beata71.co.uk

BEATA ULIKOWSKA AND MAREK Z

COURT OF APPEAL

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL IN BEDFORD

We would like to accuse order of the Court of Appeal from 25^th January 2010 saying that

our appeal is dismissed and that this decission is final .

Our case had got beginning in Employment Tribunal sitting in Bedford. There were three

consolidated cases-claim of Marek Z(1200237/2008) under race discrimination,

claim of Marek Z (1201671/2008) under unfair dismissal and claim of Beata

Ulikowska(1200238/2008)under race discrimination.Our Hearing was listed on 12 - 16

January 2009.

Since beginning we started to have troubles . Everyone ( including court itself ) were

treating us as stupid Polish people who have not got any knowledge about British law ,

who have got linguistics obstacles , who have not got family , relatives and anybody else

here in England ,who could help them in their unequal fight for their rights .

What we have it was only sense of justice and clear rules and procedures and timetables

which gave to us sense of safety .

During preparation to hearing it was clear that Respondents and their Representative were

playing unfair game .

They had not sent documentation on time , if they sent it at all . It was evident non-

compliance with Tribunal乫s orders .

We wrote letters to Employment Tribunal with complaints about all situation .

Lack of reaction of Tribunal to such open breaching of procedures gave to understand that

Tribunal was biased .Many times we felt like people who are accused not like victims .

Court caused that many times we felt guilty for saying about wrong-doing .

In such atmosphere , when we felt that there is no place for looking for juctice , we left

court building accusing Tribunal for unfairness .

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights says that

both sides should have an EQUAL opportunity to put their cases .

The Convention often means more then the words in the Articles might suggest .

Court in Strasburg has decided that the right to a fair trial goes beyond

merely what happens in the court itself - it can extend to what happens months before , if

what happened there might have an effect on the fairness of the hearing ( Murray v UK (1996) .

Under the Civil Procedure Rules the courts set and enforce realistic timetables and

penalize the parties for unnecessary delay and cynical tactical plays .

The court decides how the case will progress to trial , set timetible for the case and

ensure that the parties keep to it , and decide the lengh of trial and what is to happen at

the trial .

Employment Tribunal neglected its duties under underriding objective and case

management .

Tribunal decided that we failed to prove that the respondents had broken orders of the

Tribunal . We were waiting for very long time for any reaction from Tribunal , after that ,

when we sent our complaints about cynical tactical plays of representative of Alibone

Recycling Ltd , but Tribunal turned a deaf ear to our problems and fears .

Employment Tribunal must identificate problems at early stage , but this duty was

disregarded by court .

Employment Tribunal has got huge power , but it did not use it in our case .

We were prepared to give evidence during Case Management Summary Discussion in

August 2008 , but ET was not interested in matter . There was said , that next time guilty

will be punished .

It is not a true , as it was said on 12^th January 2009 , that subjects raised in August 2008 do

not apply , this was continuing act of non compliance , so all aspects must be taken into

consideration again .

For all that time we had got two feelings :

- feeling of menace

- suffer from the lack of trust in Employment Tribunal .

If during preparation for the hearing ET was not interested to use its power and check all

situation , we could easly think that all case has already been prejudged and that we lost it

before start .

We started to think that in this Tribunal we can not find justice .

Cases under Act Discrimination are very difficult to proof .

It is very difficult to speak about everything what you faced during your employment .

Those cases have got very delicate background . People dealing with such cases should

distinguish with immense of morality . If we were accusing so many times Mr DL

Thomas for his behaviour , why did not Tribunal observe at all matter closer ?

We were intimidated for all period of our employment in Alibone Recycling Ltd. It

reached to the highest level after we rose up Grievance Procedure in writing on 2^nd

January 2009 till our unfair dismissals in 23^rd July 2008 and 9^th September 2008 .

After ineffective searches for help in so many places within authorities bodies and after

insensibility of Employment Tribunal we did not feel save in ET , so we left building .

We are sure , that if we were late with any task , Employment Tribunal would strike out

our claim immediately .

10.

Facts show , that Tribunal did not give to us the right to the fair trial , because of its

negligence . Everything what happened before hearing had got gigantic influence for that

what happened on 12^th January 2009 during hearing . Tribunal not only broke its

procedure , but also European Convention on Human Rights .

11.

We made appeal to Appeal Employment Tribunal . We were asking for transferring our

cases to another Tribunal and allowing they started again . We were also asking for

moving two further cases of Beata Ulikowska : unfair dismissal and sex discrimination to

another court ., but with decission from 1^st July 2009 our appeal was rejected.

12.

Our next step was making appeal to the Court of Appeal.

13.

Employment Appeal Tribunal as well as the Court of Appeal have not wanted to see

merit of all problem.

Real subject of our appeal was unfairness of Employment Tribunal in Bedford and the

way in which our cases were conducted by ET.We made claim against Employment

Tribunal in Bedford for breaching our rights under Human Rights Act 1998,so our

Respondent is ET not Alibone Recycling Ltd.

But Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Justice obstinately maintained that

Respondent to our claim is Alibone Recycling Ltd.

14.

Actually, in one letter(06/04/2009) Employment Appeal Tribunal correctly

registered our claim ,but in further correspondence EAT withdrew itself from its first

Registration.

We are litigants in persons , we are not lawyers .

It was only bad will of British Courts not to look deeply inside our case . In our letter

from 16^th May 2009 we were demanding for proper registration of our case . Our request

was passed over with silent by Employment Appeal Tribunal.

14.

Both of them EAT and the Court of Appeal were looking into our appeal as the appeal

against order,but they deliberately have refused to look closer at the way how our case

was managed by Employment Tribunal sitting at Bedford . Nobody put question -

What were the circumstances which forced us to such dramatic step like not to be present

at the Hearing.

15.

The Court of Appeal in cynical way explains reasons of its decission dismissing our

appeal.It says that in order to sustain our claim , in particular ,our claim of racial

discrimination , we had to to give evidence.

The Court of Appeal and Employment Appeal Tribunal they have forgotten that first of

all such cases must be dealt with people distinguished with immense of mortality.That

victims must trust judges and institution before they start to give evidence and put their 3

years of discrimination , unhuman treatment , unhuman work and loss of health into

uncertain hands.

16.

We are persons who are demanding justice , empathy , dignity and honesty in dealing

with our case.Our 3 years spent in unhuman workplace in democratic country in 21^st

century must be judged.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because my appeals were rejected by courts and I was afraid that nobody has never known the truth and that my

3 years of discrimination will go into oblivion I raised next claim to Employment Tribunal in Bedford this time

under sex discrimination

1.

On 16^th January 2009 I sent to Employment Tribunal in Bedford my claim under sex

discrimination. I referred to equity of Tribunals and interest of Justice. On 21^st January

2009 my claim was rejected by Tribunal because my complaint of sex discrimination is

one to which the statutory grievance procedure applies.

To put my case further I sent to Alibone Recycling letter (31/01/2009) in which I raised

up my grievance procedure(I sent to them my statement).

On 9^th February 2009 Alibone Recycling Ltd refused to deal with my grievance.

I applied to Employment Tribunal again for acceptance of my claim on 20^th February

2009.I obtained reply on 26^th February 2009 in which court partly rejected my complaint.

My case- 1200592/2009 was partly dismissed ,because -firstly although I sent grievance

to respondent I did not wait 28 days since than presenting my claim (respondents refused

to deal with my grievance so I was sure that those limits are not in force any more)

and secondly - I can not claim unpaid wages from individuals, I did not know what

does partly rejection exactly mean so I decided to send the same claim in correct time

and without claiming payments I am owed .

It was accepted in all content on 6^th March 2009 - 1200703/2009 . I was sure that this

claim authomatically stays only one under Sex Discrimination and previous one is

cancelled especially that I have never obtained any ET3 and any other correspondence in

that case .

I wanted full hearing. In connection with my and my boyfriend抯 claim

under Human Rights Act -our right to fair trial - in Employment Appeal Tribunal in my

naivety I counted that this time my case will be carried over in compliance with

procedure. I wanted to tell in public about my sufferings and I wanted to hear words of

apology from my previous bosses.

After my letter dated 11^th May 2009 (copy enclosed) - ET sent to me consolidating order

in which first time I could see that my case no: 1200592/2009 still is valid . From

attached by Employment Tribunal of mr DL Thomas letters (enclosed) -

which he should send to me himself -I learnt about mistical ET3 which I have never

suspected that exists.From those letters I could learn that Employment Tribunal agrees on

every application made by Respondent抯 Representative to Tribunal. I was afraid what

would happen if I did not send my last application . When ,if ever, I would learn that my

claim no:1200592/2009 is still in course.

In Tribunals constitution 11(4) When a party is legally represented in relation to the

application(�.),that party or his representative must ,at the same time as the application

is sent to ET Office ,provide all other parties with the following information in writing-

(a)details of the application and the reason why it is sought;

(b)notification that any objection to the application must be sent to the ET Office within 7

days of receiving the application,or before the date of the hearing (whichever date is the

earlier)

� that any objection to the application must be copied to both the ET Office and all the

parties;

And the party or his representative must confirm in writing to the ET Office that

this rule has been complied with

7.

I could only reflect how many other letters was sent about which I have any notion .

I did not have to wait long to face new intrigue.

On 3^rd September 2009 was held Pre-Hearing Review ( notice attached ) .Since the

beginning it was clear that I was called to Tribunal not to speak about rejecting Response

in case 1200703/2009 and to give my oral arguments about bothering me matters but to

put forward next made by Mr Thomas application about which again I did not have any

knowledge.

PRH was led in hurry ,lasted maybe 10 minutes instead planned 1,5 hour . .Judge who

should show me some indications ensuring that parties are on equal footing - just

foolished me . He did not give me time for thinking . It was led in atmosphere of

hastiness. He said that it is only next procedural step -it sanded like nothing really

important , just only next step., he really influenced me that I said yes ,that I agreed to

discuss rejection of some parts of my claim (which were previously attached to my claim

under race discrimination ) during planned on 9^th October 2009 Case Management

Discussion. He was playing on my harm,detriment . In normal

court with judges with great morality and equity such vileness would never happen .

