-
technik888
- Gastarbeiter
- Posty: 32
- Rejestracja: 24 sie 2011 20:48
Dear General Secretary GMB Paul Kenny!
Fw: Dear Paul Kenny General Secretary GMB,I am afraid we cannot do any work for you, without being paid private fees 2
Hide Details
FROM:
lurum3 lurum3
TO:
Kenny Paul (WI)
Message flagged
Sunday, 30 October 2011, 1:12
Marian Lukasik
Email:technik888@gazeta.pl
Mobile: 0044(0)7985284791
Dear General Secretary GMB Paul Kenny,
I needn’t to answer to the last e-mail Polish embassy declared let me answer to the questions. Dear General Secretary, for you important is big politic and you haven’t time for normal members.
You must be very pleased that my case to Strasbourg because GMB Trade Union not help my in my case I asked many time for solicitor from GMB without result.
From Letter from General Secretary GMB to member wrote:
“Lawyers all expensive, so it is good to know that your membership covers the full cost of any legal action resulting from your employment." ?
But this words have nothing with reality
-I forgotten,-for GMB is important only that we member pay every month direct debit and big politic Normal member are not important-Paul Hayes from GMB wrote that they can’t help me because I haven’t 60% for win but when I went to GMB I believed that help us in our problem and I lost job because I went to Trade Union GMB .When I wasn’t GMB member I still working because I don’t went to GMB
GMB help me that I lost job, health and money because don’t wanted gave solicitor and I must took man who call yourself “adwokat“ this mean in English solicitor.Hhe was cheap but was addicted to amphetamines and this lawyer representatives of the ICSL Enterprise and Team Support persuaded to withdrew unfair dismissal .Only this point which could prove on the basis of documents. Why only this point was withdrew why not another point.
In what way a man can convince drug addict man who still lacks the money- the answer is silence.
I asked the workers of the Agency for Enterprise ICSL to defend their interests.
WHERE IS GMB?-For GMB important are
1)Good pay job.
2)Big POLITIC
3)GMB forgotten about normal member-important that pay membership
Agency who work for ICSL Enterprise wants free up workers before Christmas and take same people again to avoid wage increases for them
How it is possible that agency workers are working for 4,5 years for the agency and are not admitted to the company. They are good as agency workers , but as employees are bad because ICSL Enterprise must pay more
it is a violation of Article HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998
Article 14: Discrimination
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as seksik, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status”.
Agency workers are treated much worse than the company's employees but that is normal in ICSL Enterprise Islington
Workers who worked more than one year should get compensation- unrealistic dream- lawyers have knowledge of in the Employment Tribunal.
Trade Union GMB takes membership every months nothing doing and just as damaging as in my case
From letter from GMB” Arek has been working for ICSL via the Agency for 4 years”-
How is possible for Agency for 4 years -where was Trade Union GMB because with British Law after 1 Year work in agency must go directly to Company-but ICSL has good solicitor and friends in Employment Tribunal and ICSL and Agency can broken British Law. According to the law until 01 Oktober 2011 should go to the Company after one year work -but when Company ICSL has business people still working for Agency. I can give example.. Company must pay compensation that Agency Worker before Team Support now Agency from ICSL stay so long time in Agency
Sorry this is joke in UK this is not possible-Agency and ICSL have too good solicitor Where is Trade Union GMB?-I forgotten,-for GMB is important only that we member pay every month direct debit and big politic . Normal member are not important-Paul Hayes from GMB wrote that they can’t help me because I haven’t 60% for win but when I went to GMB I believed that help us in our problem and I lost job because I went to Trade Union GMB .When I wasn’t GMB member I still working because I don’t went to GMB
Attachments to my case :MARIAN LUKASIK
Signature,
Employment Tribunal
Number: 3302202/2008- Judge S.Bedeau- Case in Watford
03.09.2009-10.09.2009
Employment Appeal Tribunal-EAT
Appeal No. UKEATPA/ 1644/ 09 LA –Judge - HIS HONOUR JUDGE McMULLEN QC
IN CHAMBERS D A T E D the 9th day of December 2010
In Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Case: A2/2010/3041
BETWEEN
MARIAN LUKASIK Appellant
v
TEAM SUPPORT SERVICES LIMITED 1st Respondent
ICSL ENTERPRISE ACCORD LIMITED 2nd Respondent
Description my case
1. I have worked for Enterprise Plc through a Team Support Agency.
2. Throughout my entire time at Enterprise Plc, I have been subjected to discriminative actions from my supervisor, Chargehand Noel Findley from Enterprise PLC.
3. Beside the fact that I have been treated with no respect (I have heard many invectives directed at me), and I have been provoked to fight, I still wanted to work on the night shift, which enabled me to have time during the day to take care of other things, for example, learning English or finishing other courses.
4. Although I was a member of a trade union, I have never asked them to defend me, because I was worried that I would be removed from the night shift by Chargehand Noel Findley (many people have been either moved from the night shift to the day shift, or have been dismissed), who had declared that he is the person that will decide about everything. He also added that we shouldn’t even think about joining a trade union, because, even there, he has arrangements, as well as with the Manager of the Night Shift, Kevin O’Neill.
5. I believe that the above points are substantial, because despite my numerous complaints to the Night Shift Manager, Kevin O’Neill, about discrimination, provocative, offensive and degrading actions of Chargehand Noel Findley towards me, he has not treated these complaints seriously and, with laughter, said that the above is impossible and untrue. He has not taken any action towards Noel Findley, and the next day after my complaints, the offensive behaviour of Noel Findley has worsened.
6. In addition, it was Chargehand Noel Findley, and not the Manager of the Night Shift, Kevin O’Neill, that decided about everything that took place in the night shifts.
7. The working environment in the night shift is indescribable – shouting, abusing, browbeating are very common, however, there is no one we can speak to, due to the fact that the Night Shift Manager Kevin O’Neill protects his employee, Chargehand Noel Findley.
8. Chargehand Noel Findley has numerously repeated that I only work for an Agency and therefore I could easily be dismissed, and that I do not have any rights. He said that the only ones that have rights are the employees working directly for Enterprise Plc.
9. In the second half of May, Noel’s attacks have become notorious. Every night, when driving past me in his car, he would stop and criticise all of my actions, swear at me, and provoke me to fight. Each one of his appearances would cause me great stress. Each one of my attempts to defend myself verbally would end in Noel’s even greater anger.
10. I have reported these problems to Team Support Agency, where I have spoken to Ian Ennis. However, the only I received was that the Agency could not influence Chargehand’s actions in any way, however, they knew about his behaviour and the way he treats people.
11. The amount of stress I have been subjected to every night has caused insomnia and a state of obsessive depression. During sleep, many times I would wake up scared that Noel would shout, swear and humiliate me. As a consequence, I had to start taking tablets to help me sleep, increasing the dose systematically because very quickly they stopped working. Every day, I would have a bigger headache and wake up even weaker.
12. An example proving that Chargehand had many privileges is the event that took place between him and Arkadiusz Nowaczyk (Arek), a driver from the night shift, whose relationship with Chargehand Noel was very unfriendly due to Noel’s constant offensive behaviour. Arek has been moved by Noel from the driver position to sweeping floors.
1 Arek Nowaczyk asked me if I would go to the Trade Union to confirm the complaints about Noel.
2 Firstly, I did not want to go, because I feared that when Chargehand finds out, he will remove me from the night shift.
3 However, his Arek’s arguments that taking this matter to the Trade Union will change Noel Findley’s behaviour. On 28 May 2008, we had a meeting with Derek Dysley, one of the representatives of the Trade Union, who wrote down all the acts of discrimination from Chargehand Noel Findley, and sent it to Kevin O’Neill, the Night Shift Manager.
4 I have not received any response to that letter from either Kevin O’Neill, nor from the Agency or the management of Enterprise Plc.
5 I believed that our problems with Noel will come to an end; however, something completely opposite happened.
On Monday, 9 June 2008, at 5 pm, a meeting between the representative of the Agency, Ian Ennis, Night Shift Manager, Kevin O’Neill, Enterprise Plc’s representative Bill Simfield and the Trade Union representative Derek Disley, took place. Arek Nowaczyk was also invited to that meeting. Later on, Chargehand Noel Findley also arrived at the meeting. I found out about this meeting earlier on, from Arek as well as the trade union representative. Although I expected to be invited to the above meeting, this did not take place, beside the fact that it also concerned my person.
The outcome of the meeting was a huge surprise, because Arek Nowaczyk was moved back to his driver position, but I was moved to the day shift. The representative of the trade union has told me that I should be happy with the outcome. Many times I asked the Agency representative Ian Ennis to receive a written cause from Kevin O’Neill for the change of shifts. However, the response I received was that Kevin O’Neill would write me a letter with a reason for the change, but that it would probably be something like: ‘inaccurate sweeping of the floor’.
This is what I cannot understand – I could not work at the night shift because I did not sweep well enough, but I could work during the day, because I ‘swept well’.
I was very embittered with the outcome – I have been abused by Noel Findley, and because I supported Arek Nowaczyk, I have been moved from the night shift to the day shift, regardless of the fact that it was obvious that working during the day would stop me from carrying on with my education. Arek has received his job back. Kevin O’Neill apologised to Arek, however, I heard no apology from anyone.
I have asked the Trade Union, as well as the Agency, for an intervention numerous times, because I wanted to stay on the night shift, however, there was no response, even though I had strong arguments with regards to my education. Although I was then working on the day shift, and had no direct contact with Noel Findley, whenever I would see him, he would always show his hostility towards me.
Through Chargehand’s actions, the working environment on the night shift was terrible. Shouting, browbeating, swearing and showing everyone who is in charge were observed every day. Despite the fact that I was a sweeper, with many years of experience, Noel always found a reason to criticise my actions. There was no one we could talk to about his behaviour. It seemed that Noel was protected by Kevin O’Neill.
