top of page

Yet another one..

Updated: Sep 26, 2021

When you have an employment claim at any stage judges write anything they like and leave out anything that doesn't fit into what they want to make it look like. These inclusions and omissions don't necessarily reflect what really happened, bits are like an alphabet more like. This has been my experience with the Employment Tribunals.

And of course hopefully what they say is based on evidence. And hopefully they remember what is said correctly if they are depending on spoken words. Well, there is a new judgment that also includes my name but belongs to Steve Griffiths (Stephen Derwent Griffiths) and Melanie Griffiths (Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune)'s application. It is the produce of the hearing I mentioned in the last post. Here is the link for the judgment:

This judgment has not much to do with facts or what happened at the hearing. It was promised and delivered very quickly, in a week, I believe to help the Applicants in other matters. If you read it, you will see that the application was dismissed. There was no other way really. The same judge heard my oral submissions for my -in time appeals- more than four months ago and dismissed them on the same day and read out his judgment at the end of the hearing. So the judgment was ready but I have not been able to get a copy of the transcript yet. The transcript is the detailed explanations of the reasons for refusing the appeals. It is necessary to appeal against it at the Court of Appeal. As it was ready on the day, it could have been provided very quickly but somehow it's not. When I asked about it they said now it will take double the time. We have now passed beyond even that. I guess that's what an employee gets when they complain.

Going back to the judgments in general: I believe all should reflect the proceedings and facts correctly. In my experience the Employment Judgments are leveraged to terrorise the employees. None of the ones under my name are a full or correct reflection of the claim, evidence, facts or events. But they gradually got even worse. And every time I appealed the same judges wrote more incorrect things. Yet at the same time a lot of the conduct of the employers are hidden or even attributed to me sometimes. For example the costs judgment reads as if this set of employers' reconsideration applications were done by me. The applications they made were not posted online either. If they were, they would make very interesting reading with all the food receipts they wanted me to pay, their medical reports and allegations they made against me whilst believing some What'sApp messages were lost. This is the period this EAT judgment mentions and the Judge claims they withdrew their application because of my "hostile behaviour'. In fact even Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune didn't use that word and the reality is I was so under attack with their extreme emails, insults and allegations I could hardly catch up reading all of them. I was never 'hostile', even when the first judgment uses the word 'angry' I was terrorised by these two and their barrister who thought talking so fast and saying outrageous things was a good idea while Ms Lejeune hopped back and forth in the room with a bundle of documents, showing them what to say. I could hardly talk while Mr Griffiths and their barrister fired from both sides about petty matters. I emailed the Tribunal to add what I wanted to say later. I believe this judge used that word 'hostile' because its useful for justifying the employers' behaviour. He just took the incorrect word of one judge a bit further. Of course there was nothing to justify this word, in that period or any other. In fact Ms Lejeune said so many extreme things in such an angry manner while I had to sit and listen to it because the judge didn't stop her.

There are so many things to address in that judgment I don't know where to go next. I guess the first thing is that they refused to prepare an agreed bundle as they were directed, so just did their own thing. I didn't even check all of the documents in this bundle, the ones I saw were edited, created and who knows what else done to them. I did say this in emails and at the hearing but the judge just kept quiet. At the end of the hearing when I repeated it he said it was put in front of him. This was something another judge said in relation to the employment contract that was in the original bundle. And the other judge was right to say that because it was an agreed document. What I had said about the contract was that it was not what I read and thought I was signing but it was what I found in my possession after I resigned. I used the word 'fake' in relation to the bundle that was in front of him on that day, but he mentions it in another context and repeats what the employers claim I had said.

Other things: At the end of paragraph 3 he mentions that Maregue-Lejeune had behaved unreasonably by applying for references in the Respondent’s name in order to obtain information. What he leaves out is that these events happened after I resigned, after I brought a claim against them, without my consent and by posing as a prospective employer to convince my former employers in to giving references. She called them first and then emailed later. She gave them my personal details them and info related to each particular former job I held. All of my former employers, some from nearly twenty years ago. One manager didn't know me personally and must have asked other staff because she didn't even know my job title in that organisation and provided incorrect information based on guesses. She was obviously taking the matter seriously and wanted to be helpful to me by providing a reference. Imagine all this happening behind your back and being shared with people you don't even know. I guess they would tend to believe what is on paper, right? and arrive at conclusions whilst you don't know anything about it. How do you even begin to deal with the consequences of such behaviour?

In paragraph 7, there is a mention of a decision by 'Choudhury P'. This is the Honourable Mr Justice Choudhury who is the President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The judgment doesn't explain the content of this earlier decision but it very well summarised how deceitful Ms Mareuge-Lejuene had been and that it was an abuse of process for her to seek post employment references and blame others for it providing it and lie about the law to get everyone believe she had a right to do such a thing. This new judgment is seeking to lighten the affect of the earlier decision to help Ms Mareuge-Lejeune and Mr Griffiths.