I do not understand why suddenly it is not possible that some of my paragraphs ,which

were previously included to my claim under Race Discrimination can not be presented in

case under Sex Discrimination

10.

According to court�s general powers of menagement-Ministry of Justice(Civil Rules of

procedure) -3.4(4)Where

(a)the court struck out a claimant�s statement of case,

(b)the claimant has been ordered to pay costs to the defendant,and

゜efore the claimant pays those costs ,he starts another claim against the same

defendant ,arising out of facts which are the same or substantially the same as those

relating to the claim in which the statement of case was struck out,

The court may stay,on the application of the defendant ,stay that other claim until

the costs of the first claim have been paid.

11.

I was not ordered to pay any costs so in any moment and in compliance with the English

Law I could bring the another claim with statement arising the same facts.

12.

Tribunal must deal with case justly -that means ensuring that the parties are on equal

footing(Overriding objective2(a)).

Tribunal can not evidently support applications which are only successful because the

second part is on weaker position .Tribunal instead help me by giving advice took

advantages from my ignorance.

13.

ARTICLE 14 UNDER HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 GIVES PROHIBITION OF

DISCRIMINATION , ARTICLE 6 GIVES RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL

This is primary legislation.

So far as it is possible to do so , primary legislation and subordinate legislation must

be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with Convention rights .

Tribunals� duty is to protect against discrimination , harassment ,and

discrimination via victimization.

14.

Idea of scratching out some paragraphs off my

claim is very desirable by Respondents and very prejudicial to me and has nothing

common with doing right . In my letter dated 3^rd September 2009 (enclosed previously) I

criticized conduct of Tribunal and I signalled breaching of procedure by ET.

15.

ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSE PROCEDURE

What the tribunal does after receiving the response

5. (2) If Secretary accepts the response he shall send a copy of it to all other parties and

record in writing the date on which he does so.

16.

Because raised by me matters were passed over in silence by court (letters from 18^th and

23^rd September 2009-enclosed)moreover they accepted Response on claim

1200703/2009, I sent to Tribunal email ( enclosed ) demanding explanations with

reference to Response to case no 1200592/2009 hoping that maybe at that point I will not

lose.

17.

On 6^th October 2009 I finally obtained from Tribunal Response on claim 1200259/2009.

I could not believe -it was identical statement to that one supporting Response on claim

1200703/2009.

18.

On 9^th October 2009 at PreHearing Review I tried to demand answers to my questions :

Why these responses were accepted if Respondents resigned from defence themselves.

19.

According to the Civil Procedure Rules court can struck out defence where

1.6(1)it consists of bare denial or otherwise sets out no coherent statementof facts,or

(2)the facts it sets out ,while coherent,would not even if true amount in law to a

defence to the claim.

There is content of Respondents defence:

�1.Unless indicated otherwise in these Grounds of Resistance and Response Form

The facts as stated in the Claimant抯 Claim Form are not accepted by the respondents

2. The First Respondent is an employer of Alibone Recycling Ltd ,which operates a waste

Recycling service.It has a recycling facility in Moulton,Northamptonshire .until 9

September 2008 the Claimant was employed on this site as a Recycling Operative.

3. The Claimant抯 list of allegations run to some 19 pages The Respondent denies

Each and every one of the allegations.Furthermore ,the respondent will argue that the

Allegations are out of time,having been submitted outside of the three months limit.

4. It is submitted that the Claimant抯 allegations are both frivolous and vexatious.

Many of specific claims lodged by the Claimant were the subject of a claim for race

Discrimination (Claim No 1200238/2008)against Alibones Recycling Ltd.The matter was

Heard before Judge Clarke QC at Bedford Employment Tribunal on 12 January 2009.

The Claimant left the hearing without giving any evidence in support of her claim.Her

Claims were dismissed in their entirety. Accordingly ,the Respondent believes the

Claimant is abusing the process and requests the Tribunal give consideration to requiring

The Claimant to provide a deposit before continuing with the proceedings .This power

Is contained within Regulation 20 of the ET(Constitution and Rules of Procedure)

Regulation 2004

5. The claimant has lodged an earlier complaint of unfair dismissal ( case no

1202377/2008).It is requested that the two cases be joined

6. For the avoidance of doubt,the Respondents intend to resist the claims brought against

them by Claimant.�

　

20.

They had got time from January 2009 to write defence.I sent to them my statement

raising up grievance procedure .They refused then and again in their responses to defence

themselves .I reminded that Tribunal did not sent me ET3 Form on case 1200259/2009

21.

There was only one comment that decisions have already been made and that I can raise

up my demands again during full hearing ,because today he(judge)will not be dealing

with these matters.

22.