Despite the fact that I was supposed to be working on the night shift until Sunday, I was forced to finish on Saturday, even though I have not done anything wrong, all I wanted was for Noel to stop harassing me, which is why I went with Arek to the Trade Union.
1 24 June was the last time I worked on the day shift.
2 On June 25, I went to work, but despite a 3 hour wait for work, I have not received any proposals from the Agency
3 On June 26, I went to work, and the Agency’s representative Ian Ennis has announced that there is no work for me at the moment (now is very quiet), and that I should register as an unemployed, which I have done.
Despite the amount of time that has passed since the matter occurred, it is hard to forget about it. My depression has deepened during the unemployment.
I have written a letter on 30 June to my Agency with copies directed to any interested companies; however, I have not received a reply.
The event that has occurred was a pure violation of my working rights and discrimination, and despite my many complaints and requests, no one has dealt with it. I believe that the reason for such discrimination and a violation of my rights was the fact that I am Polish, but also because I worked for an Agency. From the beginning, I did not react to the humiliation, violation of rights, and discrimination, because I wanted to work, especially on the night shift. I wanted to work for the company until my retirement, and I treat the decision for moving me from the night shift as a personal defeat. The fact that I have been treated like a bad employee was a great humiliation, because I believe that I carried out all of my duties scrupulously, I always came to work early, always happily stayed to work overtime, and I have never received a complaint.
Many times I tried to forget about what happened through reading books on positive thinking and how to get out of depression, however, I have not achieved this state as yet.
The whole matter has also caused a huge financial crisis, which I am still struggling to beat. I have two overdrawn accounts.
The matter has also influenced my relationships with my family and friends, because I keep thinking about it, it has become an obsession. Why have I been treated in such a way, and have not received a response explaining everything after the first request and complaint?
Now I know that it was my mistake, because I wanted to work no matter what, but what I should have done was react to any signs of discrimination straight away.
Worth mentioning is what I have heard recently.
About a month ago, Chargehand Noel has been dismissing from his position.
As a matter of fact it proves that he was not a person suitable for such a
responsible position were managing people at work is the main duty.
His behaviour and work ethics were not simply appropriate.
The very last important argument in my case is breach in my employment
length at night shift.
According to working time regulations, see attached, the maximum time
allowed for night work is 17 weeks were in my case it has been 14 months.
EXPLANATION
1) Dr J Krawczyk, person representing me at the Hearing taking place from 3th to 10th August 2009 did not tell me that he was willing to withdraw my claim about unfair dismissal. He actually did it without any authorisation from my side or my knowledge of it.”
In my opinion I’m not guilty and another victim dr Jack’s- guilty is system in UK. This person made so bad only that was not check HOW? is possible that person who was searching for polish police for long time, he has criminal record and he can working like Employment Tribunal Consultant and did so much bad for polish community,
HOW?is possible that he withdraw my claim, not attached documents ET3 and signature Judge S.Bedeau and not wrote for me cover letter -use many times my personal detail.s I’m sure 99,9% that he was this person. I have: call recording sms,email etc but police refuse my complain. So also I bring a claim against the police.FOR WHAT is Police?
Never ever support Polish College like Arkadiusz (Arek)Nowaczyk-who sold me (ICSL gave him always dustcart night job) NEVER GO TO GMB ,EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL no,no,100 no! thank you very much
How?is possible that dr Jacek Krawczyk made so much bad for many people and Court many years didn’t check his criminal record, if he has liability insurance, paid tax?
When paid liability insurance not problem I get money from insurance , many solicitor office refuse my ask about Civil Process again dr Jacek Krawczyk because he has nothing.
How is possible that workers Agency like from Agency Team Support and now another agency which working for ICSL Enterprise ,working 3,4,5 years like Agency staff-
are good like Agency worker ,but bad like employee
From letter from GMB” Arek has been working for ICSL via the Agency for 4 years”-
How is possible for Agency for 4 years -where was Trade Union GMB because with British Law after 1 Year work in agency must go directly to Company-but ICSL has good solicitor and friends in Employment Tribunal and ICSL and Agency can broken British Law. According to the law until 01Oktober 2011 should go to the Company after one year work -but when Company ICSL has business people still working for Agency.I can give example.. Company must pay compensation that Agency Worker before Team Support now Agency from ICSL stay so long time in Agency
.Sorry this is joke in UK this is not possible-Agency and ICSL have too good solicitor.Where is Trade Union GMB
HOW? is possible that Peninsula which represent Team Support gave all my personal details in Paginated Bundle and someone use this(I’m sure 99.9%), Peninsula and Employment Tribunal are over law only I’m guilty for all
why don’t made like in Case
“IN THE UNITED DISTRICT COURT FOR THE REASTERN DISTICT OF
VIRGINIA” but this is in US and Employment Tribunal from Watford is over law
How? is possible that my prosecutor Noel Findlay could be like witness in my case but he hadn’t right to residence and working in UK, after my case he was released. But why? not before Case. He hasn’t right to stay in UK and he was witness and I was guilty because Company and Agency called witnesses only god for agency and Company and always was happened was only revenge that I took Company and Agency to Court
How is possible that many employee from ICSL Enterprise were released after my Case because hadn’t right to stay and working in UK please check-why after not before my case
How?is possible that Law Society nothing doing in matter dr Jacek’s Krawczyk-I know one time he had control that use name solicitor but no result he can working and withdraw claims and Claimant is guilty
How is possible that I was 3 times in Police-1th December 2010 and 8th of July 2011 at 15.40(with person who speak good English) and Police don’t wanted help me today this mean 29 Oktober 2011 myself and I don’t wanted give details this person because when Employment Tribunal broke my personal details that all could be happen
My personal details were stolen and Police said this not Police matter.
Dr Jacek Krawczyk said that he made me finish in UK and made so bad for me.
This is sick person but WHERE? are Institutions who should check him.
In my opinion for all victims Jack’s Krawczyk must pay UK because didn’t fill their duties, whom he has deceived - single mothers on low incomes persons. When get he money than withdraw claim. It is not possible. Please check this person
For me is doesn’t matter I don’t want stay in UK where is so much injustice but I must pay back money back to HSBC bank which I took for this case
Now I work and have £4,7 after tax and I must pay to the bank about £ 250 monthly and after I haven’t nothing.
I’m very pride be member of Trade Union GMB!!!
TRANSCRIPTION Letter from GMB after the visit together with Arkadiusz(Arek) Nowaczyk on 28 May 2008 to GMB Steward Derek Dislay
PAGE1
GMB TRADE UNION
C/O ICSL Accord 1Cottage Road Islington London N7 8TU
Tel:020 7527 4741 Fax:
Health and Safety Hotline:
E-Mail: garydoolan@hotmail.com
2ndJune 2008
TO: Kevin O'Neill
Manager (Nights)
ICSL Enterprise PLC
RE: AGENCY STAFF NIGHTS
Dear Kevin,
Last Tuesday 27th May 2008 this Trade Union was approached by a member of your
agency staff to complain about how your Acting up Chargehands were treating them
through-out their working shifts.
With-in an hour of the complaint your Acting up chargehand was in the union offrce
complaining that I as a steward always take the agency workers side, to be honest I
always thought it was my yob to represent the workforce no matter if Agency or fulI
time.
Your agency staff are complaining that your Acting up chargehands, bully, shout and
victimise them on a regular basis, surely this cannot be a practise you as a manager
condone.
Over the last few weeks there have been 3 instances of concern to this trade union.
1. Said Hashi
This unfortunate Agency guy, who has worked for ICSL via the Agency for 2 years,
was attacked by a member of the public, after going to the hospital for treatment Mr.
Hashi_I was told to rest until he had recovered.
Mr. Hashi returned to work 2 weeks later to be told to return to his Agency, as his
services would no longer be required.
Custom and Practise for an incident of this nature is to pair the employee up with
someone else or put him with a crew until the situation had resolved itself, you
ignored custom and practise and refused to have the man anywhere near your shift,
Mr. Hashi did not return to work for ICSL, we can only assume his decision was
made due to his treatment by Night management, and when you consider he was
attacked whilst carrying out ICSL's duties, who can blame him
2. Arek Nowaczyk
Arek has been working for ICSL via the Agency for 4 years and in all those 4 Years
we have never seen this gentleman in the union office with complaints or trouble of
any kind, yet over this last 2 weeks the situation seems to have reversed.
GMB TRADE UNION WORKING TOGETHER
LONDON REGION
PAGE 2
Arek began here as a sweeper, but he has now got his HGV class 2 license and has
Been utilised for some considerable time now as a HGV driver, 7.5 ton driver and
occasionally help out as a sweeper.
Over the last 2 weeks an incident occurred were he had an argument with one of your
Acting Chargehands who had seen fit to shout at Arek.
If an operative has done wrong then surely it would be more advantageous to talk to
him or if necessary counsel him, I cannot find in the staff code were it says that
Acting up charge hands have the right to shout at the workforce no matter what the
problem is, if there is a problem surly the case should have been handed over to the
managil to deal with, in fact since the incident and since Arek approached the GMB,
Arek has been told that he was taken on as a sweeper and that is now his job.
As a result Arek has approached the trade union for advice on dealing with this
situation, we had intended to simply get all parties together and sort the problem out
but it would now seem that nights use a punishment regime on their workforce and
seem determined to drive him out.
3. Marian Lukasik
Marian is another guy who has worked here for 4 years but with a 9-month break,
Marian returned to his duties here 14 months ago and has remained here ever since.
Marian is1yet another member of the night workforce who has approached the trade
union because of Harassment and victimisation from your acting chargehands, Marian
is yet another night worker who is being shouted at on a regular basis.
The last incident concerning this operative happened a couple of weeks ago were he
had miss-understood an instruction and left some work down, the Acting chargehand
caught up with Marian in the Archway area where he was verbally abused, in fact
Marian told me that he was. so upset the incident came perilously close to causing an
accident with the vehicle.
Thursday Night, you sent an e-mail to the agency stating that Marien is continually
litter picking despite previous waring and that both Chargehands have witnessed him
lifter picking again and there fore you want him replaced.
