Sandie Peggie: Employment Tribunal, associated legal claims, and related matters - thread #63

Ooh, I sense a trapdoor...

probably Eunuch gender but i so
don't like to assume

NP - the request came in from her lawyer which was problematic

Grrrrrrrrrrr

TT
NC - you gave 2 reason in email. She ought to amend existing claim to add claims, ,when hearing less than ten weeks away. Even if Mrs Peggie could amend at this stage. (discussion about process of discp procedure)

NC - How much did you know about first claim
(Glad: I assume NP) - Was aware of content and date and circumstances because Stuart rep her.

Any sign of cat hairs? That could open up so many other genders.

Was that a rather incredulous toned voice I just heard?

ooooh margaret is amused - actually I wonder if they changed positions deliberately....

I think NP is hoping someone will pull the fire alarm.

“Is it really your evidence to the Tribunal….”

😂😂

NC - you gave 2 reason in email. She ought to amend existing claim to add claims, ,when hearing less than ten weeks away. Even if Mrs Peggie could amend at this stage. (discussion about process of discp procedure)

NC - How much did you know about first claim Was aware of content and date and circumstances because Stuart rep her.

NC - your understanding more superficial than legal team?
(Glad: NP) - Yes
NC - in light of your lack of knowledge it is absurd for you to amend her case three weeks before (apologies if I got the weeks wrong in prev tweet)

(Bits I add will be in brackets and begin with Glad - added by SomewhatGlad)

At a guess because only one witness today, it opened an opportunity for NC to slip in a bit of extra blood sport

His voice is so boring, I think it could cure my insomnia!😂

I think she's also enjoying not getting interrupted by opposing council and a stroppy judge and just going for it.

And it's Friday, she wants to start the weekend on a high.

TT

NP - the legal advice I received was to amend first tribunal than go to second. Had a discussion about that. That was my dilemma in saying no, and explaining no, straying into legal advisor territory.

NC - you seem to be suggesting that you were better placed than her legal team by ref to an analogy to a diff case than her legal team? NP it was my decision at the time.

NC - it was absurd to try and advise a member and that a legal team had been instructed on wasn't it?
NP - no I don't agree.

NC - it was her legal team that had the whole facts on first claim
NP - that's why I had to dilemma on whether to contextualise my advise. I discussed with my legal advisors, that amending was a strong position to take

TT

NC - you hadn't had sight of pleadings?
NP - no
NC - then an absurdly bad reason, because you didn't have info to give that advice
NP - don't agree, had information from Stuart. I regarded that it was possible to be argued that it was ongoing discrim

TT

NC - in any event you gave two reasons. You should amend second claim, and two - you said that because of the nature of RCN legal offer...(quotes) not within your discretion. If that's correct, you were right you had no discretion.

TT

NC - You didn't need to bolster your reason, trespassing onto legal advice. NP yes that was one thing I weighed up. It was a diff decision for me to take.

NC - you said in your 17 Jan email 'not within my..' you wouldn't say that unless you were confident you had no discretion?
NP - yes

TT

NC - refers to main bundle. Headed advice support and repres. from RCN for members. When this guide talks about this it's talking about most of the time representation is dealing with employers, that is most of union rep work?
NP - yes

TT

NC - for instance 'your rights' page 117 . That refers to legal rep and rep in the workplace. Over the page talks about RCN rights, number of specific situations when don't provide representation (quotes those)

NC - various types of bad behaviour, rep will be withdrawn. This seems to be addressed to rep in the work place?
NP - yes
NC -'other advisors' (quotes again about importance of expert advice from RCN)

I've learnt that the RCN's shop will have to start selling GC merch now, thanks to this man. I wonder how that will go down the man who advocates stomping on terfs.

TT

NC - what that is saying is that if you are getting alt advice we might not get representation, not def won't?
NP - yes. In 18 years not a single occasion haven't applied the rules. If a person finds themselves in a diff situation, wouldn't say won't give legal advice

If it was so bloody black and white as to what the 'may' meant they'd get rid of the 'may' and state really clearly "Talk to us before consulting a solicitor"

@Boiledbeetle but then they wouldn't be able to condemn women for thoughtcrime with plausible deniability!

TT

NP : if a conscious decision made (sorry lost sound again)
NC - All of this is about rep in the broader sense not just legal? Stuart was rep SP in workplace?
NP - yes