In paragraph 12 the Judge quotes from their appeal notification but this is the second paragraph of the letter . The first paragraph complains that they received a rejection to an application they didn't make. In short, they complain about the failing of the person who sent them a response and admit that they didn't make the application. EAT proved that she had indeed made the application. But it is ignored by the Judge. He could have just quoted that first paragraph and stop the judgment there, or could have included it as a significant contradiction to what they say later. I don't think another judge would even consider anything beyond this first paragraph.

In Paragraph 13, he quotes their claim that I had been granted a postponement of a hearing and extensions of three case management deadlines by the ET. He doesn't mention that postponement was requested by me because we had had a funeral. ET kindly turned the hearing in to a case management hearing instead of a final hearing. They were pushing to catch me unprepared while grieving and without any advice. The extensions of case management deadlines by ET simply did not happen. She was talking about ordinary representation to representation kind of communications and the most significant extension was needed by them, but they managed to get my representation to write to the Tribunal as a kind gesture. Not that any of this is that important, but an Appeal Judge relying on the word of a person who was repeatedly called out for being untruthful about simple procedural history, I don't understand... the lack of support from Employment Appeal Tribunal that he mentions: We don't get support from EAT, I don't even try to call. It's all very formal for the rest of us but Ms Lejeune complained that an employee ' had admitted to have been out of office', after she managed to get her. I wonder what the conversations and the support she is getting is. No wonder they can get judgments like this.

In the next few paragraphs he talks about how he doesn't believe them and all. In paragraph 22 he says 'The financial prejudice to them of being unable to pursue the appeal is slight.' This is in relation to the £507 of costs award which they said was paid by their insurance. If the judge had read the papers he would know that this is mentioned numerous times. So in fact they were trying to get an amount of money which was not paid by them. Imagine you underpay someone, do the above acts and make your insurance pay for your actions and then try to get the money back to your account while smearing the former nanny as much as possible. All that, while making all these organisations and myself trying to deal with the consequences. And a sympathetic Judge smoothes over it to make you look good.

In paragraph 24 onwards he talks about their allegations. I am surprised he even repeats them considering how unreasonable she had been up to that point in her arguments. In Paragraph 27 he talks that there may be other remedies for my behaviour as if he believes them. And of course 'my behaviour' sounds serious and very useful for future use. I don't know what this 'behaviour' is. She was complaining how I am a foreigner and speak English as a second language and that they translated a couple of pages because I didn't. I think she was partly trying to say that I cannot be an interpreter. I did off course said what was on those simple WhatsApp messages and the messages showed that they were lying about when the employment contract had been signed. She apparently got it translated twice to find something to dispute and now wants me to pay this money back. She doesn't seem to understand that I couldn't have given any official translation in my own evidence. Besides their insurance paid for the expenses and there she was trying to get money out of me for themselves while highlighting my foreignness.

In paragraph 29 he says 'Nor is any extension merited by the fact that the Respondent needed the repeated indulgence of the ET in respect of time limits'. See how something Ms Lejeune said all of a sudden was turned in to a 'fact' again? I was there and told him it was not true and he could have checked the facts. He was dealing with two registrar and one judge letter all of which detailed Ms Lejeune's serious lies, he himself doesn't believe her explanations. Why all of a sudden take these words seriously? I believe because they make me look unreasonable, someone who uses public funds etc. I believe these simple words have been very useful against me already.

In paragraph 30 he mentions my appeal at the Court of Appeal but doesn't say that he EAT judge who heard it and has not yet provided the transcript is also himself. He mentions my "success' again. I have lost most of my wages as accommodation offset, rent in other words to these people despite the fact the accommodation was free in the contract. Also I argue that I should not have been subjected to a 'family exception' claim by these people. I applied for a job, they filled in papers behind my back claiming they were treating me like family without telling me, while I worked in a hazardous environment. I did not consent to what was done behind my back and the claim became minimum wage because it also fell below minimum wage. Someone who is contracted with clear terms should not have to be put thorough these proceedings in this manner. I don't consider spending three years, a lot of money whilst enduring horrendous treatment from these people a 'success'. This word is used to make me look unreasonable.

In paragraph 35 is their attempted allegations, some of it actually, because they have said a ton of things by now. After much search of papers they are pretending that there is a problem with my previous witness statement, that I rejected parts of it etc. At other places they sometimes say I signed it but contradicted it. The fact is that statement was emailed by a volunteer who was trying to help me. He wrote it and emailed it after trying to make me withdraw the gross wages part of my claim. He didn't write everything I wanted, changed some of it. He was trying to delay it in the hope I would withdraw my claim because he was scared of going to the Tribunal to represent me in front of these people who were complaining about everybody. They had threatened him with a complaint, although I don't know what it could be about. Their representation was very aggressive. So I represented myself and told them and the Judge that a few things were missing in the statement and told them what was wrong in it. The buggy and the TV matter. So they knew it, but because it doesn't appear anywhere in written format, they thought they can pretend I had lied or something. The misrepresentation thing is about them having been lied by one of my former employers. They skip the fact that they contacted those people without consent and under false pretences, found some similarities between themselves and both lied to each other and both chose to support each other. I don't even try to prove anything because it involves explaining what they are not entitled to.