You allowed Marien to come into work on Friday morning and then sent him home
stating that ' you can go to the union if you want but that will only make things worse,
and if you complain about Noel Findlay that will make things even worse still, Noel
will still have his chargehand job, you will have nothing'
These comments by you have now convinced this trade union that you have sacked
Marien because he spoke to the GMB and, are trying to drive Arek out for the same
reason, I am also very concerrned that the last 2 operatives are polish, and more
operatives who have declined to come forward for fear of losing their jobs are also
polish.
1. could you please tell me the reason said Hashi was sent back to the agency
despite our custom and practise solution?
2.could you please _tell me why Arek has been told he will sweep permanently
despite the fact you have had him driving as a HGV driver for months?
PAGE 3
GMB TRADE UNION
C/O ICSL Accord 1 Cottage Road Islington London N7 8TU
Tel: 020 7527 4741 Fax:
Health and Safety Hotline:
E-Mail :garydoolan@hotrmail.com
3. Could you please tell me why Marian was told to return to his agency and why
The above comments were made to him?
4. Can you please tell me why 2 of these operatives are complaining about your
Acting up Chargehands?
5. Could you please tell me why the last 2 operatives on the above list are both
nowin serious trouble and all they did was speak to the GMB?
6. Can you please tell me why all victims are polish?
You have now sent Marien Lukasik back to the agency and have asked for a new
HGV driver to replace him, I would like to point out that Arek has his HGV license,
And Marien was put out to work on the Monday morning by recycling who remember
Him as a good worker.
YOURS TRULY
DEREK DISLEY
GMB SHOPSTEWARD
HEALTH &SAFETY REP
C.C.
Gary DoolanGMB Branch Secretary
Geoff Verrall Head Steward
Bill Sinfield Operations Manager
Geoff Dunne General Manager
Arek NowaczykAgency Operative
Marian Lukasik Agency Operative
Lan Team Support
- GMB TRADE UNION WORKING TOGETHER
LONDON REGION
Email from Kevin O’Neill Night Manager to Max Devizio Team Support
From Kevin O’Neill
Sent Fri 30 May 2008 20:07
To Max Devizo
Subject Marian Lukish
Hi lan,
The chargehands have been telling Marian to use the correct brooms to sweep the beats for a few weeks now. He’s. been given a practical demonstration, l also talked to him in tne office. On Wed night I gave him
One last chance not to litter pick the beat and last night both chargehands saw him
picking instead of sweeping.
I no longer require Marian for night's, can you please replace him for me.
Regards,
Kevin
Notice of Appeal from Decision of Employment Tribunal from 14.12.2010
EAT Form 1 continued
7. The grounds upon which this appeal is brought are that the employment tribunal erred in law in
that (here set out in paragraphs the various grounds of appeal).
1. The ground of this appeal is based on the finding of fact which is not supported by the evidence
relied upon by the Tribunal as In par 39. of the Reasons Judge Bedeau finds as follows:
"As regards the victimisation claim the protected act was going to the trade union to complain
about the treatment of Polish nationals. The detriment being that the claimant was, allegedly,
removed from the night shift. We have found that the decision to remove him from the night shift
occurred prior to the meeting with Mr Disley. There was, therefore, no causal connection between
the meeting with Mr Disley and his removal from the night shift. We have already found that the
decision to move him from the night shift was based on his refusal to comply with the correct
sweeping instructions given to him principally by Mr Findley. Accordingly, this
victimisation claim is not well founded and is dismissed.
2. The chronology of evidence presented at trial does not support this finding. And the evidence is
that:
2.1 30th May 2008 - 12:07 - an email from Kevin ONeill To: Max Dcvizio
" The chargehands have been telling Marian to use the correct brooms to sweep the beats for
a few weeks now. He's been given a practical demonstration, I've also talked to him in the
office. On Wed night I gave him one last chance not to litter pick the beat and last night both
charge hands saw him litter picking instead of sweeping I no longer require Marian for night's,
can you please replace him for me."
2.2 1st June 2008 - A letter from GMB Unions by Derek Disley to Kevin O'Neill
"Last Tuesday. 27th May 2008 this Trade Union was approached by a member of your agency
staff to complain about how your Acting up Charge-Hands were treating them throughout
their working shifts.
3. It, therefore appears clearly that the chronology of material events is as follows:
3.1 27th May 2008 – Claimant contacted the GMB Trade Unions to complain
3.2 30th May 2008 – Claimant was removed from the night shift and demoted to a position
of lower pay
3.3 2nd June 2008 – GMB Trade Unions filed an inquiry with the Respondents
Dismissal in connection with disciplinary or grievance hearings
You have the right to be accompanied by a trade union representative or
colleague to a disciplinary or grievance meeting. You can also reasonably
postpone the hearing if your companion cannot make it. If you are dismissed
for trying to exercise these rights, or for accompanying a colleague, then it is automatically unfair.
This applies to both employees and to other workers
(eg agency workers). NO COMMENTS BRITISH JUSTICE
Access to justice must be available for all
By Linda Lee, Law Society President-NO COMMENTS
My question is what is about English Justice. I would like have answer for
this question.
This is normal for British Court they not give explain paragraphs and which next Court I can claim-this mean permission for broken law Employment Tribunal and Appeal Employment Tribunal
I have right claim to Strasburg where High Court write about this
Sentence from Judgment from 11 May 2011
“Note: Your application for permission to appeal to this Court has been refused .no appeal may be made against this decision to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom: see section 54(4) of the Access to the Justice Act 1999”
Judgment
Case No:A2/2010/3041 Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWCA Civ 596
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL[/ size]Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: Wednesday, 11th May 2011
Before:
LORD JUSTICE ELIAS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LUKASIK
Appellant
- and -
TEAM SUPPORT SERVICES
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Appellant appeared in person.
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
(As Approved)
Crown Copyright©
Lord Justice Elias:
1. This is an oral renewal of an application for permission to appeal against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, where HHJ McMullen QC was presiding, in which he dismissed an appeal directed against a decision of the Registrar. The Registrar of the Employment Appeal Tribunal had concluded that the applicant had lodged his claim appealing against the decision of the Employment Tribunal out of time, and the EAT held that there were no special circumstances sufficient to warrant interfering with that decision by the Registrar.
2. The first point to make is that the jurisprudence with respect to time limits when appealing from the Employment Tribunal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal is extremely rigorous; some will say it is too harsh. The view has been taken in this court on a number of occasions in decisions which were referred to by the Registrar that because the time limit is 42 days, which is reasonably lengthy and certainly longer than most time limits that one has for appeal, that is taken extremely strictly and all proper documents have to be presented within that time. That did not occur on this occasion and the Registrar considered that there were no special circumstances to extend time, and that was the decision which was under consideration by the EAT.
3. There have been observations in this court to the effect that this can work harshly, and particularly so on litigants-in-person, and I accept that it can do so in particular cases and this may be one of them. There is also the additional problem here that the appeal against the Registrar’s decision, which has to be made extremely quickly, within five days, was also out of time.
4. I cannot say that the judge was wrong to say in the circumstances that the Registrar applied the law correctly. It is not for this court to substitute its own view for that of the Employment Appeal Tribunal; it is to ask whether the judge in the Employment Appeal Tribunal has made an error of law, and I do not think there is any realistic prospect of saying that he has. In addition he was entitled to find that there was no satisfactory reason for the delay in appealing the decision of the Registrar to the EAT.
5. I can only add that if this case had to go to a full hearing, then if the case were to be lost the costs of the other side would be borne by the appellant. This is something that many employees fail to appreciate. In cases in the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal, costs are not awarded in that way but that is the position in this court in the normal run of cases. And so it can be a cruel decision to let a bad case go ahead only for the employee, when he or she loses, to realise that it is subject to enormous costs.
6. I appreciate that Mr Lukasik feels desperately that he has been unfairly treated by the legal process. Plainly where a case is excluded simply on the basis that they are out of time then of course there is always the concern that the merits of the case have not been fully and adequately analysed. There was in this case a lengthy tribunal hearing. It seems to have gone on for some four or five days hearing evidence, and the Employment Tribunal found against the applicant on the basis on which the case was advanced at the hearing, namely a case of race-related discrimination.
7. I have to say that I would agree with HHJ McMullen QC, looking at the Employment Tribunal decision, that an additional problem here is that I do not think it would have been possible successfully to challenge that conclusion. I emphasise, for the benefit of Mr Lukasik, that the Employment Appeal Tribunal and this court cannot reconsider the questions of fact found by the Employment Tribunal. In some cases that it is bound to be the position that the tribunal makes wrong findings of fact and to that extent there may be an injustice in the decision. But unless the Appeal Court were to reopen all the findings of fact, one has to accept those findings and that is the price one has to pay for finality in the system. Otherwise all the witnesses would come back at the appeal and all appeals would have to be exhausted before there were a satisfactory resolution of the case. So the principle works on the basis that findings of fact are for the tribunal, inferences of fact are largely for the tribunal and findings of law are for this court, but of course the Employment Appeal Tribunal at the first stage must make sure that the tribunal applied the law properly. I see no complaint about the way they applied the law in this case and so the real challenge is then to the facts. But that has no prospect of success.
8. I was told this morning, however, that a particular concern which Mr Lukasik has is that he wished to advance a case for unfair dismissal. His belief is that he was dismissed because he contacted his trade union, so he says it should have been an automatically unfair dismissal. He would have relied on the fact that the dismissal took place very shortly after the approach to the union, which would give rise to at least a question as to whether that might have been the reason. The difficulty with this aspect, I am afraid, is that at the hearing Mr Lukasik was represented by an employment consultant, a person who was acting on his behalf, and he specifically withdrew that claim from the tribunal. If somebody acting on the claimant’s behalf in the legal process makes certain concessions or withdraws certain claims, that is binding on the applicant. And that has to be so otherwise the applicant will agree with a lawyer that they should take certain steps, and then when it went wrong they would say, “Well, it was not our decision”. So I am afraid the law takes a view that you are bound by the actions of your representative.
