This was a preliminary hearing that took place on 2nd of January 2020. As it seems to be the fashion with the Employment Tribunals this short document is incorrect and incomplete. My claim was first and foremost clearly based on race discrimination and then unfair dismissal and breach of contract.
"1. The claims for unfair dismissal and breach of contract were presented out of time and the claimant has not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to have presented the claims in time." I did. When Islington dismissed me after I made a complaint about a manager they did not want to investigate, in 2015 the Employment Tribunals were implementing fees. I did find out it had been scrapped when I brought the claim against Griffiths/Mareuge-Lejeune but did not know the claims that were affected by the fees were given a chance to be brought to the Tribunal out of time. I found it out while trying to read when dealing with their horrendous conduct during the Tribunal. I brought the claim as soon as I found out about this. When I brought the claim LB Islington were still not responding to my Subject Access Request although they have given me a copy of the reference Ms Mareuge-Lejeune had duped them into providing. They had promised to investigate the matter which they also did not. If they did, they didn't tell me their findings. As is the custom in UK when organisations treat you badly, they stopped communicating with me. I complained to the Information Commissioner's Office who told them to provide the information but they still didn't. They got reminders. When they finally did, it showed not only some openly discriminatory emails, it showed they had underpaid me. One very cagey administrator had purposefully asked for my last pay to be backdated so I would get less money.
"3 There was no conduct extending over a period linking the reference given in August 2018 to any matters prior to dismissal in July 2015 and the race discrimination claim was also presented out of time." What is she even trying to do here? May be she is trying to say Islington providing a 'reference' to Ms Mareuge-Lejeune when she was misrepresenting herself as a prospective employer and without consent was not in retaliation? The 'reference' said 'dismissed' and nothing else. Ms Mareuge-Lejeune made disgraceful allegations against me and against Islington because of lack of information in that so called reference. This was highly likely a retaliation as the same managers are still in the same positions. It was victimisation to give a highly deceptive person any information without consent and without even checking who they are. Islington had wanted me to go back to work by making promises but didn't want to formalise my complaint. But by telling this person that I had been dismissed without any explanation only fed Mareuge-Lejeune's hateful treatment of me.
"4 It is not just and equitable to extend time for the race discrimination claim to be heard." Why? Is it more just to leave a claimant with so much losses and whilst dealing with two more employers who used London Borough of Islington as a weapon against me for three and a half years? Do I have more resources than London Borough of Islington? Is a London local authority's team of solicitors not capable of dealing with my claim while as an individual I am expected to? Or is it that I am seen as unworthy of rights once again?
"6 Even if I had been minded to extend time for any of the claim or parts of them to proceed, I would have struck the claims out as a fair trial is not possible, give the very long delays." Not true.
Here is what happened: This was such a short hearing, there was no time to discuss much in detail. I had prepared a witness statement and a bundle the judge deemed to be 'thoughtful'. The solicitor of Islington did not send a bundle or a skeleton argument at all. They gave me a 142 pages of case law ten minutes before the hearing. The Judge did not do any assessment of the claim at all. She of course read the incorrect judgments that relate to Griffiths and that also contributed to her prejudice and she used it against me as I will explain below, but the number 6 above needs explaining first. London Borough of Islington is a local authority. They employ six to seven thousands people. Everything is recorded and kept permanently. I worked there for eight years, I have emails and other evidence which easily proves my claims. A fair trial is possible at any time with London Borough of Islington. The people's memories are the least of importance as they lie anyway. They were lying right when everything was happening but luckily one important conversation was captured in a recording. It shows that I explained my complaint well and in detail.
When the judge read out her dismissal judgment she said a few things that were incorrect. And true to my fashion, I pointed it out. She got angry and said she was not going to discuss 'her judgment' with me. I said this would create even more prejudice when I was still dealing with the errors in the Griffiths judgments. She told me then I shouldn't ask for written reasons. You can't appeal without written reasons. So this was my reconsideration and appeal stopped by this judge. I did still appeal later but of course she denied it all.
Over time I have learnt how different judges create their own way of stopping claimants appeal or make it difficult to appeal. This was a very creative one. And that's why this record is so short and lacks explanations.
Since my claim, I saw another claim against Islington and they underpaid that person even after a tribunal decision. I don't know why they do this to people leaving. At the hearing Islington accepted they had underpaid me and this judge still claims I have not a case against them. If gifting my wages to a corporation is not day time robbery I don't know what is. If my claim had been heard by now perhaps Islington would have taken their own practice seriously, correct whatever the problem is by now. Instead the other person brought a fresh claim only because of this problem. Imagine a local authority so persistent in bad practices and the Tribunal allowing them to get away with employees' money. Of course this is not just causing us inconvenience but it is also the reason why the Ministry of Justice is so busy. They are continually dealing with the mess they create themselves. It is the same with the Police as they create most of the problems in the community, often in conjunction with the local councils.
I was asked to apply for a reconsideration of the decision above with a nine month delay. Here is the judge's judgment:
I wont't say any more about it except to draw attention to the claim numbers. There are three separate claim numbers on this document. One on the first page and another two on the other pages. I am asked to be understanding of these things despite the fact judgments are posted online and do have a big impact on one's life. As an unrepresented claimant I am expected to present myself as if I am a professional and on time and write in a legal language. Judges often pretend they don't understand what I am trying to convey or ignore my communications. I have been left out of communications on all claims to some degree. I am the one who is expected to meet deadlines. Meanwhile professionals and Judges have power on decisions. Again the legal professionals are not expected to follow the rules of procedure while the claimants would be threatened with a strike out, deposit order or an unless order as soon as they miss one. The whole system is designed to protect the employers' interests and burdens claimants. In turn the employers treat other employees badly and some of them end up at the Tribunal clogging the system. And that's somewhat a relief as the professionals can make money and the claimants get blamed for having brought a claim, often saddled with costs. A vicious circle in which only the employees suffer and the employers complain. Once in a while a claimant is allowed to win and most of the won claims are small claims, probably after they were heavily pruned.