Signing Compromise Agreement

olly300

Kaz101 wrote: »

Hi Pete

Thank you for taking the time to reply. My solicitor does think I have cause to go to Tribunal, as my written evaluations do not match the scores I received in the selection matrix. My only reservation is that as they are a law firm they'll know every trick in the book and will manage to twist their way out of most things and I dont suppose they'll be bothered about costs as they'll just put one of the employment solicitors on to it! Although I have been told by a colleague that they often "throw money" at things to make them go away ...! I'm grateful for your views and I'll consider further what I'm going to do.

As they are currently scaring you now you may as well sign.

Regardless of whether your employer is a law firm or not if they are a large company or a public sector employer they will use every trick in the book.

Other large firms just have legal accounts with solicitors, or employ members of staff who are solicitors. These firms don't mind spending £60,000 on a case where a settlement would cost them an 16th of that.

Some public sector agencies are even worse they will happily spend £100,000s on a case employing multiple solicitors and a barrister where members of staff are blantantly lying because they can't bare to lose an unfair dismissal case.

And they don't have to tell members of staff to keep the dispute quiet as normally some where in the employment contract is a clause that either suspends or gags the employee if they bring a dispute against their employer.

All these firms try and trick you into thinking they have better information about a tribunal than you do. They don't, they rely on your ignorance to win cases on technicalities.

Alternatively they will try and string the case out for years to wear the ex-employee down. As the law stands you are not entitled to a reference if you are in dispute with your ex-employer. (This has been tested in tribunal.)

If you have a solicitor and/or a experienced full-time union rep who has lots of experience in tribunals, and you are prepared to do a bit of reading yourself and ask people questions, then you won't fall into this trap.

It's also advisable to go and see a few tribunals in person to see why employees lose.

If your case is straight forward then you have nothing to lose by going to a tribunal.

Even the common trick of telling you that the tribunal will award costs against you only happens if you are a vexatious litigant, and most parties are given the benefit of the doubt.

Kaz101

Thanks Olly (I think!). They're not scaring me - I'm just wondering if its worth the hassle and if one can ever win against a huge firm ... as you say I'm sure mine will make it last for ever and try and wear me down ... I'll ponder some more...

Debt_Free_Chick

Pete111 wrote: »

The regulations governing workplace dispute procedure are literally just being changed to a new ACAS based system however and I need to get up to speed on the new regime - as such please treat this post as general rather than specific info.

I posted about the new regime here

It doesn't apply to redundancy and doesn't apply where you're already going through the old process.

Pete111

Thanks DFC - Much appreciated.

(Although reading your post will mean I am actually working whilst on MSE - not sure that is appropriate...)

orangutangy

ACAS just launched their pre-ET claims conciliatory service yesterday - they will mediate, nogeotiate on your behalf for free if your employer agrees to try it (and I would have thought being seen NOT to even try it would count against them if it did go to full ET) This used to be done as the first step in the ET process and they have just brought it pre-ET yesterday..worth a go anyway...good luck, in same situ myself with lareg company and deicding what to do, I think it really depends on their culture, do you have any knowledge of other ETs against them

orangutangy

Interesting report on ETs lookon BERR gov website at file11455 (I am not allowed to post a llink), older now from 2003 but worth scnning through if you decide ET

savingholmes

No-one can make the decision for you on this. It is poor practice but not illegal to not take account of your full time service as well as part time service...

You need to weigh up how much you realistically think you can get extra against the risk of losing 2 months money....?

Maxjessdru

Hi, can I just make one point - you said in an earlier post that "My solicitor does think I have cause to go to Tribunal, as my written evaluations do not match the scores I received in the selection matrix.". I assume here that you are talking about appraisals as "written evaluations". I also work in a law firm (employment department) and we have also just been through a redundancy exercise. We were told that appraisals should not be taken into account for redundancies because appraisals and redundacy scoring were for completely different reasons - appraisals are done to improve an employee's sklls and performance and redundancy selection scoring is to see who the company can let go. Also, different bosses have different ways of doing appraisals, whereas it should be the same people scoring everyone in a pool.

I would not, therefore, be completely sure of your having good grounds at a Tribunal if this is the only argument you have.

Hope this makes sense!

Kaz101

Hi Maxjessdru

Yes it does make sense and adds to my feeling that law firms will have every angle covered! We were told that our appraisals would count, and by evaluations I mean that I worked throughout the firm and would be scored by each fee earner I worked for.

If you're a legal sec you'll probably know that most of the other firms were offering 3 to 3.5 weeks salary for every year worked and we were only offered 1 week for every year. Yes, I understand its legal to do so but didnt go down too well with everyone!

Kaz101

Another question (sorry!). I had thought that I was possibly pre-selected as at my first consultation meeting HR were speaking as though I was definitely redundant and so I asked, is everyone at risk being made redundant then? The answer was, no, but that I would be because of my score ... So it seems to me that the decision had already been made?