9. In an appropriate case - and I am not seeking to encourage this in your case - but in an appropriate case if the representative acts carelessly or negligently or unfairly or does not properly consult, that might give rise to a separate legal claim against the representative, but it does not entitle another bite at the cherry before the tribunal. The opportunity is there, the decision is taken by the person who is representing the applicant not to pursue a particular course, the tribunal accepts that and I am afraid that is the end of it as far as the claim is concerned. So I am sorry if that aspect of the case was not pursued, if that is what Mr Lukasik wanted. I do recognise that he has not been well and that he has problems speaking English. It may be that these factors increase the difficulties he had with his own representative as to what was agreed between them, and I do genuinely recognise that that is a matter of distress to him that that aspect of the case was not pursued.
10. But the Rules are there for a purpose, and it is not for me sitting in this court to come to a conclusion as to what might be a nice outcome for this particular applicant. The question is whether I can identify an error of law which has a seriously arguable case. I cannot, and I think it would be a cruel deception to let this go through only for Mr Lukasik, I think inevitably on this time point which is the only issue now before this court, to fail and to end up paying many thousands of pounds in costs without ever still having the merits of his unfair dismissal case considered.
11. In these circumstances this application is refused.
Order: Application refused.
Last letter from Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
27 September 2011 Our ref: A2/2010/3041
Your ref:
Dear Mr Lukasik,
Re: Lukasik v Team Support Services Ltd & Anr
I acknowledge receipt of your letter, which this office received on 21st September 2011.
Your letter was referred to the Deputy Master of Civil Appeals who has asked me to inform you of the following:
“I have seen Mr Lukasik’s letter of 21st September seeking to reopen his case in this Court. Lord Justice Elias refused permission to appeal following an oral hearing on 11th May. That decision is final and there is no further right of appeal. If Mr Lukasik considers that his former legal representative before the Employment Tribunal acted negligently in withdrawing his unfair dismissal claim, the appropriate course would be a possible action against his former representative.
Mr Lukasik did raise the issue of the withdrawal of his unfair dismissal claim before Lord Justice Elias. The following is an extract from Elias LJ’s judgment:
“If somebody acting on the claimant’s behalf in the legal process makes certain concessions or withdraws certain claims, that is binding on the applicant … the law takes the view that you are bound by the actions of your representative.
In an appropriate case – and I am not seeking to encourage this in your case – but in an appropriate case if the representative acts carelessly or negligently or unfairly does not properly consult, that might give rise to a separate legal claim against the representative, but it does not entitle another bite at the cherry before the tribunal. The opportunity is there, the decision is taken by the person who is representing the applicant not to pursue a particular course, the tribunal accepts that and I am afraid that is the end of it as far as the claim is concerned.”
This matter is now at an end in this Court. If Mr Lukasik has new evidence regarding the alleged negligence of his former representative, he would be advised to take legal advice about whether he has any claim against the representative.”
Yours Sincerely
Ms Amy Welch
Staff Manager
Registry Office
Regards
Marian Lukasik
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: lurum3 lurum3 <lurum3@yahoo.com>
To: Kenny Paul (WI) <Paul.Kenny-wim@gmb.org.uk>
Sent: Thursday, 27 October 2011, 22:36
Subject: Re: Dear Paul Kenny General Secretary GMB,I am afraid we cannot do any work for you, without being paid private fees
Dear Paul Kenny General Secretary GMB,
Please give me (GMB Solicitor) answer how possible fast trough email from which date I have 6 months claim to Tribunal to Strasbourg
Transcription-Judgment from 11 May 2011
or from 27.09.2011 Letter from RCJ
I'm still member of GMB.Bank HSBC don't forgotten about direct debit.
What good made for me GMB?
What wrong I know exacly i lost 3 years my life only that I went to GMB for help.
Regards
Marian Lukasik
NB
When 11 May 2011 I imust send apllication to Strasbourg on Tusdday next week.
Dear Marian Lukasik,
Thank you for your email.
I am afraid we cannot do any work for you, without being paid private fees, as we do not carry out any legal aid work.
If you are able to pay for our services, please advise and we will read through the information you have sent to us and assist you accordingly.
Kind regards,
Anna Goodwin
From: lurum3 lurum3 [mailto:lurum3@yahoo.com]
Sent: 19 October 2011 20:43
To: Anna Goodwin
Subject: 19.10.2011 20.37 Dear Anna Goodwin from International Law Centre
Dear Anna Goodwin,
I would like asked you about answer-what date is when I wanted claim to European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
11 May 201 Judgment from Court of Appeal
or last letter from 27 September 2011
Address to the International Law Center I got from the Polish Embassy in London.Ms. Urszula Wisniewska had to help me for free, unfortunately She works no longer in your office.Unfortunately I can not pay for the service.
I am not even able to pay off an overdraft and credit card from HSBC Bank only because I went with help ex-colleague to assistance to Trade Unions GMB.
I lost money and health.
Now I have pay about £180 weekly and I must pay monthly to Banks about £250.
I’m very pride to be Trade Union
2 Attached files| 5.1MB
27.09.2011 0.49 atached to Deputy Master Meacher.pdf
27.09.2011 Letter from RCJ[1].doc
Download All
This message has been truncated.
Show Full Message
Hide Details
FROM:
lurum3 lurum3
TO:
Kenny Paul (WI)
Message flagged
Sunday, 30 October 2011, 1:12
Marian Lukasik
Email:technik888@gazeta.pl
Mobile: 0044(0)7985284791
Dear General Secretary GMB Paul Kenny,
I needn’t to answer to the last e-mail Polish embassy declared let me answer to the questions. Dear General Secretary, for you important is big politic and you haven’t time for normal members.
You must be very pleased that my case to Strasbourg because GMB Trade Union not help my in my case I asked many time for solicitor from GMB without result.
From Letter from General Secretary GMB to member wrote:
“Lawyers all expensive, so it is good to know that your membership covers the full cost of any legal action resulting from your employment." ?
But this words have nothing with reality
-I forgotten,-for GMB is important only that we member pay every month direct debit and big politic Normal member are not important-Paul Hayes from GMB wrote that they can’t help me because I haven’t 60% for win but when I went to GMB I believed that help us in our problem and I lost job because I went to Trade Union GMB .When I wasn’t GMB member I still working because I don’t went to GMB
GMB help me that I lost job, health and money because don’t wanted gave solicitor and I must took man who call yourself “adwokat“ this mean in English solicitor.Hhe was cheap but was addicted to amphetamines and this lawyer representatives of the ICSL Enterprise and Team Support persuaded to withdrew unfair dismissal .Only this point which could prove on the basis of documents. Why only this point was withdrew why not another point.
In what way a man can convince drug addict man who still lacks the money- the answer is silence.
I asked the workers of the Agency for Enterprise ICSL to defend their interests.
WHERE IS GMB?-For GMB important are
1)Good pay job.
2)Big POLITIC
3)GMB forgotten about normal member-important that pay membership
Agency who work for ICSL Enterprise wants free up workers before Christmas and take same people again to avoid wage increases for them
How it is possible that agency workers are working for 4,5 years for the agency and are not admitted to the company. They are good as agency workers , but as employees are bad because ICSL Enterprise must pay more
it is a violation of Article HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998
Article 14: Discrimination
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as seksik, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status”.
Agency workers are treated much worse than the company's employees but that is normal in ICSL Enterprise Islington
Workers who worked more than one year should get compensation- unrealistic dream- lawyers have knowledge of in the Employment Tribunal.
Trade Union GMB takes membership every months nothing doing and just as damaging as in my case
From letter from GMB” Arek has been working for ICSL via the Agency for 4 years”-
How is possible for Agency for 4 years -where was Trade Union GMB because with British Law after 1 Year work in agency must go directly to Company-but ICSL has good solicitor and friends in Employment Tribunal and ICSL and Agency can broken British Law. According to the law until 01 Oktober 2011 should go to the Company after one year work -but when Company ICSL has business people still working for Agency. I can give example.. Company must pay compensation that Agency Worker before Team Support now Agency from ICSL stay so long time in Agency
Sorry this is joke in UK this is not possible-Agency and ICSL have too good solicitor Where is Trade Union GMB?-I forgotten,-for GMB is important only that we member pay every month direct debit and big politic . Normal member are not important-Paul Hayes from GMB wrote that they can’t help me because I haven’t 60% for win but when I went to GMB I believed that help us in our problem and I lost job because I went to Trade Union GMB .When I wasn’t GMB member I still working because I don’t went to GMB
Attachments to my case :MARIAN LUKASIK
Signature,
Employment Tribunal
Number: 3302202/2008- Judge S.Bedeau- Case in Watford
03.09.2009-10.09.2009
Employment Appeal Tribunal-EAT
Appeal No. UKEATPA/ 1644/ 09 LA –Judge - HIS HONOUR JUDGE McMULLEN QC
IN CHAMBERS D A T E D the 9th day of December 2010
In Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Case: A2/2010/3041
BETWEEN
MARIAN LUKASIK Appellant
v
TEAM SUPPORT SERVICES LIMITED 1st Respondent
ICSL ENTERPRISE ACCORD LIMITED 2nd Respondent
Description my case
1. I have worked for Enterprise Plc through a Team Support Agency.
2. Throughout my entire time at Enterprise Plc, I have been subjected to discriminative actions from my supervisor, Chargehand Noel Findley from Enterprise PLC.
3. Beside the fact that I have been treated with no respect (I have heard many invectives directed at me), and I have been provoked to fight, I still wanted to work on the night shift, which enabled me to have time during the day to take care of other things, for example, learning English or finishing other courses.
4. Although I was a member of a trade union, I have never asked them to defend me, because I was worried that I would be removed from the night shift by Chargehand Noel Findley (many people have been either moved from the night shift to the day shift, or have been dismissed), who had declared that he is the person that will decide about everything. He also added that we shouldn’t even think about joining a trade union, because, even there, he has arrangements, as well as with the Manager of the Night Shift, Kevin O’Neill.
