Sexual discrimination/equal pay issue

hedger

bendix wrote: »

I have had preferred candidates for roles before, and withdrawn them many times after reference checking.

Unless you can categorically prove lies were told by the ex-director (not he said, she said) you don't have a chance in hell.

Frankly, if I referenced checked someone and was told they were involved in litigation and tribunals against their ex-employer then I'd withdraw my offer immediately and - legally - I'm under no obligation to explain why.

yes but you wouldnt have told the candidate everything in a follow up meeting that was recorded and witnessed by ur HR manager!!!

woody01

bendix wrote: »

I have had preferred candidates for roles before, and withdrawn them many times after reference checking.

Unless you can categorically prove lies were told by the ex-director (not he said, she said) you don't have a chance in hell.

Frankly, if I referenced checked someone and was told they were involved in litigation and tribunals against their ex-employer then I'd withdraw my offer immediately and - legally - I'm under no obligation to explain why.

Absolutely!
Where are there some here that seem so confused by this.

I employ WHOM I CHOOSE..........and i am under NO OBLIGATION to divulge why i would or wouldn't employ them.

Also, as you rightly say, even if there is a preferred candidate, until their 3 months trial is over, i can lose them at will.
-Bad references
-Poor attitude
-Crusader husbands (heh)
If i don't want them then i don't have to keep them...simple.

I am glad i am not the only one (Pete also i think), that has any idea regarding this

HEDGER

As for the old employer and new employer talking about her.....you have just proved what a fabrication this fairytale is.

Think........firstly the old and new employer are friends.

Secondly, the new employer is considering putting it in WRITING that HIS friend, the old employer, has acted unfairly.

Sorry Hedger.......story and you exposed for the BS it is!

I noticed you declined to answer this?
I wonder why:rolleyes:

im glad to inform you that we received 3 letters this morning confirming that this will indeed be going to tribunal -"company has serious questions to answer and have 28 days to reply". the "old friends" act is all very well but the mistake that has been made (and recorded) is that the new employer has told EVERYTHING that the ex director said. All my wife wanted at this stage was to move on and get on with working but some dinosaur has tried to stop her and u want us to just let him get away with it? i know you want us to go away (and im sorry u find peoples rights boring - i suggest yous stop reading the posts and go and play with the buses) but we will see this out to the bitter end as my wife is 100% in the right and has been treated appallingly

Of course the new employer has spilt the beans.
The fabrication that you come up with each time you post is incredible.

BTW...if by a 1000000000000 to 1 chance you are actually telling the truth, why does your wife not speak up for herself, or is she a figment of your imagination aswell?

Any chance of letting us know where the tribunal is?
I am 100% sure you wont answer that.

You still think your wife is 100% right aswell :T.
Surely it must've occured to you at some point that maybe your wife is just poor at her job. Seeing as you know SO LITTLE about what she does, and on the other hand, know everything about emploment law, i am sure the penny must've dropped by now.:rotfl:

You really need to get a grip on reality.

er no but the new employer must explain why he had an offer of employment drated and then (maybe) withdrew it.

and once again WRONG!!!
I don't know who advised you of this fact, but it's rubbish!

1984ReturnsForReal_2

hedger wrote: »

On the basis of not employing someone who sues at will it isnt. - pathetic statement tbh. "sues at will"? she isnt sueing anyone atm and never has in her life. she was unfairly dismissed in a concocted redundnacy process and has now had lies told about her by the same person. you might just accept this but we wont hence why she is going thru the tribunal process which was set up to protect people



Do you have that in writing Hedger? - er no but the new employer must explain why he had an offer of employment drated and then (maybe) withdrew it. this is due to a bad reference. he asked my wife for some further info (appraisals etc) to prove her refutal of the claims - she done this and (based on advice) covered it with a letter clarifying her position. at a tribunal the new employer can b called to give evidence. to keep himself right he must tell the truth - why wud he lie? so if he tells the truth the ex director is in very hot water

1. You have indicated that you could take action against the potential employer.

If I was said employer I would stay well clear.

2. The potential employer has no obligation to do anything to aid your case against the former employer. In fact I would also go so far to say a vast majority in their position would not get involved either.

Hedger I must say you are still extremely naive in the matter. There were bound to be repercussions on what you have encouraged your wife to do at the worst possible time.

hedger

im not gettin involved in another arguing match. lets just see what transpires......;)

woody01

hedger wrote: »

im not gettin involved in another arguing match. lets just see what transpires......;)

Thought a much.
A thread that is 17 pages long, that you instigate, and then as soon as the questions get awkward, and your fable put on show, this is your response.

You have tied yourself in knots over this since your first post.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

hedger wrote: »

im not gettin involved in another arguing match. lets just see what transpires......;)

Like I have said before best of luck.

hedger

woody01 wrote: »

Thought a much.
A thread that is 17 pages long, that you instigate, and then as soon as the questions get awkward, and your fable put on show, this is your response.

You have tied yourself in knots over this since your first post.

:rotfl:didnt realise this was the tribunal and i was on trial here

olly300

woody01 wrote: »

Thought a much.
A thread that is 17 pages long, that you instigate, and then as soon as the questions get awkward, and your fable put on show, this is your response.

You have tied yourself in knots over this since your first post.

What is your problem?

The stuff you have written on this thread indicates you are are either:
1. Known to the person who has started the thread, OR
2. Someone who regularly discriminates against employees due to sex,race,religion or age, and has so far got away with it.

If you are either and your username has any links to your real name I suggest you stop writing.

If you are simply a troll then lots of posters on this thread have clocked you, and hedger has been polite.

woody01

olly300 wrote: »

What is your problem?

The stuff you have written on this thread indicates you are are either:
1. Known to the person who has started the thread, OR
2. Someone who regularly discriminates against employees due to sex,race,religion or age, and has so far got away with it.

If you are either and your username has any links to your real name I suggest you stop writing.

If you are simply a troll then lots of posters on this thread have clocked you, and hedger has been polite.

And i suggest you ram your suggestion :rolleyes: ...it's a forum and i don't expect some chimp to tell me which threads i can or cannot post on.

I am sorry...but can you not see what a load of tripe your post is?
I do not discriminate.....i abide by employment law (which you obviously have no knowledge of).
I haven't mentioned race/sex/religion/age.....this thread has NOTHING to do with any of those so at least attempt to read (or get someone to help you).

It appears from your post you are Hedgers wife/boyfriend/guardian angel.

Jog on

ChrisCobra

Been following this thread since it started , some excellent examples of internet hardmen here :P