Later in the paragraph they claim "bias, revealed by treating the Respondent as vulnerable and needy and Appellants as wealthy and independent'. I don't remember this point being argued and I don't like anyone treating me as vulnerable and needy. They were the ones who submitted four medical reports in the open and claim to have done many in the background. They are the ones who wanted me to pay the receipts for the food they ate. I was trying to get my wages as it was promised. I didn't get it. I spent a lot more for the privilege of recovering a few hundred pounds of earned wages because they were so extremely attacking and demanding. They are wealthy but kept fighting to not pay the little wages they owed me and caused a massive amount of destruction in the process.

In paragraph 36 B they are complaining that I 'submitted new evidence for the costs hearing in August 2019 consisting of relevant WhatsApp messages'. The bother about this is that they had made some serious allegations against me and the WhatsApp messages showed that they were asking me to work for a colleague of hers after I resigned. It showed that they were lying about me during the proceedings and also that their house was not in the shape they wanted everyone to believe.

Later in the same paragraph there is a repetition of allegations about their former representatives. I have seen so many of them but don't necessarily remember this particular allegation. But the insulting thing about all these appeals is that they are trying to prove they treated me like family. I did not apply to be their family member. I applied for a job. You don't deceive people into a job and claim you treated them like family to justify not paying them minimum wage without telling them, only to make allegations later to lower their worth as someone who didn't deserve it in the first place.

'Some relevant evidence about family life was located after 28 November 2018 but within the appeal deadline'. I thought really hard to guess what this was, very nice way of describing banana, stamp and meat receipts you want a vegetarian former employee to pay. And she found these all important receipts a year after I resigned. Some of them were paid by me and left in the room I was staying . This very important evidence is worth a mention in an EAT judgment dealing with two 'end of the road', severely out of time appeal extensions by former employers who want me to pay them for food while I am made to look like a burden on the system for defending my basic earned wages.

In paragraph 38, among other things they are using their complaint about one of the judges as an excuse to appeal. In fact the judge was going to award me the full schedule of loss which was still less than a thousand pounds but changed her mind because of this complaint. The fact that the judge was going to not deduct accommodation ofset is even mentioned in their own appeal.

Paragraph 40 says they changed their mind but goes on to say "Their change of mind may well have been motivated by hostile behaviour against them on the part of the Respondent.' He saw how Ms Mareuge-Lejeune spoke for more than two hours and how hostile and unreasonable she was. He didn't record most of what she said and covered for them very nicely. It is an insult that I have had to endure so much from these people and their legal teams, all on my own and get this label. Trying to get your basic pay is 'angry', 'hostile' but a wealthy person taunting you for three years because they were not seen as needy enough for their liking is not?

In paragraph 42, again indulgent case management orders the Judge now firmly believes that I must have obtained.

In paragraph 44 he says 'As a final comment, it is notable that the bad feeling in this case has been magnified by steps taken, in particular the disclosure of information, outside the litigation.' What does he even mean? What information is he talking about? She didn't only share information, she obtained it illicitly first and a lot of it. How did he arrive at this conclusion and what evidence does he have to base this on considering he had a bundle prepared by them which clearly were edited and he had seen and dismissed them before? Her 'bad feeling' was always there. As I said, they couldn't even tolerate a family funeral being mentioned by me. They chose to wage war on me on the day they received the claim notification.

A lot of what she said has been left out of this judgment. There is nothing from me. It's as if I wasn't there, except I was at the receiving end of it all. It was an awful thing, I don't even know how to describe it. I found the way she spoke to the Judge also disrespectful. My attempts to defend myself are stirring all frustration in some because they think I am as a foreigner or someone who worked as a nanny isn't worthy. Yet this person's behaviour is accepted and demands honoured. I can't believe all this is normalised even at the EAT. I have read the Secret Barrister's books but what I have experienced in the last few years with the Ministry of Justice as a whole has been way beyond anything he is talking about. I do think I may have been more unlucky with some events than an average citizen but still... and the reason why I have been more unlucky has everything to do with being from a certain ethnic minority in a certain area. But I don't accept any of this. Discrimination is too wasteful of our resources, internal and public. If the system was not so lenient on unreasonable behaviour this would have resolved long ago. Persecuting me into giving up after having endured so much seems to be an easier option for the Justice system than deal with people who caused the problem in the first place.

Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page