement, although negotiations are fragile and the outcome is uncertain it could be very good for service users. Manchester User’s Network, brings you an exclusive.

Dialogue – Respondent v Claimant

Karen’s legal team, cross examined Ms. Foley, asking her if she thought the discipline procedure policy was binding on the trust?

Ms. Foley replied: Yes I think it should be binding on both parties.

Claimants responded: Being familiar with the procedure was necessary but at what point in time did you familiarize yourself with the discipline procedure policy, did you read it before Karen’s suspension?

Ms Foley: Yes absolutely

Claimants: The purpose of ‘the procedure’ is to encourage employers to uphold standards in matters of discipline, when there are difficulties. What process of improvement in terms of dismissal did you consider?

Ms Foley: I considered how we could move forward with Karen.

Claimants: You have been in management for quite a number of years, when the human rights act was introduced did you at that point become familiar with the obligations, or the broader duty under human rights act.

Ms. Foley: I’m sure I must have done.

Karen’s defence now relies on exceptional circumstances under the human rights act. The facts were becoming slightly blurred but she did allegedly speak out as a Unison Representative which is of cause her legal entitlement, to speak out in that capacity, but also a universal right to express concerns to the press.

Claimant: Have you worked in an organization previously that produced a human rights act statement?

Ms. Foley: No I haven’t.

Claimants: As far as Karen is concerned your understanding is that there has never been any complaint about Karen’s clinical work or competence?

Respondents: There is no question on clinical grounds. However the allegation by the trust is gross misconduct by breaching internal polices on investigatory procedures.

However the trust themselves breached procedures on numerous occasions such as not appointing an appropriate line manager for the investigation. This binding policy in terms of the investigation wasn’t followed by the trust. Karen Reissmann states she exercised her human rights to freedom of speech.

Karen’s legal team raised the issue that the trust also shouldn’t seek to influence matters.

Yet the trust stated to Karen ‘you will not speak to employees’; the claimant declared to the court, is that not influencing matters?’

The degree of seriousness of the Karen Reissmann article is debatable said Mr. Bridge Coles, chairman of the tribunal. Karen sought to have the whole process open but Mr. Bridge Coles said ‘If an employee chooses to speak out, you can’t be locked up – not in this country. It nether-the-less, amounted to misconduct.’

Whether it was unfair dismissal would have to have had a fundamental breech by the employer. He also stated ‘Our duty in this court, our jurisdiction, is to employment law rather than universal rights’.

Karen’s comments on the matters were ‘you can have freedom of speech, but you can be sacked for using it, essentially deterring people from speaking out which completely ruins the whole concept’

However those surprising turn of event’s, leading to those whispers of a settlement – could mean loosing ground on some important issues.

Sheila Foley who essentially had no other alternative, and was left to dismiss Karen from her position, Ms. Foley seems to express guilt after she declared ‘Karen was essential’.

The trust was still adamant about its position on the dismissal after talks in the chambers with the claimant.

The Dismissal came about after discussions between Unison side and staff side there was a great deal of talking and writing before terminating Karen’s contract.

However a surprising turn of event’s lead to whispers of a settlement, although negotiations are fragile and the outcome is uncertain it could be very good for service users. Manchester User’s Network, brings you an exclusive.

Dialogue – Respondent v Claimant

Karen’s legal team, cross examined Ms. Foley, asking her if she thought the discipline procedure policy was binding on the trust?

Ms. Foley replied: Yes I think it should be binding on both parties.

Claimants responded: Being familiar with the procedure was necessary but at what point in time did you familiarize yourself with the discipline procedure policy, did you read it before Karen’s suspension?

Ms Foley: Yes absolutely

Claimants: The purpose of ‘the procedure’ is to encourage employers to uphold standards in matters of discipline, when there are difficulties. What process of improvement in terms of dismissal did you consider?

Ms Foley: I considered how we could move forward with Karen.

Claimants: You have been in management for quite a number of years, when the human rights act was introduced did you at that point become familiar with the obligations, or the broader duty under human rights act.

Ms. Foley: I’m sure I must have done.

Karen’s defence now relies on exceptional circumstances under the human rights act. The facts were becoming slightly blurred but she did allegedly speak out as a Unison Representative which is of cause her legal entitlement, to speak out in that capacity, but also a universal right to express concerns to the press.

Claimant: Have you worked in an organization previously that produced a human rights act statement?

Ms. Foley: No I haven’t.

Claimants: As far as Karen is concerned your understanding is that there has never been any complaint about Karen’s clinical work or competence?

Respondents: There is no question on clinical grounds. However the allegation by the trust is gross misconduct by breaching internal polices on investigatory procedures.

However the trust themselves breached procedures on numerous occasions such as not appointing an appropriate line manager for the investigation. This binding policy in terms of the investigation wasn’t followed by the trust. Karen Reissmann states she exercised her human rights to freedom of speech.

Karen’s legal team raised the issue that the trust also shouldn’t seek to influence matters.

Yet the trust stated to Karen ‘you will not speak to employees’; the claimant declared to the court, is that not influencing matters?’

The degree of seriousness of the Karen Reissmann article is debatable said Mr. Bridge Coles, chairman of the tribunal. Karen sought to have the whole process open but Mr. Bridge Coles said ‘If an employee chooses to speak out, you can’t be locked up – not in this country. It nether-the-less, amounted to misconduct.’

Whether it was unfair dismissal would have to have had a fundamental breech by the employer. He also stated ‘Our duty in this court, our jurisdiction, is to employment law rather than universal rights’.

Karen’s comments on the matters were “you can have freedom of speech, but you can be sacked for using it, essentially deterring people from speaking out which completely ruins the whole concept”

However those surprising turn of event’s, leading to those whispers of a settlement – could mean loosing ground on some important issues.