5. I believe that the above points are substantial, because despite my numerous complaints to the Night Shift Manager, Kevin O’Neill, about discrimination, provocative, offensive and degrading actions of Chargehand Noel Findley towards me, he has not treated these complaints seriously and, with laughter, said that the above is impossible and untrue. He has not taken any action towards Noel Findley, and the next day after my complaints, the offensive behaviour of Noel Findley has worsened.
6. In addition, it was Chargehand Noel Findley, and not the Manager of the Night Shift, Kevin O’Neill, that decided about everything that took place in the night shifts.
7. The working environment in the night shift is indescribable – shouting, abusing, browbeating are very common, however, there is no one we can speak to, due to the fact that the Night Shift Manager Kevin O’Neill protects his employee, Chargehand Noel Findley.
8. Chargehand Noel Findley has numerously repeated that I only work for an Agency and therefore I could easily be dismissed, and that I do not have any rights. He said that the only ones that have rights are the employees working directly for Enterprise Plc.
9. In the second half of May, Noel’s attacks have become notorious. Every night, when driving past me in his car, he would stop and criticise all of my actions, swear at me, and provoke me to fight. Each one of his appearances would cause me great stress. Each one of my attempts to defend myself verbally would end in Noel’s even greater anger.
10. I have reported these problems to Team Support Agency, where I have spoken to Ian Ennis. However, the only I received was that the Agency could not influence Chargehand’s actions in any way, however, they knew about his behaviour and the way he treats people.
11. The amount of stress I have been subjected to every night has caused insomnia and a state of obsessive depression. During sleep, many times I would wake up scared that Noel would shout, swear and humiliate me. As a consequence, I had to start taking tablets to help me sleep, increasing the dose systematically because very quickly they stopped working. Every day, I would have a bigger headache and wake up even weaker.
12. An example proving that Chargehand had many privileges is the event that took place between him and Arkadiusz Nowaczyk (Arek), a driver from the night shift, whose relationship with Chargehand Noel was very unfriendly due to Noel’s constant offensive behaviour. Arek has been moved by Noel from the driver position to sweeping floors.
1 Arek Nowaczyk asked me if I would go to the Trade Union to confirm the complaints about Noel.
2 Firstly, I did not want to go, because I feared that when Chargehand finds out, he will remove me from the night shift.
3 However, his Arek’s arguments that taking this matter to the Trade Union will change Noel Findley’s behaviour. On 28 May 2008, we had a meeting with Derek Dysley, one of the representatives of the Trade Union, who wrote down all the acts of discrimination from Chargehand Noel Findley, and sent it to Kevin O’Neill, the Night Shift Manager.
4 I have not received any response to that letter from either Kevin O’Neill, nor from the Agency or the management of Enterprise Plc.
5 I believed that our problems with Noel will come to an end; however, something completely opposite happened.
On Monday, 9 June 2008, at 5 pm, a meeting between the representative of the Agency, Ian Ennis, Night Shift Manager, Kevin O’Neill, Enterprise Plc’s representative Bill Simfield and the Trade Union representative Derek Disley, took place. Arek Nowaczyk was also invited to that meeting. Later on, Chargehand Noel Findley also arrived at the meeting. I found out about this meeting earlier on, from Arek as well as the trade union representative. Although I expected to be invited to the above meeting, this did not take place, beside the fact that it also concerned my person.
The outcome of the meeting was a huge surprise, because Arek Nowaczyk was moved back to his driver position, but I was moved to the day shift. The representative of the trade union has told me that I should be happy with the outcome. Many times I asked the Agency representative Ian Ennis to receive a written cause from Kevin O’Neill for the change of shifts. However, the response I received was that Kevin O’Neill would write me a letter with a reason for the change, but that it would probably be something like: ‘inaccurate sweeping of the floor’.
This is what I cannot understand – I could not work at the night shift because I did not sweep well enough, but I could work during the day, because I ‘swept well’.
I was very embittered with the outcome – I have been abused by Noel Findley, and because I supported Arek Nowaczyk, I have been moved from the night shift to the day shift, regardless of the fact that it was obvious that working during the day would stop me from carrying on with my education. Arek has received his job back. Kevin O’Neill apologised to Arek, however, I heard no apology from anyone.
I have asked the Trade Union, as well as the Agency, for an intervention numerous times, because I wanted to stay on the night shift, however, there was no response, even though I had strong arguments with regards to my education. Although I was then working on the day shift, and had no direct contact with Noel Findley, whenever I would see him, he would always show his hostility towards me.
Through Chargehand’s actions, the working environment on the night shift was terrible. Shouting, browbeating, swearing and showing everyone who is in charge were observed every day. Despite the fact that I was a sweeper, with many years of experience, Noel always found a reason to criticise my actions. There was no one we could talk to about his behaviour. It seemed that Noel was protected by Kevin O’Neill.
Despite the fact that I was supposed to be working on the night shift until Sunday, I was forced to finish on Saturday, even though I have not done anything wrong, all I wanted was for Noel to stop harassing me, which is why I went with Arek to the Trade Union.
1 24 June was the last time I worked on the day shift.
2 On June 25, I went to work, but despite a 3 hour wait for work, I have not received any proposals from the Agency
3 On June 26, I went to work, and the Agency’s representative Ian Ennis has announced that there is no work for me at the moment (now is very quiet), and that I should register as an unemployed, which I have done.
Despite the amount of time that has passed since the matter occurred, it is hard to forget about it. My depression has deepened during the unemployment.
I have written a letter on 30 June to my Agency with copies directed to any interested companies; however, I have not received a reply.
The event that has occurred was a pure violation of my working rights and discrimination, and despite my many complaints and requests, no one has dealt with it. I believe that the reason for such discrimination and a violation of my rights was the fact that I am Polish, but also because I worked for an Agency. From the beginning, I did not react to the humiliation, violation of rights, and discrimination, because I wanted to work, especially on the night shift. I wanted to work for the company until my retirement, and I treat the decision for moving me from the night shift as a personal defeat. The fact that I have been treated like a bad employee was a great humiliation, because I believe that I carried out all of my duties scrupulously, I always came to work early, always happily stayed to work overtime, and I have never received a complaint.
Many times I tried to forget about what happened through reading books on positive thinking and how to get out of depression, however, I have not achieved this state as yet.
The whole matter has also caused a huge financial crisis, which I am still struggling to beat. I have two overdrawn accounts.
The matter has also influenced my relationships with my family and friends, because I keep thinking about it, it has become an obsession. Why have I been treated in such a way, and have not received a response explaining everything after the first request and complaint?
Now I know that it was my mistake, because I wanted to work no matter what, but what I should have done was react to any signs of discrimination straight away.
Worth mentioning is what I have heard recently.
About a month ago, Chargehand Noel has been dismissing from his position.
As a matter of fact it proves that he was not a person suitable for such a
responsible position were managing people at work is the main duty.
His behaviour and work ethics were not simply appropriate.
The very last important argument in my case is breach in my employment
length at night shift.
According to working time regulations, see attached, the maximum time
allowed for night work is 17 weeks were in my case it has been 14 months.
EXPLANATION
1) Dr J Krawczyk, person representing me at the Hearing taking place from 3th to 10th August 2009 did not tell me that he was willing to withdraw my claim about unfair dismissal. He actually did it without any authorisation from my side or my knowledge of it.”
In my opinion I’m not guilty and another victim dr Jack’s- guilty is system in UK. This person made so bad only that was not check HOW? is possible that person who was searching for polish police for long time, he has criminal record and he can working like Employment Tribunal Consultant and did so much bad for polish community,
HOW?is possible that he withdraw my claim, not attached documents ET3 and signature Judge S.Bedeau and not wrote for me cover letter -use many times my personal detail.s I’m sure 99,9% that he was this person. I have: call recording sms,email etc but police refuse my complain. So also I bring a claim against the police.FOR WHAT is Police?
Never ever support Polish College like Arkadiusz (Arek)Nowaczyk-who sold me (ICSL gave him always dustcart night job) NEVER GO TO GMB ,EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL no,no,100 no! thank you very much
How?is possible that dr Jacek Krawczyk made so much bad for many people and Court many years didn’t check his criminal record, if he has liability insurance, paid tax?
When paid liability insurance not problem I get money from insurance , many solicitor office refuse my ask about Civil Process again dr Jacek Krawczyk because he has nothing.
How is possible that workers Agency like from Agency Team Support and now another agency which working for ICSL Enterprise ,working 3,4,5 years like Agency staff-
are good like Agency worker ,but bad like employee
From letter from GMB” Arek has been working for ICSL via the Agency for 4 years”-
How is possible for Agency for 4 years -where was Trade Union GMB because with British Law after 1 Year work in agency must go directly to Company-but ICSL has good solicitor and friends in Employment Tribunal and ICSL and Agency can broken British Law. According to the law until 01Oktober 2011 should go to the Company after one year work -but when Company ICSL has business people still working for Agency.I can give example.. Company must pay compensation that Agency Worker before Team Support now Agency from ICSL stay so long time in Agency
.Sorry this is joke in UK this is not possible-Agency and ICSL have too good solicitor.Where is Trade Union GMB
HOW? is possible that Peninsula which represent Team Support gave all my personal details in Paginated Bundle and someone use this(I’m sure 99.9%), Peninsula and Employment Tribunal are over law only I’m guilty for all
why don’t made like in Case
“IN THE UNITED DISTRICT COURT FOR THE REASTERN DISTICT OF
VIRGINIA” but this is in US and Employment Tribunal from Watford is over law
How? is possible that my prosecutor Noel Findlay could be like witness in my case but he hadn’t right to residence and working in UK, after my case he was released. But why? not before Case. He hasn’t right to stay in UK and he was witness and I was guilty because Company and Agency called witnesses only god for agency and Company and always was happened was only revenge that I took Company and Agency to Court
How is possible that many employee from ICSL Enterprise were released after my Case because hadn’t right to stay and working in UK please check-why after not before my case
How?is possible that Law Society nothing doing in matter dr Jacek’s Krawczyk-I know one time he had control that use name solicitor but no result he can working and withdraw claims and Claimant is guilty
How is possible that I was 3 times in Police-1th December 2010 and 8th of July 2011 at 15.40(with person who speak good English) and Police don’t wanted help me today this mean 29 Oktober 2011 myself and I don’t wanted give details this person because when Employment Tribunal broke my personal details that all could be happen
My personal details were stolen and Police said this not Police matter.
