ET claims 01/04/08 to 31/03/09

The request was partially successful.

Dear Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead,

Please confirm how many Employment Tribunal claims RBWM had made against them from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009.

Please identify what type of claims they were (if any).

Please identify which of those claims (if any) progressed into a full Employment Tribunal hearing.

What was the length of time from the submission of any such claim,until its hearing date (please identify even if this extends beyond 1 April 2009.

Thank you

Yours faithfully,

Miss Wendy Wilson

Martin Tubbs, Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

Dear Ms Wilson

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your information request - it has been allocated reference FOI63647.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides public authorities with 20 working days to process requests - this period expires on 13 January 2012.

Regards

Martin Tubbs
Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead

show quoted sections

Martin Tubbs, Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

Dear Ms Wilson

I am writing on behalf of Chris Daniels to respond to your information
request - your request and our responses are below:

Please confirm how many Employment Tribunal claims RBWM had made against
them from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009 - 5

Please identify what type of claims they were (if any) - 4 x Disability
Discrimination and 1 x Unfair Dismissal
    
Please identify which of those claims (if any) progressed into a full
Employment Tribunal hearing - 2 x Disability Discrimination

    
What was the length of time from the submission of any such claim until
its hearing date (please identify even if this extends beyond 1 April
2009 - 11 months and 5 months

This concludes your request.

If you require translation of the information you have been sent please do
not hesitate the contact us.

If you are unhappy with the information we have provided in response to
your request please write to:

Information Management Team Manager
Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead
Town Hall, St Ives Road
Maidenhead
SL6 1RF

or send an e-mail to [email address].uk 

We are proud to be one of the leading authorities in England for
consistently responding to information requests within the 20 working days
set down by statute. Information about our performance and summaries of
requests received can be found on our website:

[1]http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/foi_informati...

We are keen to hear about your experience with the Information Management
Team here at the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead and look forward to
receiving any comments you have about the way your information request was
processed.

Please send any feedback to the Information Management Team Manager either
by e-mail [email address] or in writing to the address above.

Yours sincerely

Chris Daniels
Information Management Officer
Legal Services
Resources Department
Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead
Town Hall, St.Ives Road
Maidenhead SL6 1RF
01628 796029

show quoted sections

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/foi_informati...

Dear Martin Tubbs,

Thank you for such a prompt response.

I understand that all claims that progressed into the Employment Tribunal that result in a Judgment being made, become public documents that can be viewed either in Suffolk (in person) or can be applied for.

To assist my research please will you provide me with the two reference numbers for the two Disability Discrimination claims that progressed into the Employment Tribunal.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Wendy Wilson

Martin Tubbs, Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

Sorry but I am out of the office - I will be back at my desk on Tuesday 20
December 2011. I will deal with your e-mail upon my return.

Please be aware that any e-mails sent to me are not being forwarded and
cannot be accessed by any of my colleagues.

If the matter is urgent and related to Land Charges, FOI or Data
Protection please contact, [email address] (01628 796029),
[email address] (01628 796568) or [email address] (01628
796293).

show quoted sections

 

Dear Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead,

I am requesting an Internal Review because I believe that the response I have received thus far is incorrect.

I will display below the line, what my questions were and what RBWM have stated as replies:

_______________________________________________________

Please confirm how many Employment Tribunal claims RBWM had made against them from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009 (the reply was) - 5

Please identify what type of claims they were (if any) (the answer was) - 4 x Disability Discrimination and 1 x Unfair Dismissal

Please identify which of those claims (if any) progressed into a full Employment Tribunal hearing (the answer was) - 2 x Disability Discrimination

What was the length of time from the submission of any such claim until its hearing date (please identify even if this extends beyond 1 April 2009 (the answer given was) - 11 months and 5 months

This concludes your request.
_______________________________________________________

The answer given, that there had been 2 x Disability Discrimination claims filed against RBWM in the Employment Tribunal (i.e. at Reading) between 1 April 2008 and 31 March 2009 that reached their full hearing within 11 months and 5 months respectively is incorrect.

Please supply the correct answer and confirm why an incorrect reply has been published to this Website?

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

Wendy Wilson

Name removed 30 November 2012 (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

I have been drawn to look at these RBWM requests because yesterday a person calling themselves 'J Jefferson' annotated a request that I had made to this organisation. However, today, I write with regard to this particular FOI request.

