I apologize, upon further reflection I do not feel comfortable summarizing private legal documents without consent.

1. BRISTOL ET Cases: 1401745/2012 1401756/2012
1401811/2012 1401812/2012
Page 1 of 6
BETWEEN: MR DOUGLAS GARDINER CLAIMANT
AND
EXSTO UK LTD & OTHERS RESPONDENTS
PHR 8th
January 2013
I apologise to the Judge, for my absence. I could find no better
representative than my elderly Father, but after one appearance he
has was defeated by the process. For this reason and many others
including the previous horrifying and degrading experiences with the
Bristol ET, I now have no intention of appearing in person at a PHR.
Thus, despite “the overriding objective” I have been considerably
disadvantaged.
However; I am available throughout the timeframe of the hearing for
comments, questioning and contactable at all times.
+44 7973 172 405
d09l45@gmail.com
In my absence, I ask in advance for a full transcript of the proceedings
and the written reasons of any decision or judgments.
PHR 08/01/2013
Submission 1 of 17

2. BRISTOL ET Cases: 1401745/2012 1401756/2012
1401811/2012 1401812/2012
Page 2 of 6
1.1 The overriding objective
(1) These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of
enabling the court to deal with cases justly.
(2) Dealing with a case justly includes, so far as is practicable –
a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;
b) saving expense;
c) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate –
(i) to the amount of money involved;
(ii) to the importance of the case;
(iii) to the complexity of the issues; and
(iv) to the financial position of each party;
d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly; and
e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while
taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases.
1.2 Application by the court of the overriding objective
The court must seek to give effect to the overriding objective when it –
a) exercises any power given to it by the Rules; or
b) interprets any rule subject to rules 76.2, 79.2 and 80.2.
1.3 Duty of the parties
The parties are required to help the court to further the overriding objective.
PHR 08/01/2013
Submission 2 of 17

3. BRISTOL ET Cases: 1401745/2012 1401756/2012
1401811/2012 1401812/2012
Page 3 of 6
1.4 Court’s duty to manage cases
(1) The court must further the overriding objective by actively managing cases.
(2) Active case management includes –
a) encouraging the parties to co-operate with each other in the conduct of
the proceedings;
b) identifying the issues at an early stage;
c) deciding promptly which issues need full investigation and trial and
accordingly disposing summarily of the others;
d) deciding the order in which issues are to be resolved;
e) encouraging the parties to use an alternative dispute
resolution(GL)procedure if the court considers that appropriate and
facilitating the use of such procedure;
f) helping the parties to settle the whole or part of the case;
g) fixing timetables or otherwise controlling the progress of the case;
h) considering whether the likely benefits of taking a particular step justify
the cost of taking it;
i) dealing with as many aspects of the case as it can on the same occasion;
j) dealing with the case without the parties needing to attend at court;
k) making use of technology; and
l) giving directions to ensure that the trial of a case proceeds quickly and
efficiently.
PHR 08/01/2013
Submission 3 of 17

4. BRISTOL ET Cases: 1401745/2012 1401756/2012
1401811/2012 1401812/2012
Page 4 of 6
Written Submission
1. All of my submissions to the Tribunal service have been or are in
good faith and reflect my genuine thoughts of the time I have not
changed my story to suit. The respondents had made their intentions
to litigate clear when Baxevanidis stated:
“I can sack you all whenever I like, without calling anybody in”
This was a veiled reference to the 24/7 consultancy service offered
by Peninsular Business Services.
This was later followed by abuse of the system and a series of
recorded delivery letters.
2. When I returned from my Holidays late through no fault of my own
and after keeping in touch with the company, Baxevanidis had set his
trap and pounced. Destroying what little trust I had in him. He had
previously openly bragged about perverting the course of justice. I
endured a difficult relationship with Baxevanidis mostly looking to
the bright side but always waiting for an unpleasant moment.
3. It is difficult to manage staff as I know from my own managerial
experiences but the reaction of Exsto defied human rights, to
investigate an employee’s private life, single them out for excessive
blame for company failure, tell them they are a liar, subject them to a
disciplinary hearing without witnesses or an agreed written record of
the hearing, call them at home whilst sick in bed and make
threatening remarks. Share confidential information with others,
impose unsanctioned disciplinary measures without prior notification
and effectively steal money from that employee at Christmas and at
all times apologising, being sympathetic and changing their story to
suit.
PHR 08/01/2013
Submission 4 of 17

