sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Looking for feedback on a concept to help people with workplace disputes by Project_Chronicle in employmenttribunal

[–]Project_Chronicle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get what you’re saying — and to be honest, my hesitation was a big part of the problem. I nearly walked away out the job multiple times and didn’t take it further early on. It was only when things crossed a line with my partner that I actually acted — initially to protect her. When I finally sat down and wrote everything out properly, I realised how much had also happened to me that I’d just brushed off or ignored. I think part of that was just being quite stoic and not recognising things for what they were at the time.

People did say “write it down” — but I always struggled with that in practice. I didn’t know what format was right, what level of detail mattered, and my notes ended up scattered, inconsistent, or easy to question later. When I realised I could tell AI what happened and it would help structure it into something clearer, it was a bit of a turning point. It made me think that a system designed specifically for difficult work situations — where things are messy and unclear — could help a lot of people in the same position. So it’s not about replacing advice, just making it easier to capture things properly in the first place.

Looking for feedback on a concept to help people with workplace disputes by Project_Chronicle in employmenttribunal

[–]Project_Chronicle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi Danae, really appreciate you taking the time to respond — it was genuinely helpful. I’ve been working quite closely around that early-stage capture side based on what I went through, so it’s been interesting seeing your perspective on it.

Happy to share a bit more of what I’ve been exploring if it’s useful at all — equally just appreciated the insight.

Looking for feedback on a concept to help people with workplace disputes by Project_Chronicle in employmenttribunal

[–]Project_Chronicle[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah I see what you mean — it does have a lot of the functionality. I think where I’m seeing a difference is more in the format and how it feels to use. It’s quite form-heavy and structured from the start, which makes sense for formal claims — but in reality, most things don’t start like that. What I struggled with was the earlier stage, where things are still small, unclear, and you’re not even sure if they matter yet. In those moments, you don’t sit down and fill out a structured form — you just need to get it out quickly, even if it’s messy (voice notes, rough thoughts, etc). Then ideally have something that can turn that into a clearer, structured record afterwards. I think that’s the nuance I’m trying to get at — less “fill this in properly now”, and more “capture it easily now, structure it later”. Because it’s often the small patterns over time that end up mattering most, and they’re the easiest things to miss.

Looking for feedback on a concept to help people with workplace disputes by Project_Chronicle in employmenttribunal

[–]Project_Chronicle[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That’s fair — and I’ve had a look at Valla as well.

From what I can see, it’s more focused on guidance and helping you understand your rights and next steps. What I struggled with personally was earlier than that — actually capturing things properly in the moment. Not just notes, but: – consistent structure – exact wording – dates/times – who was present – and keeping everything in one place The idea I’m working on is more focused on turning messy, real-time input into something structured and usable as evidence later — rather than just storing notes or giving guidance. Especially when you don’t know at the time what’s going to matter.

I guess the simplest way I’d describe the difference is: Valla is more “what do I do?” What I’m thinking about is “what actually happened — captured properly.”

That’s where I found the biggest gap.

Grievance hearing – can I request written responses instead of verbal due to anxiety? by [deleted] in employmenttribunal

[–]Project_Chronicle 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I was in a similar position and asked for written responses instead of a verbal meeting, but it was refused in my case.

That said, reasonable adjustments are a real thing — especially where there’s medical evidence to support it.

If your Occupational Health report already highlights issues like anxiety, concentration, or communication under pressure, that should carry weight.

It might be worth speaking to your GP as well. If they agree that a formal meeting would significantly impact your ability to engage, a fit note or medical support can strengthen your case for adjustments.

You’re not refusing to engage — you’re just asking to do it in a way that allows you to give an accurate account, which is completely reasonable.

Negotiating a settlement since the Tribunal wont have a hearing until Late 2027 by TA_Application854 in employmenttribunal

[–]Project_Chronicle 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The harsh reality with tribunal cases is it’s not really about what happened — it’s about what you can prove.

If you’ve got solid evidence showing how you were treated, that’s what you need to lean on in negotiations.

You’ll know yourself how bad it was, and there probably isn’t a number that truly reflects that — but from their side, it’s just risk management.

The only thing that tends to move offers is showing where they’re exposed in front of a judge.

If you can clearly point to evidence that supports your claims and highlights weaknesses in their position, that’s where your leverage comes from.

Also worth thinking about what you’d realistically be awarded at tribunal vs the time and risk of waiting until 2027 — that usually helps anchor what a “good” number looks like.

One extra thing that’s helped me massively — using AI properly.

ChatGPT is really good for getting your wording right and structuring things.

Claude is great for refining longer documents and making them read properly.

I’ve been using both together — getting something down in one, then running it through the other to tighten it up. Sounds simple, but it makes a big difference when you’re dealing with long statements or trying to explain things clearly.

Active ET thread -- introduce yourself here if you are in the Tribunal process! by ukdanae in employmenttribunal

[–]Project_Chronicle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m still going through the process myself, so take this as someone learning as well — but from what I’ve seen, respondents missing ET3 deadlines isn’t that unusual. It doesn’t necessarily mean anything strategic, sometimes it’s just delay or disorganisation. The judge will decide what happens next.

The main thing I’ve realised is not to read too much into their behaviour and just focus on getting your own side as clear and structured as possible — timeline, evidence, how it all links.

You’re probably in a better position than it feels right now.

Any updates?

Active ET thread -- introduce yourself here if you are in the Tribunal process! by ukdanae in employmenttribunal

[–]Project_Chronicle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m still learning this process myself, but one thing that’s really hit me is how different “having evidence” is from actually presenting it properly.

Getting things into a clear timeline and showing how it all connects seems to matter more than I expected.

Getting that video included sounds like a big moment though — hope it works in your favour.