I am aware that a claim for unlawful disability discrimination and harassment was filed against the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead on 30/08/09 by Berry Smith LLP. I am also aware that this claim did not reach its full hearing date until 01/03/10 which was just over '17-months' from the date on which it was filed.

A clear concise and straightforward question was asked of RBWM in this particular request, which they have even repeated in the answer they have given, and that answer was (I have copied and pasted from above:
_______________________________________________________

Please identify which of those claims (if any) progressed into a full Employment Tribunal hearing (the answer was) - 2 x Disability Discrimination

What was the length of time from the submission of any such claim until its hearing date (please identify even if this extends beyond 1 April 2009 (the answer given was) - 11 months and 5 months
_______________________________________________________

Case: 2702264/2008 was filed at the Reading Employment Tribunal on 30/09/08 by Berry Smith LLP; this was a Disability Discrimination claim against RBWM; that 2008 case did not reach its full hearing until 01/03/10, but the answer that RBWM has provided in relation to this question is untrue.

This will no doubt be publicly claimed as a 'mistake' after my annotation is read by this organisation.

These are the facts, and it appears clear that my own FOI request against this organisation has attracted J Jefferson to make the annotation that he has on FOI 63145, and to issue what I consider to have been, an insidious threat at the end of that annotation, which I have now reported this to the WDTK team.

Name removed 30 November 2012 (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

I apologise the Case: 2702264/2008 was the DDA Claim and it was filed against RBWM by Berry Smith LLP on 30/09/08 not 2009.

Apologies.

Martin Tubbs, Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

Dear Ms Wilson

I have been advised that the two references are:

2700642/2009
2700295/2009

Regards

Martin Tubbs
Information Management Team Manager
Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead

show quoted sections

Martin Tubbs, Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

Dear Ms Wilson

I have now completed my review.

It transpires that an additional claim was brought against RBWM in 2008
but was recorded under a later date (September 2009) when a second claim
was brought by the same person.

It was a Disability Discrimination claim and was lodged in September
2008. It went to Tribunal in March 2010.

The case number is 2702264/2208.

Please accept my apologies for this oversight.

Regards

Martin Tubbs
Information Management Team Manager
Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead

show quoted sections

Dear Martin Tubbs,

Thank you for confirming that Case: 2702264/2008 did not reach it's full hearing date until March 2010, which was 1-year 5-months and 1-day from when that claim was submitted (or 17-months rounded down).

I have been researching Employment Tribunal claims made in the Berkshire Area, and I am advised by the Tribunals Service (who I talk with on a regular basis) that the claim you have now referred to (2702264/2008), was heard in March 2010 and that this hearing involved three claims from the same person, apparently after this person had filed the second claim in September 2009 (which I am also advised was withdrawn under UK secondary legislation in October 2009 and I think that was Rule 25 of the ET Rules of Procedure 2004) an unfair dismissal claim was then filed in January 2010 by the same person and I have been advised that the 2010 claim was Case: 2700054/2010.

Am I therefore right in assuming that an employee of RBWM, who had raised a claim of Disability Discrimination that was filed in the Reading Employment Tribunal in September 2008, that did not reach its full hearing for 17-months - until March 2010, that the same person was dismissed by RBWM 'before' that person's 2008 Disability Discrimination claim reached its March 2010 hearing?

Can you also please explain why you have referred to this person's September 2009 claim, that was legally withdrawn by October 2009, yet you have not made any reference to the same person's January 2010 claim for unfair dismissal?

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (an equal opportunities Local Government employer) dismissed the person who had filed Case: 2702264/2008 which was a Disability Discrimination claim, before that claim had reached its hearing in March 2010, causing the same person who had filed a disability discrimination claim in September 2008, to have to file an unfair dismissal claim in January 2010.

Did RBWM dismiss the other two people who had also raised Disability Discrimination claims against them, that are confirmed as having been filed before 31 March 2009?

Thank you for your kind attention to these matters.

Yours sincerely,

Wendy Wilson

Martin Tubbs, Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

Dear Ms Wilson

Please refer to the comments in blue below.