Dr Jacek Krawczyk said that he made me finish in UK and made so bad for me.
This is sick person but WHERE? are Institutions who should check him.
In my opinion for all victims Jack’s Krawczyk must pay UK because didn’t fill their duties, whom he has deceived - single mothers on low incomes persons. When get he money than withdraw claim. It is not possible. Please check this person
For me is doesn’t matter I don’t want stay in UK where is so much injustice but I must pay back money back to HSBC bank which I took for this case
Now I work and have £4,7 after tax and I must pay to the bank about £ 250 monthly and after I haven’t nothing.
I’m very pride be member of Trade Union GMB!!!
TRANSCRIPTION Letter from GMB after the visit together with Arkadiusz(Arek) Nowaczyk on 28 May 2008 to GMB Steward Derek Dislay
PAGE1
GMB TRADE UNION
C/O ICSL Accord 1Cottage Road Islington London N7 8TU
Tel:020 7527 4741 Fax:
Health and Safety Hotline:
E-Mail: garydoolan@hotmail.com
2ndJune 2008
TO: Kevin O'Neill
Manager (Nights)
ICSL Enterprise PLC
RE: AGENCY STAFF NIGHTS
Dear Kevin,
Last Tuesday 27th May 2008 this Trade Union was approached by a member of your
agency staff to complain about how your Acting up Chargehands were treating them
through-out their working shifts.
With-in an hour of the complaint your Acting up chargehand was in the union offrce
complaining that I as a steward always take the agency workers side, to be honest I
always thought it was my yob to represent the workforce no matter if Agency or fulI
time.
Your agency staff are complaining that your Acting up chargehands, bully, shout and
victimise them on a regular basis, surely this cannot be a practise you as a manager
condone.
Over the last few weeks there have been 3 instances of concern to this trade union.
1. Said Hashi
This unfortunate Agency guy, who has worked for ICSL via the Agency for 2 years,
was attacked by a member of the public, after going to the hospital for treatment Mr.
Hashi_I was told to rest until he had recovered.
Mr. Hashi returned to work 2 weeks later to be told to return to his Agency, as his
services would no longer be required.
Custom and Practise for an incident of this nature is to pair the employee up with
someone else or put him with a crew until the situation had resolved itself, you
ignored custom and practise and refused to have the man anywhere near your shift,
Mr. Hashi did not return to work for ICSL, we can only assume his decision was
made due to his treatment by Night management, and when you consider he was
attacked whilst carrying out ICSL's duties, who can blame him
2. Arek Nowaczyk
Arek has been working for ICSL via the Agency for 4 years and in all those 4 Years
we have never seen this gentleman in the union office with complaints or trouble of
any kind, yet over this last 2 weeks the situation seems to have reversed.
GMB TRADE UNION WORKING TOGETHER
LONDON REGION
PAGE 2
Arek began here as a sweeper, but he has now got his HGV class 2 license and has
Been utilised for some considerable time now as a HGV driver, 7.5 ton driver and
occasionally help out as a sweeper.
Over the last 2 weeks an incident occurred were he had an argument with one of your
Acting Chargehands who had seen fit to shout at Arek.
If an operative has done wrong then surely it would be more advantageous to talk to
him or if necessary counsel him, I cannot find in the staff code were it says that
Acting up charge hands have the right to shout at the workforce no matter what the
problem is, if there is a problem surly the case should have been handed over to the
managil to deal with, in fact since the incident and since Arek approached the GMB,
Arek has been told that he was taken on as a sweeper and that is now his job.
As a result Arek has approached the trade union for advice on dealing with this
situation, we had intended to simply get all parties together and sort the problem out
but it would now seem that nights use a punishment regime on their workforce and
seem determined to drive him out.
3. Marian Lukasik
Marian is another guy who has worked here for 4 years but with a 9-month break,
Marian returned to his duties here 14 months ago and has remained here ever since.
Marian is1yet another member of the night workforce who has approached the trade
union because of Harassment and victimisation from your acting chargehands, Marian
is yet another night worker who is being shouted at on a regular basis.
The last incident concerning this operative happened a couple of weeks ago were he
had miss-understood an instruction and left some work down, the Acting chargehand
caught up with Marian in the Archway area where he was verbally abused, in fact
Marian told me that he was. so upset the incident came perilously close to causing an
accident with the vehicle.
Thursday Night, you sent an e-mail to the agency stating that Marien is continually
litter picking despite previous waring and that both Chargehands have witnessed him
lifter picking again and there fore you want him replaced.
You allowed Marien to come into work on Friday morning and then sent him home
stating that ' you can go to the union if you want but that will only make things worse,
and if you complain about Noel Findlay that will make things even worse still, Noel
will still have his chargehand job, you will have nothing'
These comments by you have now convinced this trade union that you have sacked
Marien because he spoke to the GMB and, are trying to drive Arek out for the same
reason, I am also very concerrned that the last 2 operatives are polish, and more
operatives who have declined to come forward for fear of losing their jobs are also
polish.
1. could you please tell me the reason said Hashi was sent back to the agency
despite our custom and practise solution?
2.could you please _tell me why Arek has been told he will sweep permanently
despite the fact you have had him driving as a HGV driver for months?
PAGE 3
GMB TRADE UNION
C/O ICSL Accord 1 Cottage Road Islington London N7 8TU
Tel: 020 7527 4741 Fax:
Health and Safety Hotline:
E-Mail :garydoolan@hotrmail.com
3. Could you please tell me why Marian was told to return to his agency and why
The above comments were made to him?
4. Can you please tell me why 2 of these operatives are complaining about your
Acting up Chargehands?
5. Could you please tell me why the last 2 operatives on the above list are both
nowin serious trouble and all they did was speak to the GMB?
6. Can you please tell me why all victims are polish?
You have now sent Marien Lukasik back to the agency and have asked for a new
HGV driver to replace him, I would like to point out that Arek has his HGV license,
And Marien was put out to work on the Monday morning by recycling who remember
Him as a good worker.
YOURS TRULY
DEREK DISLEY
GMB SHOPSTEWARD
HEALTH &SAFETY REP
C.C.
Gary DoolanGMB Branch Secretary
Geoff Verrall Head Steward
Bill Sinfield Operations Manager
Geoff Dunne General Manager
Arek NowaczykAgency Operative
Marian Lukasik Agency Operative
Lan Team Support
- GMB TRADE UNION WORKING TOGETHER
LONDON REGION
Email from Kevin O’Neill Night Manager to Max Devizio Team Support
From Kevin O’Neill
Sent Fri 30 May 2008 20:07
To Max Devizo
Subject Marian Lukish
Hi lan,
The chargehands have been telling Marian to use the correct brooms to sweep the beats for a few weeks now. He’s. been given a practical demonstration, l also talked to him in tne office. On Wed night I gave him
One last chance not to litter pick the beat and last night both chargehands saw him
picking instead of sweeping.
I no longer require Marian for night's, can you please replace him for me.
Regards,
Kevin
Notice of Appeal from Decision of Employment Tribunal from 14.12.2010
EAT Form 1 continued
7. The grounds upon which this appeal is brought are that the employment tribunal erred in law in
that (here set out in paragraphs the various grounds of appeal).
1. The ground of this appeal is based on the finding of fact which is not supported by the evidence
relied upon by the Tribunal as In par 39. of the Reasons Judge Bedeau finds as follows:
"As regards the victimisation claim the protected act was going to the trade union to complain
about the treatment of Polish nationals. The detriment being that the claimant was, allegedly,
removed from the night shift. We have found that the decision to remove him from the night shift
occurred prior to the meeting with Mr Disley. There was, therefore, no causal connection between
the meeting with Mr Disley and his removal from the night shift. We have already found that the
decision to move him from the night shift was based on his refusal to comply with the correct
sweeping instructions given to him principally by Mr Findley. Accordingly, this
victimisation claim is not well founded and is dismissed.
2. The chronology of evidence presented at trial does not support this finding. And the evidence is
that:
2.1 30th May 2008 - 12:07 - an email from Kevin ONeill To: Max Dcvizio
" The chargehands have been telling Marian to use the correct brooms to sweep the beats for
a few weeks now. He's been given a practical demonstration, I've also talked to him in the
office. On Wed night I gave him one last chance not to litter pick the beat and last night both
charge hands saw him litter picking instead of sweeping I no longer require Marian for night's,
can you please replace him for me."
2.2 1st June 2008 - A letter from GMB Unions by Derek Disley to Kevin O'Neill
"Last Tuesday. 27th May 2008 this Trade Union was approached by a member of your agency
staff to complain about how your Acting up Charge-Hands were treating them throughout
their working shifts.
3. It, therefore appears clearly that the chronology of material events is as follows:
3.1 27th May 2008 – Claimant contacted the GMB Trade Unions to complain
3.2 30th May 2008 – Claimant was removed from the night shift and demoted to a position
of lower pay
3.3 2nd June 2008 – GMB Trade Unions filed an inquiry with the Respondents
Dismissal in connection with disciplinary or grievance hearings
You have the right to be accompanied by a trade union representative or
colleague to a disciplinary or grievance meeting. You can also reasonably
postpone the hearing if your companion cannot make it. If you are dismissed
for trying to exercise these rights, or for accompanying a colleague, then it is automatically unfair.
This applies to both employees and to other workers
(eg agency workers). NO COMMENTS BRITISH JUSTICE
Access to justice must be available for all
By Linda Lee, Law Society President-NO COMMENTS
My question is what is about English Justice. I would like have answer for
this question.