Full Hearing is decided on the first whole week of February 2010(orders and judgment

enclosed)I have got time until 13^th November 2009 for preparation of new statement,in

other way my claim will be struck out .My current statement in their eyes is not

acceptable,because of lack of chronological order - what is not true .They theoreticaly did

not scratch out any of my paragraphs yet,but only theoreticaly.

23.

They decided that my cases 1200592/2009 and 1200703/2009 are only under sex

discrimination .What about harassment and victimization? This decision rejects very

burdening for respondents paragraphs.They ordered that I must name each individual

involved in described by me incidents and on the list of Respondents they have not put

name of Alibone Recycling Ltd .

24.

Sending my claims to Employment Tribunal I was mainly accusing Alibone Recycling

Ltd plus 11 employed by this company individuals.I can not understand how they can

make now such orders,everything in very cunning way in hope that I miss something.

25.

A lot of my paragraphs accuse just company ,that such things could happen ,that there

was no punishment ,that such conducts could go unpunished.

26.

Judge mentioned about checking if described by me facts were facts of continuing acts of

discrimination.

27.

Judge tried to discourage me saying that I will not manage with this task,with writing new

statement.My first statement was approved by full Employment Tribunal ,now they try to

reject most parts of my claims.Now I have to again -because of Tribunal憇 order-writing

mystatement ,experience point by point ,every moment of my persecution.

28.

One more thing was frightening to me.At the beginning judge was joking to respondent抯

representative that my case under unfair dismissal will be very easy to overthrow,as I did

not appear on disciplinary hearing .Such behaviour is inadmissible .Judge can not pass a

sentence before trial . I read that over as a threat - this case is going to be lost so now is

turn for another ones to lessen.

29.

Once again I accuse Employment Tribunal in Bedford for breaching procedure and for

refusing me right to fair trial and also for promoting discrimination,harassment and

discrimination via victimization.Once again I bring an action Tribunal抯 decisions

accepting responses.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FINALLY ON 18^TH OCTOBER 2010 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL SITTING AT

BEDFORD REJECTED MY CASES UNDER SEX DISCRIMINATION .

ET DECIDED THAT MY CASES WERE RAISED OUTSIDE 3 MONTHS TIME

LIMIT AND ORDERED ME TO PAY DEPOSIT OF 300 POUNDS IN MY

CLAIM UNDER UNFAIR DISMISSAL.

THIS IS APPEAL WHICH I POSTED TO EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL.

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

Audit House

58 Victoria Embankment

London

EC4Y 0DS

Dated 8^th December 2010

Dear Sir / Madam

I am writing to you because I would like to appeal against Pre-Hearing Review Judgment

which was sent to parties on 27^th October 2010.

Making my appeal I would like to refer to interest of justice and fair trial

I would like to ask for giving me one more chance to present my claims 1200703/2009

and 1200592/2009 in full hearing .

I would like to ask for extending time for my appeal as well.

Between 19^th October and 4^th November 2010 I was on holiday in Poland.As far as I

know my Representative Mr Wernerowski was on his holiday in Spain untill 8^th or 9^th

November 2010.10^th November 2010 was the date when I obtained copy of

Employment�s Tribunal Order. Additionally after coming back from holiday I was forced

to looking for new place for leaving and finally for moving flat.

Only recently I settled down.

I hope that it is enough reason to extend time for my appeal.

I really appreciate what Employment Judge Metcalf said during Pre-Hearing Review and

what he put in his Judgment.

I would like just say few more things which maybe can help me with giving me one more

chance.

I met my Representative Mr Wernerowski only once.He lives many miles from my

house.Additionally I reached him lately.He did not have got enough time for preparation

to my case and he had to act gropingly as I did not manage to explain him everything

during our meeting.He did not know for example any details from appeals made by me to

EAT ( UKEATPA/0073/09/LA ) and to the Court of Appeal. I am not a lawyer and I

simply did not know which matters should be explained by me in the first place.

But during our appointment Mr Wernerowski explained me how English Legal System

works.

It is true that I have already known rules and procedures but I still had got Polish way of

thinking, Polish mentality.Many matters obvious for English person for me still were not

understable.

For me my case was the most important and I was expecting that everybody is treating

my claim in the same way.Only Mr Wernerowski explained me that with such claims like

mine Employment Tribunal deals thousands times in every year.

He explained me that my statement is too long and too difficult to read.He offerred me

help with writing new one- more clear statement.

Mr Wernerowski was horrified with capacity of my Bundle.

Earlier trials to persuade me abbreviation of my statement I understood as a trials of

blotting out big parties of my accusations.

In point 7th of Judgment Employment Judge Metcalf cites some facts from my claim.

My employment lasted 3 years.I was hit by Mr Reagan couple of times:

-15^th April 2008-in head and back

-28^th April 2008-in leg with hard patato

-16^th May 2008-he tried to hit me with bottle

-2^nd June 2008-in back with tennis ball

-19^th June 2008-in fingers by roll of fiscal paper

I have never made mistake by quoting wrong dates,names or events.

In letter to Employment Tribunal from May 2008 (copy attached) I named person

who sprayed gas into my direction as Marcin Grze�.

I am not a lawyer I did not notice and I did not react on mistake which occurred in

Employment�s Tribunal document- Case Management Discussion Summary and Orders

from 1^st October 2008 -where surname of Marcin Grze� was changed by mistake on

Grays.

I know that Polish surnames are difficult and I have never blamed anybody about that

mistake.

I know now that my statement is too complicated,too long and time-consuming to read.

I know that I made a lot of another mistakes whilst conducting my case.

I sent for example almost identical claim under sex discrimination no 1200703/2009

because I did not know what term -part rejection of claim- means.I thought that my claim

from 4^th March 2009 (I removed in this claim reason for rejection-I waited 28 days after

sending grievance and I did not put complaint for unpaid wages) automatically invalidate

that one from 23^rd February 2009 -no 1200592/2009. I was sure that my claim no

1200703/2009 will remain as an only one.As a result I made big mess.

I am not a person who is strongly resistant to stress.

On 19^th July 2010 I could not take part in proceedings because of above problem.

I was afraid that situation can appear again .To avoid repetition and to allow to go my

case further I contacted Mr Wernerowski.He agreed to help me for free at this stage of my

case.It was very important to me because in other way I could not afford for Solicitor and

what is more he speaks Polish.

I am not a lawyer and I did not know what out of time order means.

I was really afraid that day -19^th July 2010 .

I was really afraid on 12 January 2009 as well.

I am really sorry that I left court building on 12 January 2009 but I can not turn time back.

I can only genuinely say that raising similar claim under sex discrimination it was and it

is my hope that my 3 years of humilitation will be justly judged by Court.

Today I can not explain why I was staying in this employment for so long time in spite of

wrong treatment.

I was with my boyfriend.Coming to England we wanted to work,earn money.We had got

clear target : to earn money,go back to Poland,have better future.

It is true that on 2^nd January 2008 we raised grievance procedure in writing,because for us

there started to be important another things like - dignity.

In attached letter from May 2008 I described how company dealt with our grievance.

I was taught that every my trial to make complaint,raise grievance changed my situation

in company for worse.

10.

In my ET1 Form Case No 1202397/2008 under unfair dismissal I was writing that

dismissal it was the last act of my discrimination.

I know that my letter which I posted to Ministry of Justice is written with too strong

language.

After our grievance procedure we really were experiencing very bad moments.It was

written under feelings of humility.

I know that if I have no chance to prove my accusations in case under sex

discrimination,my letter to Ministry of Justice and Independent will remain only pile of

imputations.

In my statement in point 107 I named paragraphs which gave me right to write this letter.

In letter dated 5^th September2008 which I obtained from Respondents,they clearly say that

if I do not attend disciplinary hearing on 9^th September 2008 they do not take into

consideration any of my explanation :

�However I must warn you that should you fail to attend the meeting this time for

whatever reason then I will proceed to conduct the disciplinary in your absence and

subsequently advice you of the outcome�

After that letter I did not see any sense to say anything.

11.

My employment lasted from 4^th August 2005 to 9^th September 2008.

On 1^st September 2008 I was suspendent but my employment still lasted.They still paid

me wages because of my employment.

In order from 2^nd June 2009 Employment Tribunal consolidated my 3 cases together on

request of Alibone�s Recycling ltd Representative-Mr DL Thomas.

12.

Rejecting now my claims under sex discrimination in which I gave reasons for writing

letter to Ministry of Justice takes away my chances for winning my claim under unfair

dismissal.

As I wrote above-my dismissal it was the last step of my discrimination.

Without chance to prove my accusations in case under sex discrimination my letter to

Ministry of Justice remains only pile of imputations.

13.

Please give me opportunity to fair trial.

Once again please ,give me one more chance to present my case under sex discrimination

on full Hearing in Employment Tribunal .

I would like once again to refer to interest of justice.

Yours faithfuly

Beata Ulikowska

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTICE OF APPEAL IN CASE FOR UNFAIR DISMISSAL - SENT TO EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

CASE TOOK PLACE AT BEDFORD 28-29 NOVEMBER 2011

I would like to appeal against the judgment of Employment Tribunal from 1st December 2011 issued in case no 1202377/2008 (unfair dismissal ) saying that :

1. The Claim for unfair dismissal fails and is dismissed

2. The Claimant is ordered to pay the Respondent's costs of �3.800

1).

decision of Employment Tribunal was wrong because there was a serious irregularity affecting the proceedings and what is more Employment Tribunal breached the law itself.

2)..

In paragraph 4.3 of the Reasons which lead ET to the Judgment is written that most of my claims were not relevant to the case of unfair dismissal.

In spite of that those issues were heard by ET because:

a) I considered those matters as an important background to my claim , because

b) I am not an English and

c) I represented myself.

3).

The ET ( Constitution and Rules of Procedure ) Regu 2004 says :

Overriding objective

3.-( 1 ) The overriding objective of these regulations and the rules in Schedules 1.2.3.4 and 5 is to enable tribunals and chairmen to deal with case justly

(2 ) dealing with case justly includes , so far as practicable -

( a ) ensuring that the parties are on equal footing(....)

