employment tribunal written submission

BRISTOL ET Cases: 1401745/2012 1401756/2012

1401811/2012 1401812/2012

of 6

BETWEEN: MR DOUGLAS GARDINER CLAIMANT

AND

EXSTO UK LTD & OTHERS RESPONDENTS

PHR 8th January 2013

I apologise to the Judge, for my absence. I could find no better representative than my elderly Father, but after one appearance he has was defeated by the process. For this reason and many others including the previous horrifying and degrading experiences with the Bristol ET, I now have no intention of appearing in person at a PHR. Thus, despite “the overriding objective” I have been considerably disadvantaged.

However; I am available throughout the timeframe of the hearing for comments, questioning and contactable at all times.

+44 7973 172 405

[email protected]

In my absence, I ask in advance for a full transcript of the proceedings and the written reasons of any decision or judgments.

PHR 08/01/2013

Submission 1 of 17

mailto:[email protected]

BRISTOL ET Cases: 1401745/2012 1401756/2012

1401811/2012 1401812/2012

of 6

1.1 The overriding objective

(1) These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of

enabling the court to deal with cases justly.

(2) Dealing with a case justly includes, so far as is practicable –

a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;

b) saving expense;

c) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate –

(i) to the amount of money involved;

(ii) to the importance of the case;

(iii) to the complexity of the issues; and

(iv) to the financial position of each party;

d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly; and

e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases.

1.2 Application by the court of the overriding objective

The court must seek to give effect to the overriding objective when it –

a) exercises any power given to it by the Rules; or

b) interprets any rule subject to rules 76.2, 79.2 and 80.2.

1.3 Duty of the parties

The parties are required to help the court to further the overriding objective.

PHR 08/01/2013

Submission 2 of 17

BRISTOL ET Cases: 1401745/2012 1401756/2012

1401811/2012 1401812/2012

of 6

1.4 Court’s duty to manage cases

(1) The court must further the overriding objective by actively managing cases.

(2) Active case management includes –

a) encouraging the parties to co-operate with each other in the conduct of the proceedings;

b) identifying the issues at an early stage;

c) deciding promptly which issues need full investigation and trial and accordingly disposing summarily of the others;

d) deciding the order in which issues are to be resolved;

e) encouraging the parties to use an alternative dispute resolution(GL)procedure if the court considers that appropriate and facilitating the use of such procedure;

f) helping the parties to settle the whole or part of the case;

g) fixing timetables or otherwise controlling the progress of the case;

h) considering whether the likely benefits of taking a particular step justify the cost of taking it;

i) dealing with as many aspects of the case as it can on the same occasion;

j) dealing with the case without the parties needing to attend at court;

k) making use of technology; and

l) giving directions to ensure that the trial of a case proceeds quickly and efficiently.

PHR 08/01/2013

Submission 3 of 17

BRISTOL ET Cases: 1401745/2012 1401756/2012

1401811/2012 1401812/2012

of 6

Written Submission

1. All of my submissions to the Tribunal service have been or are in good faith and reflect my genuine thoughts of the time I have not changed my story to suit. The respondents had made their intentions to litigate clear when Baxevanidis stated:

“I can sack you all whenever I like, without calling anybody in” This was a veiled reference to the 24/7 consultancy service offered

by Peninsular Business Services.

This was later followed by abuse of the system and a series of recorded delivery letters.

2. When I returned from my Holidays late through no fault of my own

and after keeping in touch with the company, Baxevanidis had set his trap and pounced. Destroying what little trust I had in him. He had previously openly bragged about perverting the course of justice. I endured a difficult relationship with Baxevanidis mostly looking to the bright side but always waiting for an unpleasant moment.

3. It is difficult to manage staff as I know from my own managerial

experiences but the reaction of Exsto defied human rights, to investigate an employee’s private life, single them out for excessive blame for company failure, tell them they are a liar, subject them to a disciplinary hearing without witnesses or an agreed written record of the hearing, call them at home whilst sick in bed and make threatening remarks. Share confidential information with others, impose unsanctioned disciplinary measures without prior notification and effectively steal money from that employee at Christmas and at all times apologising, being sympathetic and changing their story to suit.