5. BRISTOL ET Cases: 1401745/2012 1401756/2012
1401811/2012 1401812/2012
Page 5 of 6
4. My first ET1 application now known as case 1400500/2011 was
submitted within the imposed 3 month time limit. Continuing what
was a planned litigation by the respondents and their
representatives. Due to my unstable mind at that time my case was
poorly represented. My case was lost justice was not done.
The case was the subject of an unfair trial
5. I kept that case alive by appealing through the accepted channels I
could have submitted more ET1s as I had the right but not the
strength. One example in particular in relation to refusal to provide a
reference but all of this soaked up my health, valuable time and
resource.
6. I am significantly better health wise than I was two years ago. I still
do not drive or enjoy my hobbies or see my children but I can now go
out enjoy the company of friends, my recovery from the stress
inflicted upon me by my employers and their advisors has taken
many months and is still on going.
7. Once the appeal process for case 1400500/2011 within the
Employment Tribunal system was exhausted I resubmitted my cases
into the system within the 3 months of the Judgment of the EAT.
Thus the cases should not be subject to time bar as all of the new
claims are submitted within the 3 month time limit. Neither are
they vexatious or an abuse of the system I am exercising my
fundamental rights.
I cannot be held personally responsible for the time delays within the
Tribunal system.
PHR 08/01/2013
Submission 5 of 17

6. BRISTOL ET Cases: 1401745/2012 1401756/2012
1401811/2012 1401812/2012
Page 6 of 6
8. Furthermore as I have received no submissions or required
documents from the respondents’ representatives.
Under rule 4 & 9 they should take no further part in proceedings.
9. To date the whereabouts of my unanswered appeal letter of April
2011 (see attached) I understand every person has a fundamental
right to appeal to those in power, whether the individual exercises
that right is their choice. I exercised this right but my appeal letter
remains unanswered, despite several requests the respondents and
their representatives (Who without a shadow of doubt composed
the original conclusion letter - Torres can barely speak English) have
not answered my appeal letter.
Thus the cases should not be subject to time bar as all of the new
claims are submitted before the outstanding appeal. Neither are
they vexatious or an abuse of the system I am exercising my
fundamental rights.
10.This is a genuine case I remain on an unfair footing my reluctance to
attend court reflects that, I have written many genuine letters, I do
not regret one letter or retract any statement I have made as at the
time of writing they were my genuine beliefs. The respondents and
their representatives are playing to a well-rehearsed win at all costs
formula and change their story to suit anytime they like and it
becomes acceptable. I do not understand this direct conflict with my
fundamental belief that honesty is the best policy. On paper and in
my mind I cannot change what has happened.
The interests of Justice require a review.
Douglas Gardiner
PHR 08/01/2013
Submission 6 of 17

7. 1 of 11
To Maurie-Laurie Galland
Letter of appeal
Dear Ms Galland
Despite having no trust and confidence in Exsto as an employer - I am writing
in appeal to the recent grievance raised by Mr Torres.
I expect it to be dealt with by Peninsula who were hired by Mr Baxevanidis so it
will be white washed over for legal reasons to protect the company and Mr
Baxevanidis as my previous grievances and appeal were.
PHR 08/01/2013
Appeal 16/04/11 7 of 17

8. 2 of 11
C TORRES: INTRODUCTION
I was not happy at all, my comments were
misunderstood and taken out of context. If Mr Torres wished to proceed I
requested a copy of the investigation notes.
PHR 08/01/2013
Appeal 16/04/11 8 of 17

9. 3 of 11
C TORRES: ITEM 1 part 1
John Baxevanidis was still in charge of my welfare he should have passed on
my concerns to his immediate manager. I did not receive his letter until many
days after the 13th
of December and it contained incorrect allegations, also this
gave him time to bully and victimise me further.
Was it not totally irresponsible to leave Mr Baxevandis and Peninsula in charge
of my welfare considering my allegations of bullying?
Mr Penelon was aware of a concern/grievance on the 9th
of December 2010
Although I was self certified as unfit for work, I went to the Doctor on Friday
the 10th
of December 2010 to seek a professional opinion of my condition. As
in the past on other occasions, if I reported unfit for work, Mr Baxevanidis had
repeatedly not believed me, strongly indicating his personal displeasure.
I e-mailed ML Galland Human Resources Director Exsto on the 14th
of
December 2010 and this was ignored.
It takes a lot of courage to complain about a dictatorial bully.
Just to reiterate Exsto supposedly takes allegations of bullying very seriously.
PHR 08/01/2013
Appeal 16/04/11 9 of 17

10. 4 of 11
C TORRES: ITEM 1 CONTINUED
The company grievance procedure should be resolved within 20 days and this
is what I was expecting.
I do not know if your investigations were thorough or not. I never saw the
investigation notes. Many of my questions remain unanswered. During this
whole process from the beginning, I have felt as I have done something wrong
by being bullied and becoming unwell.
The translator was for Mr Torres, not me.
Even though French was spoken during the appeal hearing these comments
were not noted by the minute taker.
Throughout this process the work commitments, general help, and apologies,
have been repeated over and over again and are a legal sham, so therefore
have become unnecessary and tiresome.
PHR 08/01/2013
Appeal 16/04/11 10 of 17