This is normal for British Court they not give explain paragraphs and which next Court I can claim-this mean permission for broken law Employment Tribunal and Appeal Employment Tribunal
I have right claim to Strasburg where High Court write about this
Sentence from Judgment from 11 May 2011
“Note: Your application for permission to appeal to this Court has been refused .no appeal may be made against this decision to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom: see section 54(4) of the Access to the Justice Act 1999”
Judgment
Case No:A2/2010/3041 Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWCA Civ 596
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL[/ size]Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: Wednesday, 11th May 2011
Before:
LORD JUSTICE ELIAS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LUKASIK
Appellant
- and -
TEAM SUPPORT SERVICES
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Appellant appeared in person.
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
(As Approved)
Crown Copyright©
Lord Justice Elias:
1. This is an oral renewal of an application for permission to appeal against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, where HHJ McMullen QC was presiding, in which he dismissed an appeal directed against a decision of the Registrar. The Registrar of the Employment Appeal Tribunal had concluded that the applicant had lodged his claim appealing against the decision of the Employment Tribunal out of time, and the EAT held that there were no special circumstances sufficient to warrant interfering with that decision by the Registrar.
2. The first point to make is that the jurisprudence with respect to time limits when appealing from the Employment Tribunal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal is extremely rigorous; some will say it is too harsh. The view has been taken in this court on a number of occasions in decisions which were referred to by the Registrar that because the time limit is 42 days, which is reasonably lengthy and certainly longer than most time limits that one has for appeal, that is taken extremely strictly and all proper documents have to be presented within that time. That did not occur on this occasion and the Registrar considered that there were no special circumstances to extend time, and that was the decision which was under consideration by the EAT.
3. There have been observations in this court to the effect that this can work harshly, and particularly so on litigants-in-person, and I accept that it can do so in particular cases and this may be one of them. There is also the additional problem here that the appeal against the Registrar’s decision, which has to be made extremely quickly, within five days, was also out of time.
4. I cannot say that the judge was wrong to say in the circumstances that the Registrar applied the law correctly. It is not for this court to substitute its own view for that of the Employment Appeal Tribunal; it is to ask whether the judge in the Employment Appeal Tribunal has made an error of law, and I do not think there is any realistic prospect of saying that he has. In addition he was entitled to find that there was no satisfactory reason for the delay in appealing the decision of the Registrar to the EAT.
5. I can only add that if this case had to go to a full hearing, then if the case were to be lost the costs of the other side would be borne by the appellant. This is something that many employees fail to appreciate. In cases in the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal, costs are not awarded in that way but that is the position in this court in the normal run of cases. And so it can be a cruel decision to let a bad case go ahead only for the employee, when he or she loses, to realise that it is subject to enormous costs.
6. I appreciate that Mr Lukasik feels desperately that he has been unfairly treated by the legal process. Plainly where a case is excluded simply on the basis that they are out of time then of course there is always the concern that the merits of the case have not been fully and adequately analysed. There was in this case a lengthy tribunal hearing. It seems to have gone on for some four or five days hearing evidence, and the Employment Tribunal found against the applicant on the basis on which the case was advanced at the hearing, namely a case of race-related discrimination.
7. I have to say that I would agree with HHJ McMullen QC, looking at the Employment Tribunal decision, that an additional problem here is that I do not think it would have been possible successfully to challenge that conclusion. I emphasise, for the benefit of Mr Lukasik, that the Employment Appeal Tribunal and this court cannot reconsider the questions of fact found by the Employment Tribunal. In some cases that it is bound to be the position that the tribunal makes wrong findings of fact and to that extent there may be an injustice in the decision. But unless the Appeal Court were to reopen all the findings of fact, one has to accept those findings and that is the price one has to pay for finality in the system. Otherwise all the witnesses would come back at the appeal and all appeals would have to be exhausted before there were a satisfactory resolution of the case. So the principle works on the basis that findings of fact are for the tribunal, inferences of fact are largely for the tribunal and findings of law are for this court, but of course the Employment Appeal Tribunal at the first stage must make sure that the tribunal applied the law properly. I see no complaint about the way they applied the law in this case and so the real challenge is then to the facts. But that has no prospect of success.
8. I was told this morning, however, that a particular concern which Mr Lukasik has is that he wished to advance a case for unfair dismissal. His belief is that he was dismissed because he contacted his trade union, so he says it should have been an automatically unfair dismissal. He would have relied on the fact that the dismissal took place very shortly after the approach to the union, which would give rise to at least a question as to whether that might have been the reason. The difficulty with this aspect, I am afraid, is that at the hearing Mr Lukasik was represented by an employment consultant, a person who was acting on his behalf, and he specifically withdrew that claim from the tribunal. If somebody acting on the claimant’s behalf in the legal process makes certain concessions or withdraws certain claims, that is binding on the applicant. And that has to be so otherwise the applicant will agree with a lawyer that they should take certain steps, and then when it went wrong they would say, “Well, it was not our decision”. So I am afraid the law takes a view that you are bound by the actions of your representative.
9. In an appropriate case - and I am not seeking to encourage this in your case - but in an appropriate case if the representative acts carelessly or negligently or unfairly or does not properly consult, that might give rise to a separate legal claim against the representative, but it does not entitle another bite at the cherry before the tribunal. The opportunity is there, the decision is taken by the person who is representing the applicant not to pursue a particular course, the tribunal accepts that and I am afraid that is the end of it as far as the claim is concerned. So I am sorry if that aspect of the case was not pursued, if that is what Mr Lukasik wanted. I do recognise that he has not been well and that he has problems speaking English. It may be that these factors increase the difficulties he had with his own representative as to what was agreed between them, and I do genuinely recognise that that is a matter of distress to him that that aspect of the case was not pursued.
10. But the Rules are there for a purpose, and it is not for me sitting in this court to come to a conclusion as to what might be a nice outcome for this particular applicant. The question is whether I can identify an error of law which has a seriously arguable case. I cannot, and I think it would be a cruel deception to let this go through only for Mr Lukasik, I think inevitably on this time point which is the only issue now before this court, to fail and to end up paying many thousands of pounds in costs without ever still having the merits of his unfair dismissal case considered.
11. In these circumstances this application is refused.
Order: Application refused.
Last letter from Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
27 September 2011 Our ref: A2/2010/3041
Your ref:
Dear Mr Lukasik,
Re: Lukasik v Team Support Services Ltd & Anr
I acknowledge receipt of your letter, which this office received on 21st September 2011.
Your letter was referred to the Deputy Master of Civil Appeals who has asked me to inform you of the following:
“I have seen Mr Lukasik’s letter of 21st September seeking to reopen his case in this Court. Lord Justice Elias refused permission to appeal following an oral hearing on 11th May. That decision is final and there is no further right of appeal. If Mr Lukasik considers that his former legal representative before the Employment Tribunal acted negligently in withdrawing his unfair dismissal claim, the appropriate course would be a possible action against his former representative.
Mr Lukasik did raise the issue of the withdrawal of his unfair dismissal claim before Lord Justice Elias. The following is an extract from Elias LJ’s judgment:
“If somebody acting on the claimant’s behalf in the legal process makes certain concessions or withdraws certain claims, that is binding on the applicant … the law takes the view that you are bound by the actions of your representative.
In an appropriate case – and I am not seeking to encourage this in your case – but in an appropriate case if the representative acts carelessly or negligently or unfairly does not properly consult, that might give rise to a separate legal claim against the representative, but it does not entitle another bite at the cherry before the tribunal. The opportunity is there, the decision is taken by the person who is representing the applicant not to pursue a particular course, the tribunal accepts that and I am afraid that is the end of it as far as the claim is concerned.”
This matter is now at an end in this Court. If Mr Lukasik has new evidence regarding the alleged negligence of his former representative, he would be advised to take legal advice about whether he has any claim against the representative.”
Yours Sincerely
Ms Amy Welch
Staff Manager
Registry Office
Regards
Marian Lukasik
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: lurum3 lurum3 <lurum3@yahoo.com>
To: Kenny Paul (WI) <Paul.Kenny-wim@gmb.org.uk>
Sent: Thursday, 27 October 2011, 22:36
Subject: Re: Dear Paul Kenny General Secretary GMB,I am afraid we cannot do any work for you, without being paid private fees
Dear Paul Kenny General Secretary GMB,
Please give me (GMB Solicitor) answer how possible fast trough email from which date I have 6 months claim to Tribunal to Strasbourg
Transcription-Judgment from 11 May 2011
or from 27.09.2011 Letter from RCJ
I'm still member of GMB.Bank HSBC don't forgotten about direct debit.
What good made for me GMB?
What wrong I know exacly i lost 3 years my life only that I went to GMB for help.
Regards
Marian Lukasik
NB
When 11 May 2011 I imust send apllication to Strasbourg on Tusdday next week.
Dear Marian Lukasik,
Thank you for your email.
I am afraid we cannot do any work for you, without being paid private fees, as we do not carry out any legal aid work.
If you are able to pay for our services, please advise and we will read through the information you have sent to us and assist you accordingly.
Kind regards,
Anna Goodwin
From: lurum3 lurum3 [mailto:lurum3@yahoo.com]
Sent: 19 October 2011 20:43
To: Anna Goodwin
Subject: 19.10.2011 20.37 Dear Anna Goodwin from International Law Centre
Dear Anna Goodwin,
I would like asked you about answer-what date is when I wanted claim to European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
11 May 201 Judgment from Court of Appeal
or last letter from 27 September 2011
Address to the International Law Center I got from the Polish Embassy in London.Ms. Urszula Wisniewska had to help me for free, unfortunately She works no longer in your office.Unfortunately I can not pay for the service.
I am not even able to pay off an overdraft and credit card from HSBC Bank only because I went with help ex-colleague to assistance to Trade Unions GMB.
I lost money and health.
Now I have pay about £180 weekly and I must pay monthly to Banks about £250.
