Williams Lea – Video Hearing Direction, Overtime Evidence Scope, and Procedural Posture

Procedural record of Tribunal-directed evidential scope and system-based overtime assessment

 

Procedural Timeline — Williams Lea Employment Tribunal Matter

 

DateProcedural Event
July 2024Claimant made redundant by Williams Lea
July 2024Redundancy questioned and challenged by the Claimant
Sep 2024ACAS Early Conciliation commenced
Autumn 2024ACAS conciliation ongoing (no resolution reached)
Nov 2024ACAS issues certificate permitting Employment Tribunal claim
Dec 2024ET1 claim prepared and finalised
1 January 2025ET1 submitted (New Year’s Day submission)
6 January 2025Employment Tribunal formally accepts ET1 (first working day after holiday recess)
Jan–Spring 2025Tribunal correspondence and procedural progression
Mid-2025Video hearing listed by Tribunal
Hearing DirectionTribunal limits scope to overtime records and system logs

 

 

Overview

This disclosure records the procedural framing and evidential narrowing imposed by the Employment Tribunal in advance of the forthcoming video hearing listed for July 2026, together with the current representation posture of Williams Lea.

The disclosure is confined to matters expressly directed by the Tribunal and does not rehearse broader issues already documented elsewhere within the Truthfarian corpus.

 

Tribunal Direction – Evidential Scope

The Tribunal has expressly directed that the video hearing is to focus on quantifiable employment evidence, namely:

  • Overtime worked
  • Jira logs and associated task records
  • Time allocation, workload distribution, and recorded activity

The hearing is not a merits trial, nor a forum for narrative dispute. It is a fact-finding and clarification exercise, constrained to documentary and system-generated records.

This disclosure therefore limits itself to that scope.

 

Overtime and System Evidence

Williams Lea’s internal systems including Jira and time-recording workflows constitute the primary evidential substrate for this hearing.

These systems are not neutral abstractions. They are:

  • Employer-controlled
  • Employer-configured
  • Employer-audited

As such, the evidential burden rests squarely on the integrity, completeness, and disclosure of those records.

The Claimant’s position is that overtime was:

  • Systemic
  • Known
  • Recorded through task saturation and log density
  • Normalised rather than exceptional

The Tribunal’s direction implicitly recognises that system data is determinative, not recollection.

 

Separation of Issues and Procedural Scope

This disclosure concerns matters arising within the Williams Lea proceedings that are strictly limited to the issues identified by the Tribunal, namely recorded working time, overtime, and associated evidential records (including Jira and contemporaneous systems).

It is necessary to distinguish those issues from a wider and separate pattern of procedural interference, suppression, and conflict that is documented elsewhere on Truthfarian and involves DAC Beachcroft LLP acting in other proceedings.

No allegation is made that Williams Lea is responsible for, or party to, the conduct documented in those separate disclosures.

 

However, the overlap of legal representation across multiple matters gives rise to a clear requirement for procedural separation, to ensure that:

  • tribunal-limited issues are not conflated with external civil or institutional disputes; and
  • evidential review in this matter remains confined to the scope expressly directed by the Tribunal.

This disclosure is therefore confined to overtime, recorded workload, and related evidential materials only.

All other matters are addressed separately and are not relied upon here.

 

Procedural Integrity

The purpose of this disclosure is preservation, not persuasion.

It records:

  • Tribunal direction
  • Evidential scope
  • Representation posture
  • System-based evidential dependency

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Status

 

This disclosure is published as a procedural record under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.

It does not seek to influence the Tribunal.

It does not assert findings.

It preserves the factual and procedural frame within which the video hearing will occur.

Truthfarian

Truth = Coherence = Equilibrium