Since I started an employment claim against Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune (aka Melanie Griffiths) and her husband Steve Griffiths (aka Stephen Derwent Griffiths) I went from shock to shock. I will skip some of the events as there is so much that to say but I don't want to clutter here.. The first real shocker was that they had included so called 'references' in the bundle. Ms Mareuge-Lejeune took out my CV and contacted my former employers and started asking for a reference by posing as a prospective employer as soon as she received the claim notification. Of course I had resigned months ago and they had just received the notification for the claim. She was asking for negative information such as complaints, grievances and proceedings against me. Of course she didn't have my consent and I didn't know about any of this. She managed to get six of them to respond to her. Some did give references, some refused because she didn't have consent and some just confirmed that I had worked there. Well, yes even the charity I worked for 17 years ago responded to her as they thought they were being helpful to me.
Why would someone do this? Why lie in this way to all these managers from the past? Well, of course to find something to use for discrediting me during the proceedings. Perhaps they were hoping to find I didn't actually work for these organisations? I don't know...But they actually used two of these so called 'references' in the bundle despite the fact it clearly showed their own illegal conduct. I guess it was worth for them to show that I had been 'dismissed' from London Borough of Islington. This of course had nothing whatsoever to do with the claim we were dealing with. It seemed to serve them as evidence that I should not be paid Minimum Wage despite the fact they had agreed to pay above this basic legal right.
After the costs judgment was 'promulgated' as they say, these two started making many allegations against me to argue that they had a right to use this method of getting post employment 'references'. I won't go into the details of those for now. But they offered false explanations in terms of how they obtained this information ie they claimed the one from the London Borough of Islington was a Freedom of Information request despite the fact she clearly asked for a job reference. They tried to justify contacting another one of my employers by saying she was just discussing my taxes and P45, as if she had a right to discuss those with others half a year after I had resigned. She even managed to get a copy of my payslip from one a half year prior, and yes that was in the bundle too. And the payslip showed that this other employer had lied about the nature of my job. This other employer also owed me money for which they officially were ordered to pay me. They had also found their own unique way of avoiding paying Minimum Wage. Did the Griffiths/Mareuge-Lejeune care about any of this? No. They actually thought it was useful as two employers lying and smearing the same person would make them more believable.
Why am I saying all this? Because they are still trying to defend their actions despite the clear illegality of it and despite having been told it's wrong. To justify their actions and arguments they continue smearing my name. That is the reason why I have to put it here as I do not know who else they said things about me and what they said. The post about the London Borough of Islington has come about for the same reason.
Ms Mareuge-Lejeune and Mr Griffiths also claimed they wanted to 'rescind' that employment contract that is mentioned in the judgment repeatedly. That agreement was put in the Court bundle by them. They claimed it was the copy we had signed.
They also have been repeating that I had misrepresented myself. That is exactly what they did themselves over and over but had to throw it onto me. The misrepresentation they mention is that I didn't tell them about confidential matters in a previous employment. Yes, they think honouring confidentiality is 'misrepresentation'. Ms Mareuge-Lejeune even dared to question how I may have looked after their children despite nearly begging me to stay when I resigned and wanting to give me references. They had CCTV everywhere in their house and this was even in the employment contract and they accepted they had hidden cameras as well as the visible ones. At the final hearing they said I was very pleasant and later expressed we had parted on "excellent terms'. They just didn't want to pay me what they owed and say that taking them to Tribunal is a legitimate reason to want to dig into my life in case they may find something useful to use against me. The letter below only deals with two of my former employers Ms Mareuge-Lejeune lied to. There is evidence of four more.
Ms Mareuge-Lejeune and Mr Griffiths appealed against the costs decision in November 2019. While doing that they threw in an appeal against the liability judgment as well, despite being 8 or 9 months late. They had already made 3 reconsideration and revocation applications at the Tribunal level and had withdrawn them but omitted this fact from their application when going for an appeal. Their arguments are very revealing in terms of what they have done behind my back. They also have arguments about many other matters including the details of Minimum Wage law and why they should be exempt from paying it despite offering more than Minimum Wage when recruiting employees. Minimum Wage is a basic statutory right and not paying it to an employee is an offence. They attacked me to this degree in an attempt to prove that I am not deserving of this basic right.
The below letter is the decision letter from the Employment Appeal Tribunal to their own appeal application regarding costs.
And I still cannot believe all this was done by them to keep a few hundred pounds of my earned wages. And of course if they genuinely believed they had a legal or moral right to get post employment 'references' they wouldn't have posed as prospective employers when in fact I was taking them to the Tribunal.