Saturday 12 June 2010

Final score: Dalila Hotspurs 5, Patels United 0

I never cease to be amazed about the surprises people have in store for you. You want to believe that they can accomplish something but deep down there is always this nagging doubt that somehow they might not be up to it, however much you might like them to be.

A e-chum of mine was dismissed from her job just before Christmas last year, unfairly in the view of just about everyone who was not the employer. Now I'll say this for Queen Elizabeth II's realm, they have some shit-hot legislation to protect workers, the great unwashed to me and you, from the money grubbing, ruthless capitalists, the fur balls of the western world to me and you. All kinds of laws to stop the employer from shafting you at every turn. If you don't play by the rules you get punished financially! While no system is perfect, the protection afforded to the wage-slave in the UK (and elsewhere in Europe) is probably second to none. It strikes an almost perfect balance between the demands of the employers for unrestrained exploitation and the claims of the working masses for justice and fairness.

As a result of all this beautiful legislation, my e-chum brought a claim to an Employment Tribunal (a court specially set up to hear employment disputes) for unfair dismissal. Now these things are exactly the same as a conventional court of law. There is a judge, plus two pseudo-magistrates, not legally qualified, and the whole business is conducted as though it was a court sitting in a murder trial. Witnesses have to take on oath, parties are represented, normally, by qualified lawyers and the rule of law always prevails. Prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt. The only difference is there's no jury, more of the great unwashed to you and me.

Well, these things, like all legal cases, take a long time to come up on the calendar. Three days ago, my e-chum's finally came up. Scheduled to last two days.

As any lawyer knows, the preparation for a case takes an inordinate amount of time. Every 'i' dotted, every 't' crossed, papers exchaged, papers buried on soft peat for three months, witness signatures, statements lost, statements recycled as firelighters, more signatures, the usual business. Now my e-chum had lots of help from a paralegal in the preparation, exchange and so forth but turns up on the day with NO legal representation!

What?

Are you crazy? Your opponents have legal representation! This is like trying to fight Mike Tyson with one hand tied behind your back! Running the 100m hurdles with one leg tied to your back. Are you serious? The solicitor for the other side has done this before. You haven't! And to boot, none of your witnesses have either! This is a legal process and all that it entails! Not a cosy little meeting between friends! (MG just put a bag over his head at the start of proceedings , he was a witness, so he didn't have to watch)

Round (day) 1 - the respondents, capitalist sh*tbags to you and me, are up first. Never has the phrase 'economical with the truth' been more apposite! I'd be less generous but I might wind up in court. It was like listening to the synoptic gospels, you know how Matthew, Mark and Luke all sound the same, tell the same story, however unlikely, and you get the impression only John might actually have been there. Well it was just like that, only John wasn't there!

Now to be fair, I don't think the judge was going out of way to favour the employer, quite the contrary, but there's only so much you can do when you are bound by due process. After all, the judge must make sure the niceties are observed and there were a few mild 'you can't do this, that and the other' - cue smug solicitor from the other side beaming all over his face. Anyways, apparently MG took the bag off near the end and the future certainly wasn't looking 'bright', wasn't looking 'orange' and the next day, my e-chum has to give evidence.

Round (day) 2 - I don't what know happened overnight between round 1 and 2 but something did. Maybe a little too much alcohol, maybe the multiple orgasm to end all multiple orgasms, maybe a hot bath and a decent nights sleep, maybe God had a quiet word, a little God-like moral support; whatever, it worked! Gone was the hesitation, the 'fumbling'; to be replaced by a sense of purpose, of righteousness! Calm, collected in the face of provocation (all the witnesses were; do you like be called a liar to your face just because you're somebody's friend), she handled it all with aplomb, water off a ducks back! The other side played every trick in the book, every trick that gets lawyers a bad name. Every trick that makes anyone engaged in the legal profession seem like an organism only slightly higher in complexity that an amoeba (with virus-like qualities). Still that's what they're paid for, ay? It's an adversarial system, after all.

Round 3 (day 2) - Summing up. A few short paragraphs to precis the case from each side. Put it all in focus for the tribunal. The claimant, the great unwashed to you and me, gets to go first, the respondents, f**king crooks to me and you, get to go last.

So what does the judge do? Reverses the order! He knows as well as we all do, she hasn't got a 'summing up' prepared, not in any real way, why would she; how could she? The solicitor agrees. Maybe he knew deep down what the real, objective 'truth' was and that's why he agreed. I don't know, but, for his sake, I'd like to think so. Perhaps there's hope for us all!

He gets near the end and the judge breaks for lunch! The solicitor has raised something that has to be addressed, in law.

There's 45 minutes over lunch to refute the main thrust of his argument, first raised in his summation. Otherwise, it's thrown out on a legal technicality.

Over lunch, the poor hapless Indians, surrounded by the calvary, manage to cobble together a defence (with the help of two phone calls to a paralegal). The solicitor for the other side smiled when it was read out - 'OK you win, that was my best shot' (Perhaps he didn't think anyone would notice).

Well, she won! Although she was held to be half responsible, she had unilaterally done something to jeopardice the business, which was kind of indefensible :), she won!

I don't know what happened between days one and two. From an 'embarrassment' to a 'winner', it's hard to conceive; but it seems to me that a lawyer could not have done any better, in terms of the final result.

You see, people are full of surprises

I don't think I could have gone against representation without being represented myself. I would have been too scared. To place so much faith in yourself (and your friends) sends a message to us all.

If only we will hear it!

No comments:

Post a Comment