I’m very pride to be Trade Union
2 Attached files| 5.1MB
27.09.2011 0.49 atached to Deputy Master Meacher.pdf
27.09.2011 Letter from RCJ[1].doc
Download All
This message has been truncated.
Show Full Message
-
technik888
- Gastarbeiter
- Posty: 32
- Rejestracja: 24 sie 2011 20:48
czy wiesz co oznacza 'data protection' w firmach?
czy wiesz co oznacza 'data protection' w firmach?]
Oczywiscie wiem co to oznacza "data protection" w firmach.
1)Employment Tribunal w Watford publikuje moje wszystkie dane osobowe tzn. adres,NIN,numer prawa jazdy oraz przez kogo wydane,date i miejsce urodzenia bank sort code,numer konta i dal te informacje dzwudziestu kilku swiadkow i memu wspanialemu reprezentantowi dr Jackowi Krawczykowi ktore potem mni zapowiedzial,ze mnie wykonczy w UK i posluzyl sie tymi danymi.
2)Dane te posluzyly mu aby zalozyc mi TV Licence,Internet dawanie ogloszen na portalach internetowych,ze sprzedaje mieszkanie,szukam niani do dzieci,kierowcow i place 800 funtow na tydzien,prostytutka itd....
3)Zalewanie mnie spamem emailowym i na komorke-kilkuset emaili i sms-ow - nie bede podal emaili z jakich zalewal mnie spamem aby nie narazic sie na forum,ze ujawniam jego dane osobowe.
4)Policja nie reaguje-to ich nie obchodzi ze zostaly wykradzione moje dane osobowe.Zwiazki Zawodowe GMB nie pomagaja chociaz jestem ich czlonkiem i place im haracz co miesiac a Sekretarz Generalny GMB Paul Kenny w liscie do swoich czlonkow powiedzial"Adwokaci sa drodzy wiec dobrze wiedziec ze Zwiazek Zawodowy GMB zapewnia pelna ochrone prawna wynikajaca z zatrudnienia"GMB pomogl mi wpasc w dlugi i utracic zdrowie.
5)A moze tak zrobic mi proces karny-prawo brytyjskie potrafi przeciez karac niewinnych ludzi.Jezeli to wolno instytucjom ujawniac moje dane osobowe dlaczego nie wolno mi-zasada rownosci wobec prawa
6)Employment Appeal Tribunal i Court of Appeal nie reaguja,ze w Employment Tribunal opublikowane zostaly moje dane osobowe zbywaja ten fakt milczeniem
7)Gdzie sa obroncy Waszego wspanialego dr Jacka Krawczyka-gdzie jest on sam, zalil sie,ze go atakuje na forach-niech odpowie, niech sie podpisze imieniem i nazwiskiem-ja sie podpisuje imieniem i nazwiskiem wiec nie problem pociagnac mnie do odpowiedzialnosci.Moze te kilkanascie oszukanych osob przez niego nie ma racji-moze jest tak wspanialym adwokatem za jakiego sie przedstawial a ja go oczerniam.
Jezeli czuje sie pokrzwdzony i oczerniany niech poda mnie do sadu a wtedy
napewno Was o tym poinformuje
Pozdrawiam
Marian Lukasik
P.S.
Drogi Jacku jak bedziesz odpisywal to sprawdzaj tekst bo jak jestes pod wplywem to walisz takie literowki,ze ho ho ho
Oczywiscie wiem co to oznacza "data protection" w firmach.
1)Employment Tribunal w Watford publikuje moje wszystkie dane osobowe tzn. adres,NIN,numer prawa jazdy oraz przez kogo wydane,date i miejsce urodzenia bank sort code,numer konta i dal te informacje dzwudziestu kilku swiadkow i memu wspanialemu reprezentantowi dr Jackowi Krawczykowi ktore potem mni zapowiedzial,ze mnie wykonczy w UK i posluzyl sie tymi danymi.
2)Dane te posluzyly mu aby zalozyc mi TV Licence,Internet dawanie ogloszen na portalach internetowych,ze sprzedaje mieszkanie,szukam niani do dzieci,kierowcow i place 800 funtow na tydzien,prostytutka itd....
3)Zalewanie mnie spamem emailowym i na komorke-kilkuset emaili i sms-ow - nie bede podal emaili z jakich zalewal mnie spamem aby nie narazic sie na forum,ze ujawniam jego dane osobowe.
4)Policja nie reaguje-to ich nie obchodzi ze zostaly wykradzione moje dane osobowe.Zwiazki Zawodowe GMB nie pomagaja chociaz jestem ich czlonkiem i place im haracz co miesiac a Sekretarz Generalny GMB Paul Kenny w liscie do swoich czlonkow powiedzial"Adwokaci sa drodzy wiec dobrze wiedziec ze Zwiazek Zawodowy GMB zapewnia pelna ochrone prawna wynikajaca z zatrudnienia"GMB pomogl mi wpasc w dlugi i utracic zdrowie.
5)A moze tak zrobic mi proces karny-prawo brytyjskie potrafi przeciez karac niewinnych ludzi.Jezeli to wolno instytucjom ujawniac moje dane osobowe dlaczego nie wolno mi-zasada rownosci wobec prawa
6)Employment Appeal Tribunal i Court of Appeal nie reaguja,ze w Employment Tribunal opublikowane zostaly moje dane osobowe zbywaja ten fakt milczeniem
7)Gdzie sa obroncy Waszego wspanialego dr Jacka Krawczyka-gdzie jest on sam, zalil sie,ze go atakuje na forach-niech odpowie, niech sie podpisze imieniem i nazwiskiem-ja sie podpisuje imieniem i nazwiskiem wiec nie problem pociagnac mnie do odpowiedzialnosci.Moze te kilkanascie oszukanych osob przez niego nie ma racji-moze jest tak wspanialym adwokatem za jakiego sie przedstawial a ja go oczerniam.
Jezeli czuje sie pokrzwdzony i oczerniany niech poda mnie do sadu a wtedy
napewno Was o tym poinformuje
Pozdrawiam
Marian Lukasik
P.S.
Drogi Jacku jak bedziesz odpisywal to sprawdzaj tekst bo jak jestes pod wplywem to walisz takie literowki,ze ho ho ho
Bo nie jestem na bieżąco.. po co wkleja te listy ?
e: ort
e: ort
Ostatnio zmieniony 05 lis 2011 23:40 przez maya, łącznie zmieniany 1 raz.
-
technik888
- Gastarbeiter
- Posty: 32
- Rejestracja: 24 sie 2011 20:48
Re: Dear General Secretary GMB Paul Kenny!
koles popadl w totalna paranoje
W paranoje to ty popadles-inteligencik zakichany -tylko mu sloma z butow wystaje.
Czlowiek na poziomie ma jakis poziom wypowiedzi a ty nie prezentujesz zadnego
W paranoje to ty popadles-inteligencik zakichany -tylko mu sloma z butow wystaje.
Czlowiek na poziomie ma jakis poziom wypowiedzi a ty nie prezentujesz zadnego
-
technik888
- Gastarbeiter
- Posty: 32
- Rejestracja: 24 sie 2011 20:48
maya pisze:Bo nie jestem na bierząco.. po co wkleja te listy ?
Po to,zeby ile to mozliwe weliminowac patologie z zycia w UK a to bedzie bardzo trudne
1)Arek Nowaczyk ktory wciagnal mnie w to bagno sprzedal mnie za lepiej oplacane stanowisko-pokazac jacy wspaniali Polacy sa w UK
2)Jacek Krawczyk ktory powinien pomagac swoim klientom sprzedaje ich
3)Zwiazki Zawodowe GMB ktorych jestem czlonkiem i place im haracz kazdego miesiaca nie pomagaja a szkodza
-
technik888
- Gastarbeiter
- Posty: 32
- Rejestracja: 24 sie 2011 20:48
[quote="blondynek"]moze jakbys poczytla 'small print' na poczatku to nie bylbys taki rozczarowany (to nota bene twojego zadania zeby prawnik GMB cie reprezentowal kiedy jasno i wyraznie napisali ile czlonkiem musialbys byc - czy jak tam szlo 
)
Jest taka zasada jak nie wiesz to nie zabieraj glosu bo takich krzykaczy Polakow jak ty jest bardzo duzo w UK co tylko szkodzic potrafia
Nalezysz do grupy
"Polak jak ci za granica nie zaszkodzil to juz ci pomogl"
gdyby nie tacy Rodacy jak ty to nie byloby wcale tej sprawy.
Arek Nowaczyk-twiedzil idziemy w imieniu Polakow i przy pierwszej nadazajacej okazji szybko mnie sprzedal.
A Zwiazek Zawodowy GMB niestety nie pomaga tylko szkodzi dla aparatczykow z GMB wazne sa tylko cieple posadki i wielka polityka,a jezeli chodzi o emaila to jest moj email do osoby publicznej tak,ze nie widze problemu z data protection-jak jestes taki madry
)
Jest taka zasada jak nie wiesz to nie zabieraj glosu bo takich krzykaczy Polakow jak ty jest bardzo duzo w UK co tylko szkodzic potrafia
Nalezysz do grupy
"Polak jak ci za granica nie zaszkodzil to juz ci pomogl"
gdyby nie tacy Rodacy jak ty to nie byloby wcale tej sprawy.
Arek Nowaczyk-twiedzil idziemy w imieniu Polakow i przy pierwszej nadazajacej okazji szybko mnie sprzedal.
A Zwiazek Zawodowy GMB niestety nie pomaga tylko szkodzi dla aparatczykow z GMB wazne sa tylko cieple posadki i wielka polityka,a jezeli chodzi o emaila to jest moj email do osoby publicznej tak,ze nie widze problemu z data protection-jak jestes taki madry
-
technik888
- Gastarbeiter
- Posty: 32
- Rejestracja: 24 sie 2011 20:48
Kto jest online
Użytkownicy przeglądający to forum: Obecnie na forum nie ma żadnego zarejestrowanego użytkownika. i 14 gości