Regards

Martin Tubbs

From: Wendy Wilson [[1]mailto:[FOI #96926 email]]
Sent: 23 December 2011 12:32
To: Martin Tubbs
Subject: RE: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - ET claims
01/04/08 to 31/03/09

     Dear Martin Tubbs,

    

     Thank you for confirming that Case: 2702264/2008 did not reach it's

     full hearing date until March 2010, which was 1-year 5-months and

     1-day from when that claim was submitted (or 17-months rounded

     down).

    

     I have been researching Employment Tribunal claims made in the

     Berkshire Area, and I am advised by the Tribunals Service (who I

     talk with on a regular basis) that the claim you have now referred

     to (2702264/2008), was heard in March 2010 and that this hearing

     involved three claims from the same person, apparently after this

     person had filed the second claim in September 2009 (which I am

     also advised was withdrawn under UK secondary legislation in

     October 2009 and I think that was Rule 25 of the ET Rules of

     Procedure 2004) an unfair dismissal claim was then filed in January

     2010 by the same person and I have been advised that the 2010 claim

     was Case: 2700054/2010.

    

     Am I therefore right in assuming that an employee of RBWM, who had

     raised a claim of Disability Discrimination that was filed in the

     Reading Employment Tribunal in September 2008, that did not reach

     its full hearing for 17-months - until March 2010, that the same

     person was dismissed by RBWM 'before' that person's 2008 Disability

     Discrimination claim reached its March 2010 hearing? YES

    

     Can you also please explain why you have referred to this person's

     September 2009 claim, that was legally withdrawn by October 2009,

     yet you have not made any reference to the same person's January

     2010 claim for unfair dismissal? BECAUSE THE MULTIPLE CLAIMS WERE 
DATED TOGETHER AT SEPT 09 AND THE FOI REQUEST DID NOT   COVER 2010.

    

     The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (an equal opportunities

     Local Government employer) dismissed the person who had filed Case:

     2702264/2008 which was a Disability Discrimination claim, before

     that claim had reached its hearing in March 2010, causing the same

     person who had filed a disability discrimination claim in September

     2008, to have to file an unfair dismissal claim in January 2010.

    

     Did RBWM dismiss the other two people who had also raised

     Disability Discrimination claims against them, that are confirmed

     as having been filed before 31 March 2009? ONE YES AND ONE NO

    

     Thank you for your kind attention to these matters.

    

     Yours sincerely,

    

     Wendy Wilson

    

    

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Tubbs,

I am familiar with the hearing to which you refer, that took place in March 2010. That hearing was held to hear both the 2008 disability discrimination claim (2702264/2008) together with the 2010 unfair dismissal claim (2700054/2010).

I am also advised (with case law that supports this) that if the employer proposes to settle a discrimination dispute (e.g proceedings brought about by an existing employee) or otherwise terminate the employment of someone who is in a genuine discrimination related dispute with the employer, such conversations will be admissible in proceedings.

I am advised that in the case of the two claims referred to above; the 2008 disability discrimination claim, that was heard in the same March 2010 hearing as the same person's January 2010 unfair dismissal claim that the presiding judge (upon the specific request of RBWM) removed those settlement conversation documents.

RBWM faxed an ET3 Response to the Reading Employment Tribunal 12-days before that March 2010 hearing , that was going to be used as a Response to the whole matter (I have seen the resulting EAT Judgment, which confirms this)what I mean by the 'whole matter'is that the February 2010 ET3 was going to be used as a Response to the 2008 disability discrimination claim as well as to the 2010 unfair dismissal claim.

Is this why RBWM passed on a factually inaccurate ET3 to the Tribunal on 16 February 2010, that had been written by their Barrister, who had been involved from the beginning (i.e. from 2008) in which it was claimed that there had not been any allegations of disability discrimination made by November 2008, when RBWM tried to settle this claim by terminating the claimant's contract, when both the author of that Court Document and RBWM who passed it on to the Tribunal, were both fully aware that the 2008 DDA claim, that you have confirmed yourself on this link was filed at the Tribunal in September 2008, had actually been filed in September 2008.

But more importantly - how did all that get past the judge and the three Panel members?.

Or was the employment tribunal in on that deception too?

Yours sincerely,

Mrs Wilson

Dear Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead,

I apologise for the mistake in my previous email I did of course mean the two Tribunal Panel members.