4).

Cited by me above idea of overriding objective is very sublime - but only under condition that it has been dealt with in genuine way.

5).

-Regarding to point 2) a) saying -

"I considered those matters as an important background to my claim"

If you allow somebody to do something , YOU HAVE TO LET TO DO IT PROPERLY - since the beginning to the entire end and you have to follow the whole matter very thoroughly in other way it has no sense.

I wrote to ET 3 applications -11/09/2011 , 25/10/2011 and 30/10/2011 - pages 61-62; 65-66 & 68 asking for a witness order . I requested for calling for a witness Ms J. Beric - H&S Manager , because I considered

her as the most responsible for the way how things were developing ( I started from grievance and she lead me to extremity - I sent claims to ET ).

All of my applications were rejected - pages 63;67 & 69.

On 3rd November 2011 I sent finally Witness Summon with a postal order on the sum of �150 - those documents were returned to me as well.page 70-71&72.

ET statement -"...and that she considers that there is considerable background detail that we need to know" has no support in facts.

ET deliberately refused me to call the most important witness - a person who dealt with my case since the beginning , when I raised up my grievance.

In my application from 30th October 2011 I clearly stated that called by the Respondents witnesses are not enough sufficient to give full evidence in the case.

Doris Pietniczka-Panek was employed by Alibone Recycling Ltd on 5th May 2008.

I started my grievance on 2nd January 2008. Pages 52-53.

There was no surprise that most of Doris Pietniczka-Panek's answers sounded like:

-"I don't know I wasn't employed yet",or "I just started my work in that place".

My questions became not answered and ET did not do anything to help me with revealing ,proving background details which I considered as important ones.

ET did not show any interest to get thoroughly acquainted with the facts . ET's statement remains unfounded.

- in points 4.4 i) , ii) , iii) ET makes its recounts about my grievance.

Once again I would like to repeat - the person who dealt with my grievance was absent - and it was ET's decission.

There was nobody to examine regarding this issue . In my letter to Northamptonshire County Council -page 54, I gave brief description what happened during grievance.

In every application posted to Tribunal I made clear that Ms Julia Beric is responsible for my further conduct and my lack of trust to company's management.

At any stage of hearing ET did not want to see attached to the bundle photos showing images of dameged equipment or to watch recorded tapes showing unqualified people operating vehicles - there were proven black on

white facts according to breaches health and safety regulations.

To the bundle ,was attached also transcript (page 58) proving that in spite of that - what Ms Doris Pietniczka - Panek was saying in company was general permission for smoking cigarettes during workind hours and in

not designated for that purpose places.

In my statement I complained that Alibone Recycling Ltd allowed a person without a license to drive a lorry on a public road . Off course -Respondent's witness - Doris Pietniczka-Panek denied - she said that it was a

private road . Even a such easy thing to confirm was not checked . ET again did not show any interest to know the true . To know the details which I considered as important ones.

In point 4.4 ii) is written about my potential health problems - transcript from manual handling training , proves that Alibone Recycling Ltd. management consciously exposed me to permanent back's contusion -page 59.

It is unbelievable that such crass proofs were declined by Tribunal.

During proceedings I described how my current employer deals with any sign of verbal abuse ,violence or intimidation.

I told that at the moment I work as a Civil Enforcement Officer and that sometimes I am a victim of a verbal abuse.

I told also that I have got knowledge now , how such cases should be dealt by company.

I gave brief description:

-I report to a supervisor

-after supervisor's suggestion I write a statement in a separate office

-when I am ready we are discussing my statement point by point

-after that my supervisor is calling after police-always with my consent

- when police arrive they give us a separate office where we discuss my statement

-policeman makes notes in his pocket book , if I agree I sign it

- after police leave office once again I talk to my supervisor ,she wants to be sure if everything is all right and if I do not need any further assistance.

Every time I know what can I expect and it gives me confidence and strength.

By that occasion I would like to say that I am proud of my occupation ( - I am enforcing small part of law ).

During proceedings I asked Doris Pietniczka - Panek question why such feeling of safety was not given me by Alibone Recycling Ltd?

In cases against harassment , bullying , violence at work , atmosphere of openness is very important - in their staffbook -ONLY WITH YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT.

Conduct of Alibone Recycling causes that I had got even much stronger feeling of menace and intimidation.

Why when I asked during meeting with policeman about neutral place and without my boss's presence ,why Alibone did not offer me separate room?

In Alibone's staffbook is written that even perpetrator has got right to confidentiality and I was - I believed - that I AM A VICTIM.

Content of point 4.4 vii) of ET's Reasons I find as a ridiculous and not worth to quote.

On 13th June 2008 , Doris Pietniczka - Panek during meeting with policeman was making notes (pages 55-56) and there is no word saying that she was offering separate office for my use.

It is impossible , that such important fact would be omitted by her.

