breach of compromise agreement by employer.
Options
Comments
-
you are wrong and not only in terms of the possible outcome but in terms of the facts as they stand.
a)the ca has been confirmed by the employer to be watertight in terms of references. for what reason they have agreed to accept this, i dont know. their choice and they will have to stand by that. in court potentially.
b) but they actually officially disclosed everything instead of keeping quiet at the very least, thereby not giving credence to the ex employee.
c) so im not going to have a hard time convincing anyone given the facts you have just stated, because they aren't the facts!
and who said anything about a tribunal?????[/QUOTE]
Ummm. You know 'court' equals 'tribunal' right?
If the company choose to pay you off then more fool them. Would be surprised given your rationale and case but stranger things have happened...
its not a tribunal its a civil claim.0 -
you are wrong and not only in terms of the possible outcome but in terms of the facts as they stand.
a)the ca has been confirmed by the employer to be watertight in terms of references. for what reason they have agreed to accept this, i dont know. their choice and they will have to stand by that. in court potentially.
b) but they actually officially disclosed everything instead of keeping quiet at the very least, thereby not giving credence to the ex employee.
c) so im not going to have a hard time convincing anyone given the facts you have just stated, because they aren't the facts!
and who said anything about a tribunal?????[/QUOTE]
Ummm. You know 'court' equals 'tribunal' right?
If the company choose to pay you off then more fool them. Would be surprised given your rationale and case but stranger things have happened...
do you want to expand on my rationale
im in the mood for a good laugh at your expense0 -
3 bullet points. ok then.
1. a watertight CA with a reference that is also watertight (as agreed by ex employer) is signed prior to my departure
2. 'ex employee' contacts a new employer to tip them off about me.
3. new employer contacts old employer who validate ex employee comments with either a verbal or written reference. New employer withdraw job.
Old employer has therefore breached contract with respect to references and there has been financial loss to me as a result.
1. The CA as drafted is far from watertight.
2. The CA legally allowed the additional information/for the direct question re disciplinary action to be answered by the ex-employer
3. Job offer recinded BECAUSE YOU LIED. Not because there was disciplinary action against you previously and more coming.Science adjusts its views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved.
:A Tim Minchin :A
0 -
mildred1978 wrote: »
dont you know the difference between a tribunal and a civil claim?
But you're not going to either, are you?Science adjusts its views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved.
:A Tim Minchin :A
0 -
mildred1978 wrote: »1. The CA as drafted is far from watertight.
2. The CA legally allowed the additional information/for the direct question re disciplinary action to be answered by the ex-employer
3. Job offer recinded BECAUSE YOU LIED. Not because there was disciplinary action against you previously and more coming.
1. it is because the employer has agreed that it is now and always has been
2. the employer has accepted that in terms of the CA they should not have answered with anything other than the agreed reference.
3. oh well, we'll see if the evidence that I lied ever appears on court. because it wont as i dont need to produce it. i have other evidence that makes it clear that they spoke to hr and withdrew their job offer based on that alone.0 -
Go round the green binbags. Turn right at the mouldy George Elliot, forward, forward, and turn left....at the dead badger0
-
Really, save your typing fingers, its not worth it!0
-
Oh this gets better... So in the 'Civil court' but not 'In Court'
Why not the High court or Supreme Court too? After all this case is watertight right?
ok semantics aside, yes in the civil court, but i dont think it will become necessary. theyve already essentially admitted wrong doing.0 -
mildred1978 wrote: »0
-
mildred1978 wrote: »1. The CA as drafted is far from watertight.
2. The CA legally allowed the additional information/for the direct question re disciplinary action to be answered by the ex-employer
3. Job offer recinded BECAUSE YOU LIED. Not because there was disciplinary action against you previously and more coming.
Indeed - Throw in the assault and 'poison pen' emails and you have to wonder why people give HR a bad name...Go round the green binbags. Turn right at the mouldy George Elliot, forward, forward, and turn left....at the dead badger0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards