Can I take a solicitor into a grievance meeting?

LegacyUser

Hi,
I have been having an ongoing work issue and my employer has requested me to attend a grievance meeting. I do not trust them one bit over a number of issues, and their grievance policy states I can only take a Union Rep or other employee. I want to take my solicitor. They state explicity that I cannot take any legal representative. Surely this is not right?

Thanks

Eoin

This is correct - or at least my place which is pretty by the book has the same rule. The witness must be mutually agreeable to both the employee and the company. It's supposed to be a witness that observes that the process is fair, not so much there to fight your case like your legal rep would.

Procrastastudy

The only time you have a right to a witness is during a disciplinary meeting. There is some suggestion that in some circumstances this can be a solicitor. However the very best case is that this might go in your favour at tribunal - it likely would not. Its certainly not grounds for refusing to do the interview.

For investigations and grievances I'm 99% sure you have no right to a witness.

Not strictly relevant as this is a grievance but in Ireland you do have a right to cross examine witnesses used against you. Ensure that you avail of that right if this is part of the old grievance/disciplinary tennis that goes on.

On a slightly different note - why would you take a solicitor in any way? They can't take part and would be bloody expensive t sit there taking notes. You'd be better insisting that the meeting be recorded - not that they will agree to that of course.

Procrastastudy

From reading on a separate topic it seems you might be advised to record the meeting regardless of consent. Seems that EAT take a somewhat relaxed view in certain circumstances.

[Jackass]

I would request to bring a solicitor if you feel you need it. I would make it clear that the solicitor is not there to participate in the meeting, but merely taking notes, and if you are in a union, I would request a union rep as a witness.

Having a solicitor present, although not required, sends out a very clear message and will spook your employer into being extremely careful with how they approach the matter. Legal and union representation is pretty beefy back up to have.

If they refuse solicitor, insist on it as a condition of your attendance to protect your rights and make it clear again they will merely take notes.

Procrastastudy

[Jackass] wrote: »

I would request to bring a solicitor if you feel you need it. I would make it clear that the solicitor is not there to participate in the meeting, but merely taking notes, and if you are in a union, I would request a union rep as a witness.

Having a solicitor present, although not required, sends out a very clear message and will spook your employer into being extremely careful with how they approach the matter. Legal and union representation is pretty beefy back up to have.

If they refuse solicitor, insist on it as a condition of your attendance to protect your rights and make it clear again they will merely take notes.

And get sacked, with no recourse, for not co-operating with the meeting on the basis of them refusing an unreasonable request.

[Jackass]

Well, being sacked for requesting legal representation, that would be ironic when you're cashing in your cheque for unfair dismissal.

Procrastastudy

[Jackass] wrote: »

Well, being sacked for requesting legal representation, that would be ironic when you're cashing in your cheque for unfair dismissal.

You're aware the High Court has ruled on this right?

[Jackass]

You're assuming so much, such as the employer would be willing to engage in an unfair dismissal legal case over refusing the request of a solicitor in a meeting being the reason for dismissal, therefore there's no point on insisting on it.

Definitely play hard ball with them. HR departments sweat an awful lot when a legal tightrope is ahead and definitely want to avoid a legal battle like the plague. That's the whole point of bringing in some heavy weights such as legal and / or union representation to show you're not fu*king around. At very least compromise on a refusal for legal representation being present by insisting the meeting be recorded with a view to passing on to your solicitor after for review.

Procrastastudy

[Jackass] wrote: »

You're assuming so much, such as the employer would be willing to engage in an unfair dismissal legal case over refusing the request of a solicitor in a meeting being the reason for dismissal, therefore there's no point on insisting on it.

Definitely play hard ball with them. HR departments sweat an awful lot when a legal tightrope is ahead and definitely want to avoid a legal battle like the plague. That's the whole point of bringing in some heavy weights such as legal and / or union representation to show you're not fu*king around. At very least compromise on a refusal for legal representation being present by insisting the meeting be recorded with a view to passing on to your solicitor after for review.

They'd be straight on to a solicitor who would tell them they would likely win at EAT and contest it. If he requests it, is refused and does the meeting anyway then, and only then, might he have extra ammunition at EAT. I'll also correct myself that it's the Supreme Court that have made the following ruling:

Garvey v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Governor of Mountjoy Prison and the Attorney General (Notice Party) ([2006] 1 I.L.R.M. 486) )

Geoghegan J. stated that, “it would seem obvious that there could be no automatic right to legal representation” but that the requirement to fair procedures may include such a right “in an important enough case”.

In Burns & anor. v The Governor of Castlerea Prison ((2009) IESC 33) the Supreme Court held that, “legal representation should be the exception rather than the rule”. Geoghegan J. further stated that, “in any organisation where there are disciplinary procedures, it is wholly undesirable to involve legal representation unless in all the circumstances it would be required by the principles of constitutional justice”. In that case, Geoghegan J. adopted the six criteria identified by Webster J. in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Tarrant ([1985] 1 Q.B. 251) as being relevant in determining whether legal representation is appropriate in the particular circumstances (see I.E.L.J. Vol. 6, No. 2).

Source:Irish Employment Law Journal (2010) 7(4) IELJ 114

[Jackass]

Well you're going way off the point here of whether the employer will expressly deny the request and will fire him if he insists on it, you're also intimating that firing him is acceptable based on this judgement which merely states he has no express right to legal representation, not that he can be fairly terminated if he insists on legal representation which he can do under the 6th condition of the exceptional circumstances that there is "The need for fairness as between the parties", the reason being that the OP wants representation under the explicit provision that he / she does not feel that he / she will be treated fairly in the proceedings. This is where you enter the legal wrangle. But you're completely jumping the gun that there is going to be a stand off and instant dismissal based on the insistence, which there wouldn't be and for which there is no positive legal precedent for in the manner in which you seem to be suggesting.

Procrastastudy

[Jackass] wrote: »

Well you're going way off the point here of whether the employer will expressly deny the request and will fire him if he insists on it, you're also intimating that firing him is acceptable based on this judgement which merely states he has no express right to legal representation, not that he can be fairly terminated if he insists on legal representation which he can do under the 6th condition of the exceptional circumstances that there is "The need for fairness as between the parties", the reason being that the OP wants representation under the explicit provision that he / she does not feel that he / she will be treated fairly and this is where you enter the legal wrangle.

Your advise isn't just wrong it's out and out irresponsible - I don't like to make these posts personal but it's pretty clear you have no idea what you are talking about. If he refuses to comply with a disciplinary hearing then he won't be unfairly dismissed - the dismissal will be justified.

OP if you are already speaking to a solicitor get them to advise you.

Eoin

Procrastastudy wrote: »

OP if you are already speaking to a solicitor get them to advise you.

Think we'll leave it at that, some dodgy ideas being floated here.