PHR 08/01/2013

Submission 4 of 17

BRISTOL ET Cases: 1401745/2012 1401756/2012

1401811/2012 1401812/2012

of 6

4. My first ET1 application now known as case 1400500/2011 was

submitted within the imposed 3 month time limit. Continuing what was a planned litigation by the respondents and their representatives. Due to my unstable mind at that time my case was poorly represented. My case was lost justice was not done.

The case was the subject of an unfair trial

5. I kept that case alive by appealing through the accepted channels I could have submitted more ET1s as I had the right but not the strength. One example in particular in relation to refusal to provide a reference but all of this soaked up my health, valuable time and resource.

6. I am significantly better health wise than I was two years ago. I still do not drive or enjoy my hobbies or see my children but I can now go out enjoy the company of friends, my recovery from the stress inflicted upon me by my employers and their advisors has taken many months and is still on going.

7. Once the appeal process for case 1400500/2011 within the

Employment Tribunal system was exhausted I resubmitted my cases into the system within the 3 months of the Judgment of the EAT.

Thus the cases should not be subject to time bar as all of the new claims are submitted within the 3 month time limit. Neither are they vexatious or an abuse of the system I am exercising my fundamental rights. I cannot be held personally responsible for the time delays within the Tribunal system.

PHR 08/01/2013

Submission 5 of 17

BRISTOL ET Cases: 1401745/2012 1401756/2012

1401811/2012 1401812/2012

of 6

8. Furthermore as I have received no submissions or required documents from the respondents’ representatives. Under rule 4 & 9 they should take no further part in proceedings.

9. To date the whereabouts of my unanswered appeal letter of April 2011 (see attached) I understand every person has a fundamental right to appeal to those in power, whether the individual exercises that right is their choice. I exercised this right but my appeal letter remains unanswered, despite several requests the respondents and their representatives (Who without a shadow of doubt composed the original conclusion letter - Torres can barely speak English) have not answered my appeal letter. Thus the cases should not be subject to time bar as all of the new claims are submitted before the outstanding appeal. Neither are they vexatious or an abuse of the system I am exercising my fundamental rights.

10. This is a genuine case I remain on an unfair footing my reluctance to attend court reflects that, I have written many genuine letters, I do not regret one letter or retract any statement I have made as at the time of writing they were my genuine beliefs. The respondents and their representatives are playing to a well-rehearsed win at all costs formula and change their story to suit anytime they like and it becomes acceptable. I do not understand this direct conflict with my fundamental belief that honesty is the best policy. On paper and in my mind I cannot change what has happened.

The interests of Justice require a review.

Douglas Gardiner

PHR 08/01/2013

Submission 6 of 17

1 of 11

To Maurie-Laurie Galland

Letter of appeal

Dear Ms Galland

Despite having no trust and confidence in Exsto as an employer - I am writing in appeal to the recent grievance raised by Mr Torres.

I expect it to be dealt with by Peninsula who were hired by Mr Baxevanidis so it will be white washed over for legal reasons to protect the company and Mr Baxevanidis as my previous grievances and appeal were.

PHR 08/01/2013

Appeal 16/04/11 7 of 17

2 of 11

C TORRES: INTRODUCTION

I was not happy at all, my comments were misunderstood and taken out of context. If Mr Torres wished to proceed I requested a copy of the investigation notes.

PHR 08/01/2013

Appeal 16/04/11 8 of 17

3 of 11

C TORRES: ITEM 1 part 1

John Baxevanidis was still in charge of my welfare he should have passed on my concerns to his immediate manager. I did not receive his letter until many days after the 13th of December and it contained incorrect allegations, also this gave him time to bully and victimise me further.

Was it not totally irresponsible to leave Mr Baxevandis and Peninsula in charge of my welfare considering my allegations of bullying?

Mr Penelon was aware of a concern/grievance on the 9 th of December 2010

Although I was self certified as unfit for work, I went to the Doctor on Friday the 10th of December 2010 to seek a professional opinion of my condition. As in the past on other occasions, if I reported unfit for work, Mr Baxevanidis had repeatedly not believed me, strongly indicating his personal displeasure.

I e-mailed ML Galland Human Resources Director Exsto on the 14 th of December 2010 and this was ignored.

It takes a lot of courage to complain about a dictatorial bully.

Just to reiterate Exsto supposedly takes allegations of bullying very seriously.