I remind , that at that time , in ET was already my claim against Alibone Recycling Ltd for race discrimination.

Once again I am proving that ET did not do any effort to know the facts how they really took place.

In connection with point 2) b) which says:

"I am not an English"

ET has breached the law itself.

I was positively discriminated by ET itself. ET allowed me to believe that I am doing something important for my case and it was only because English is not my first language and that I am not an English.

For the most part of the first day of the proceedings I was sure that I am doing good job. It gave me wrong view on the progress in my case.

I was informed just before the break commencing the final speeches that everything what I did until now was actually not relevant to the case.

That in my final speech I should include another contents.

I was stupefied by ET.

They allowed me to investigate my claims not because they are relevant to the case , but because I am a Polish and I am not an English.

There was several pre-hearing reviews , but my case for unfair dismissal was combined with the case for sex discrimination.

All of pre-hearing reviews were held in one purpose - to dismiss my case for sex discrimination on the procedural basis . None of those reviews and case management discussions was dedicated to the case for unfair

dismissal.

According to my claim for unfair dismissal I was told that it has got little chance for success and I was informed about deposit which I should to pay.

I have not agreed with this standpoint .I have considered that background facts - facts which I can prove and which caused that I wrote and sent letter to Ministry of Justice are so important that I have to pursue my case

further.

Nobody made me clear - during reviews and management discussions - that mentioned above facts , are not relevant to the case and that I should rather focus on other aspects of the case.

Every of issues which I raised up during hearing has been presented for the first time in Tribunal during full trial.

I was stupefied by ET and positively discriminated.

I am not a foolish Polish with impossibility to understand things after when they are explained.

As regards to point 2) c) which says:

"I was representing myself"

On 24th November 2011 I sent to ET doctor's certificate -page 73- saying that I am signed off from work because of stress. I asked also for postponement of the hearing. I was refused page no 74.

Before the hearing ,just before it started - I read a short statement -page 76- that I am taking antidepressants -Amitriptyline - and I am under its influence.

ET considered that I seem to be all right but they promised that they will be aware about my state.

With whole my respect to ET I dare say that they were not able to guarantee that I was really fine and that there will not be any impact on the proceedings because they are not doctors.

First day of the trial ended with an attack on me made by Alibone's Recycling Ltd Representative- Mr DL Thomas.

He was accusing me for recording my presecutors. It was real intimidation and Tribunal knowing about my stress problems did not do anything to protect me.

It was tormenting of a witness.

First day of hearing ended for me in a such terrible atmosphere , that my final speech -pages 77-78, was actually about clarifying all of those issues arose from that attack.

It was given only 15 minutes break before saying final speech.

Before that break I was told by the Judge that what I was doing until now was irrelevant to the case. By that occasion he advised me for the first time , what should be included in the speech.

I was under medicines I could not focus on doing any amendments to my appearance. After my speech i was asked few questions.

I referred to my conversation with one of Alibone's employee . It was in February 2008 , after my letter to Northamptonshire County Council - page 54 . He informed me ,that one out of Alibone's relative holds a high

position within County Council and that my letter will not bring nothing positive to me .I explained also to Tribunal that my fruitless searching for help in another institutions seemed to confirm what I was told.

It turned out that my explanation was given beyond prescribed me time.

ET answered that those my last words were told too late and that they will not be taken under consideration during making the judgment.

What a relativism . Once I was treated "better" because I am not an English , because I represent myself - another time this opportunity is not given to me. Why? Where is the consequence?

Mr Marek Z. - my witness on the second day of the hearing explained phrase : "organised group of Polish people and some English strongly supported ( and under their command) by company's management terrorize us"

He said - organized group of Polish people -answer is easy - Marcin Ciecierka ( supervisor ) is a brother of Lukasz Ciecierka. Marcin Golab is a brother in law of both of them . Marcin Grzes , Marcin Dziuba , Marcin

Ciecierka and Lukasz Ciecierka , all of them , they come from the same small village in Poland . Ryszard Jaworski he is an uncle of Marci Grzes . For several months worked with us also - Marcin's and Lukasz's

Ciecierka father . Adam Kwiatkowski and Leon Miluszkiewicz were recommended by Maciej Rozenek - the best friend of Marcin Ciecierka.

In our team were also two English boys.

Sam Hartwig is a son of Paul Hartwig - Alibone's Lane Manager . Tom Ragan is a son of Alibone's lorry driver - the best friend of our boss Marc Gray.

We were not welcomed by them since the beginning .They wanted to take over our working places for their another family members.

They easy influenced those two fifteen-seventeen years old English boys . They together smoke cigarettes and drunk vodka.

In that light Doris's Pietniczka - Panek explanation given in her statement -page 51, that I did not mix up with the rest of team sounds insolent and point 4.4 v) and vi) of Tribunal's Reasons is following her in this insolence.

That explanatiom was prepared by Mr Marek Z. to give verbally. I know that it is very complicated and those family family connections are not easy to follow.

Judge did not want to listen to it to the entire end.

He asked why it was not included to Marek's statement - pages 43-47.