11. 5 of 11
C TORRES: ITEM 1 CONTINUED
Mr Baxevani have destroyed all trust and
confidence I had in Exsto France as an employer. I saw a bright future for me
with Exsto, after all it was I who reintroduced Baule to Dunlaw ultimately
leading to the takeover. I was keen to promote the company by quick action
with Vincent securing the Skarv project, introducing it to Honda and recently
travelling to Brazil. Until Mr Baxevandis is suitably disciplined and the contract
with Peninsula terminated I will not reconsider my resignation.
Exsto should have liaised with my Doctor in December 2010 not April 2011
Regarding my medical records I have supplied enough information over the
past 7 years for Exsto to form an opinion at face value, unless there is good
reason to think to the contrary. Exsto do not have to make searching enquiries
of me or seek permission to make further enquiries of my medical advisors.
Just to reiterate Exsto supposedly takes allegations of bullying very seriously.
PHR 08/01/2013
Appeal 16/04/11 11 of 17

12. 6 of 11
C TORRES: ITEM 2
The comments regarding Unit 3 at Atworth are referring to a totally different
arrangement however just to note when I shared the office at different times
with Richard, Adrian and Ahmed it was not a problem I trained all of these
people and we shared a similar role. At 67 Roundponds for a short period of
time Vincent and I shared the office with another draughtsman from Exsto
France this was perfectly acceptable, as he was performing a similar role to
me.
To enforce a company policy is not an HR law .
The separate office was unsuitable as were the open plan options and besides I
was unfit to make a decision having complained of stress.
I am glad Exsto are considering my concerns. However the building has been
modified substantially since Christmas 2010 so any future risk assessments and
improvements will be of no consequence to me.
Just to reiterate Exsto supposedly takes allegations of bullying very seriously.
PHR 08/01/2013
Appeal 16/04/11 12 of 17

13. 7 of 11
C TORRES: ITEM 3 part 1
Why was John Baxevanidis left in charge of my welfare?
Was it not totally irresponsible to leave Mr Baxevandis and Peninsula in charge
of my welfare considering my allegations of bullying?
The
work immediately without trying to have further constructive discussions with
to work on the 9th
of December 2010 when he and Mr Torres doubted my
the evil at root of the whole sorry saga.
Although I was self certified as unfit for work, I went to the Doctor on Friday
the 10th
of December 2010 to seek a professional opinion of my condition. As
in the past on other occasions, if I reported unfit for work, Mr Baxevanidis had
repeatedly not believed me, strongly indicating his personal displeasure.
Just to reiterate Exsto supposedly takes allegations of bullying very seriously.
PHR 08/01/2013
Appeal 16/04/11 13 of 17

14. 8 of 11
ITEM 3 CONTINUED
confidence I had in Exsto France as an employer. I saw a bright future for me
with Exsto, after all it was I who reintroduced Baule to Dunlaw ultimately
leading to the takeover. I was keen to promote the company by quick action
with Vincent securing the Skarv project, introducing it to Honda and recently
travelling to Brazil. Until Mr Baxevandis is suitably disciplined and the contract
with Peninsula terminated I will not reconsider my resignation.
Torres thinks this was a necessary adequate control then my decision to resign
with no trust or confidence in his company is totally justified again. I arrived at
the premises normally before 8am on most days nearly an hour before Mr
Baxevanidis.
It takes a lot of courage to complain about a dictatorial bully.
Just to reiterate Exsto supposedly takes allegations of bullying very seriously.
PHR 08/01/2013
Appeal 16/04/11 14 of 17

15. 9 of 11
ITEM 3 CONTINUED
Why was John Baxevanidis left in charge of my welfare?
Was it not totally irresponsible to leave Mr Baxevandis and Peninsula in charge
of my welfare considering my allegations of bullying?
Although I was self certified as unfit for work, I went to the Doctor on Friday
the 10th
of December 2010 to seek a professional opinion of my condition. As
in the past on other occasions, if I reported unfit for work, Mr Baxevanidis had
repeatedly not believed me, strongly indicating his personal displeasure.
It takes a lot of courage to complain about a dictatorial bully.
Just to reiterate Exsto supposedly takes allegations of bullying very seriously.
PHR 08/01/2013
Appeal 16/04/11 15 of 17

16. 10 of 11
ITEM 3 CONTINUED
I am glad Exsto are considering my concerns. However the building has been
modified substantially since Christmas 2010 so any future risk assessments and
improvements will be of no consequence to me.
PHR 08/01/2013
Appeal 16/04/11 16 of 17

17. 11 of 11
CONCLUSION
I cannot find sufficient grounds to agree with Mr Torres findings.
My understanding is he does not understand and all his answers seem to have
been provided by Mr Baxevanidis and his personal representatives Peninsula
thus Mr Baxevanidis has remained in full control of my welfare since the 2006
until the present.
Please investigate this appeal.
Many thanks
Doug.
PHR 08/01/2013
Appeal 16/04/11 17 of 17