PHR 08/01/2013

Appeal 16/04/11 9 of 17

4 of 11

C TORRES: ITEM 1 CONTINUED

The company grievance procedure should be resolved within 20 days and this is what I was expecting.

I do not know if your investigations were thorough or not. I never saw the investigation notes. Many of my questions remain unanswered. During this whole process from the beginning, I have felt as I have done something wrong by being bullied and becoming unwell.

The translator was for Mr Torres, not me.

Even though French was spoken during the appeal hearing these comments were not noted by the minute taker.

Throughout this process the work commitments, general help, and apologies, have been repeated over and over again and are a legal sham, so therefore have become unnecessary and tiresome.

PHR 08/01/2013

Appeal 16/04/11 10 of 17

5 of 11

C TORRES: ITEM 1 CONTINUED

Mr Baxevani have destroyed all trust and confidence I had in Exsto France as an employer. I saw a bright future for me with Exsto, after all it was I who reintroduced Baule to Dunlaw ultimately leading to the takeover. I was keen to promote the company by quick action with Vincent securing the Skarv project, introducing it to Honda and recently travelling to Brazil. Until Mr Baxevandis is suitably disciplined and the contract with Peninsula terminated I will not reconsider my resignation.

Exsto should have liaised with my Doctor in December 2010 not April 2011

Regarding my medical records I have supplied enough information over the past 7 years for Exsto to form an opinion at face value, unless there is good reason to think to the contrary. Exsto do not have to make searching enquiries of me or seek permission to make further enquiries of my medical advisors.


PHR 08/01/2013

Appeal 16/04/11 11 of 17

6 of 11

C TORRES: ITEM 2

The comments regarding Unit 3 at Atworth are referring to a totally different arrangement however just to note when I shared the office at different times with Richard, Adrian and Ahmed it was not a problem I trained all of these people and we shared a similar role. At 67 Roundponds for a short period of time Vincent and I shared the office with another draughtsman from Exsto France this was perfectly acceptable, as he was performing a similar role to me.

To enforce a company policy is not an HR law .

The separate office was unsuitable as were the open plan options and besides I was unfit to make a decision having complained of stress.

I am glad Exsto are considering my concerns. However the building has been modified substantially since Christmas 2010 so any future risk assessments and improvements will be of no consequence to me.


PHR 08/01/2013

Appeal 16/04/11 12 of 17

7 of 11

C TORRES: ITEM 3 part 1

Why was John Baxevanidis left in charge of my welfare?


The work immediately without trying to have further constructive discussions with

to work on the 9th of December 2010 when he and Mr Torres doubted my

the evil at root of the whole sorry saga.



PHR 08/01/2013

Appeal 16/04/11 13 of 17

8 of 11

ITEM 3 CONTINUED

confidence I had in Exsto France as an employer. I saw a bright future for me with Exsto, after all it was I who reintroduced Baule to Dunlaw ultimately leading to the takeover. I was keen to promote the company by quick action with Vincent securing the Skarv project, introducing it to Honda and recently travelling to Brazil. Until Mr Baxevandis is suitably disciplined and the contract with Peninsula terminated I will not reconsider my resignation.

Torres thinks this was a necessary adequate control then my decision to resign with no trust or confidence in his company is totally justified again. I arrived at the premises normally before 8am on most days nearly an hour before Mr Baxevanidis.



PHR 08/01/2013

Appeal 16/04/11 14 of 17

9 of 11

ITEM 3 CONTINUED

Why was John Baxevanidis left in charge of my welfare?





PHR 08/01/2013

Appeal 16/04/11 15 of 17

10 of 11

ITEM 3 CONTINUED

I am glad Exsto are considering my concerns. However the building has been modified substantially since Christmas 2010 so any future risk assessments and improvements will be of no consequence to me.

PHR 08/01/2013

Appeal 16/04/11 16 of 17

11 of 11

CONCLUSION

I cannot find sufficient grounds to agree with Mr Torres findings. My understanding is he does not understand and all his answers seem to have been provided by Mr Baxevanidis and his personal representatives Peninsula thus Mr Baxevanidis has remained in full control of my welfare since the 2006 until the present. Please investigate this appeal. Many thanks Doug.

PHR 08/01/2013

Appeal 16/04/11 17 of 17

employment tribunal written submission

Law