That time also , it did not seem very important to Tribunal , that I was representing myself , that I have not a lawyer qualifications.

I was preparing my witness for the hearing alone.

I asked my witness if there is any prove that other people from my team were treated better than I was by our bosses.

Mr Marek Z. pointed out transcript - page no 57.

I do not understand why those proven facts have not been included by Tribunal in its Reasons and have not had any influence on the Judgment.

6).

When was clear that my case for unfair dismissal is dismissed by Tribunal - Mr DL Thomas asked for payment order.

He sent me email (page no 75) informing that it is his intention to ask for a such order in the moment when my claim fails.

First of all , when I read this email I was already on my medicines.

I was in bad health condition at least for two weeks before hearing.

I had to call my GP and arrange the visit in advance.

Mr DL Thomas has never given me any details before .I had no idea what numbers are taken into consideration . It was real shock to me when I saw amount of over �9000.

I was given 10 minutes break to opponent Mr DL Thomas's demand.

I was not able again to focus my mind and gather my thoughts.

I asked ET for the opportunity to produce my standpoint in writing at .home and delivering it by post in next few days . I referred to my health condition and to the medicines which I was taking. I was refused , again

it has lost importance - that I am not an English , that I represent myself and that it is important to me.

The Judge said that he has to have it today.

After hearing I learned from ET Constitution that for such order to be issued winning side can ask Tribunal up to 28 days after trial so it was not so important to close all case on that day and depress me to the limits.

Besides ET itself made that my costs were extended by 1 day.

They allowed to play comedy for the first day of hearing giving me to read my statement point by point consisting issues - which in Tribunal's view - were not relevant to the case and without any witness who could answer

my questions!.

They waisted my time not giving me opportunity to investigate my claims properly , refusing me a witness order.

In such situation whole case could be concluded in 1 day .

ET ordered me to pay �3.800.

ET waisted 1 day and now they want me to pay for it.

Its motivation for this judgment does not seem objective as well. Employment Judge said that with my income I can afford for small , second hand car . I have lived in UK from June 2005 and still I must walk or use public

transport because I can not afford for nothing more.

I find this judgment as disgusting one. After 3 years of humilitation I was ordered to pay money for my harms.

I asked Mr DL Thomas - Alibone's Representative if he would like to be on my place for only one month and he denied.

Once again I am asking for invalidation both judgments : that my claim for unfair dismissal is declined and that I have to pay Respondent's costs of �3.800.

In my appeal I tried to show that there was serious irregularity affecting proceedings.

8).

All facts in this statement are true.

Signed Beata Ulikowska

CLOSING SPEECH

At the beginning I would like to make clear some of facts arising during proceedings.

- First of all - first time when I recorded conversation it was on 5th February 2008 - last of three grievance meetings with Ms Julia Beric.

I had got in my previous claims a lot of accusations going back to 2006 but I never even thought about recording anybody.

During grievance I had got feelings that everything what I said is derided and disregarded and that they were trying to make a fool , stupid person from me.

Unfair conduct lead by Ms Julia Beric during hearing , her hostile attitude caused that I had got strong feeling that I need kind of self defense.

Witness Marek Z. has already explained their family coligations.

In my opinion it was only one way to protect myself.

When I was recording such institution like police ( only once - I have never done it during their home visits ) I wanted just to have proof that incident with paralyzing gas had got place . Alibone Recycling Ltd

was constantly denying everything.

Citizen Advise Bureau was recorded like a casual lecture at university.

- Secondly - employment in Alibone Recycling Ltd I left in September 2008 - 3 years ago , since that moment I have not used recorder any more. Simply because I do not need to.

One year I worked in Genaral Hospital in Accident and Emergency Unit.

Now for over 2 years I am working as a Civil Enforcement Officer .

In August 2010 I was awarded as a Civil Enforcement Officer of the month.

In December 2010 I was chosen by Company's Management as a Civil Enforcement Officer of the year 2010.

So I am not the bad one.

At the moment I am in very good relationship with all of my colleagues actually I can say - friends.

It is 40 people company .Almost all of them are English.

I can think now about my personal progress.

3 years I was employed in Alibone Recycling Ltd and now passed 3 years since I left employment . but still I am pursuing this case. Because I still can not understand that somebody could treat me in that way.

I can not forget that they did from my complaints only mockery.

Every day I was loosing my dignity , my confidence whilst others were keeping their heads high . My feelings as a woman was very low too.

I wore every day dirty and too big (men's size) clothes.But it is not the point . It was my choice to take this job. Point is how Julia and others were looking at me - with irony and disdain.

　SHORT STATEMENT

Before I start I must inform Tribunal that I am taking antidepressants and painkillers.

Amitryptyline and Solpadol.

Especially Amitryptyline can cause:

-worseing depression

-extreme worry

-panic attacks

-acting without thinking

-irritability

-distraction/confusion

-drowsiness

-headaches

I am under influence of those tablets since 24th November 2011 . There is a danger that it can exert an influence on the hearing . There are leaflets according those medicines.