Yours faithfully,

Mrs Wilson

Dear Mr Tubbs

Over the holidays I checked on the RBWM website in relation to transparency, and I see that you have listed this Freedom of Information Act request (No. 63647) on the Website for the Royal Borough. This appears in the following link to the related page:

http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/foi_december_...

However, you have kindly explained on this website why you have incorrectly listed Case: 2702264/2008 as having taken 17-months to reach its hearing date, advising that this had been an oversight because that 2008 DDA case had been filed against a second claim made by the same person in September 2009. I assume this is where you get your 5-months figure from, because from September 2009 until 1 March 2010, is a period of 5-months.

However, what is still reading on the RBWM website for the same FOI Response is incorrect, as you confirm yourself.

Please will you confirm whether you will be correcting the RBWM websiste, with the correct information that will explain that it took 17-months for one of the 2008 DDA claims to reach its hearing?

However, if you do not intend to correct the RBWM transparency details currently displayed on the RBWM website referred to above, will you please confirm why that may be, because as they stand today, the record for FOI63647 on the RBWM websiste is clearly incorrect?

Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Mrs W Wilson

Dear Mr Tubbs

I apologize for my 'typo' in the previous email.

I did of course mean that Case: 2702264/2008 had 'not been' correctly logged by RBWM as having taken 17-months to reach its hearing date, because it had been linked to a September 2009 claim that had been filed by the same person.

I am sorry for my oversight.

Yours sincerely

Mrs W Wilson

Name removed 30 November 2012 (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

I wish to make the following known as a Public Interest disclosure:

I annotated this FOI request on 23/12/11, which I did because I could see that the original FOI response made by RBWM had not accounted for a DDA claim that had been filed at the Reading E T on 30/09/08 that did not reach its hearing until 01/03/10. The E T Tribunals Charter states that a period of 26-weeks is the norm (from claim submission to hearing) it took that 2008 DDA claim 17-months to reach its hearing.

The new response made by RBWM on 23/12/11 (made after I had annotated) refers to an 'oversight' (I had predicted in my annotation about a 'mistake' now being claimed and I was correct).

I was sent (on 23/12/11) a letter from Martin Tubbs (the person who has responded to this FOI request) to my home address, I received this letter on 29/12/11. I am told in the RBWM letter (that was sent to me on the 'same day' that I annotated this request) that I am declared as vexatious.

I thought that the whole point of a Freedom of Information Act request (and its response) was for the organisation concerned to reply openly and honestly. I could see that RBWM had not accounted for the 2008 DDA claim that had been filed in the period quoted in the original request ( a DDA claim lodged on 30/09/080 that did not reach its hearing for 1 year 5 months and 1 day).

The result of genuine persuit in the 'truth' being told, has resulted in my having been sent a letter from Martin Tubbs of RBWM in which I am declared to be vexatious.

I do not believe that RBWM left out the facts surrounding that 2008 DDA claim as an 'oversight' any more that I accept the fact that that RBWM (in an earlier FOI request made by V Gray in January 2011) returned yet another 'misleading' result.

Ms Gray's FOI request is FOI62743 and she had specifically asked for costs on outsourcing to Solicitors and/or Barristers in relation to various types of ET claims, and she had mentioned discrimination claims specifically.

The RBWM Barrister (C Walker) who wrote the Response to the 2008 DDA claim Case: 2702264/20008 (see Mr Tubbs' new 23/12/11 response) is from Old Square Chambers, 10-11 Bedford Row (this is a fact as their website confirms, as does Mr Walker's references to that Chambers on his 2008 Court Document. In 2008 these were solely DDA matters, yet on the response that RBWM gave to Ms Gray, there are 'no costs' having been made to 10-11 Bedford Row in relation to discrimination matters at all, let alone for the year 2008 when a Bedford Row Barrister was involved in what was a purely DDA claim (i.e. Case: 2702264/2008) as Mr Tubbs confirms in his 16/12/11 new response.

In their response to Ms Gray, for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010 RBWM has listed no less than a total of £62,450.81, which is a substantial sum of money, but none of the payments for those years account for monies paid in relation to disability discrimination matters to Bedford Row.

Was this an 'oversight' too?

And if so - how did such a big 'oversight' get past the Auditors?