Employee Confidentiality

DD54

Hi everyone I am after a bit of advice.

My wife was employed as a travel agent and over time selling targets were imposed on holidays, extras etc. My wife decided that this wasnt for her esepcially as there was no training provided as well as some unethical processed so she decided to resign.

She has kept in touch with one of the current employees who has lodged a grievance and has been off work due to stress.

It has come to light during her friends grievance procedure that my wife was named in a piece of recent correspondence sent to the other party stating that both were under achievers.

The concern I have is firstly my wife parted company some 4 months ago so why is this being brought up in a grieveance she is not involved in. Secondly my wife was never provided with any performance reports during her employement which stated that she was a poor achiever. Finally I am more concerned that if this was the case then it would be strictly between my wife and her previous employer so confidentiality has been breached by the previous employer for divulging to a third party. My wife is duly distressed and upset about this.

Can anyone advise on which way to tackle this?

Thanks

SarEl

Who is the thrid party and why was it sent to them? Because there are lots of quite vaild reasons why an eployer sends something to a third party - such as references. Without knowing the reaosns why this ahppened it is pretty hard to suggest what to do - but I also think it may be hard to do anything anyway. This is a matter of opinion, which is a justification for comment, and there is no general duty of confidentiality with regards to opinion. I can't see what you could hand this on to do anything about it.

InsideInsurance

I think you also have to remember that the information you are receiving is from a disgruntled employee who probably wont be wanting to paint the employer in the best light possible.

In sales teams I worked in many years ago it was very common to have a league table for sales within the team and you could easily infur that those who were consistantly near the bottom of the table were "under achievers".

Your wife has left as she didnt like the company. A disgruntled employee is trying to stir things up. Your wife presumably has had another job since then and therefore knows the reference from the company was acceptable. Personally, your wife can decide to be a friend or not to the former colleague but I wouldnt be concerned by the comments made about being an under achiever

Sambucus_Nigra

I think I'd also be fuming to be honest. And I'd call the HR dept up and ask them
a - why and
b - how they can make reparation before I see a solicitor about it.

I'd get the proof first though - not sure whether you already have that in writing or not.

ILW

I have worked in sales offices where the "underachievers" had to stand up and be jeered at by the other employees. Sales can be tough.

Sambucus_Nigra

ILW wrote: »

I have worked in sales offices where the "underachievers" had to stand up and be jeered at by the other employees. Sales can be tough.

Nice!

Very Brentish...

SarEl

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

I think I'd also be fuming to be honest. And I'd call the HR dept up and ask them
a - why and
b - how they can make reparation before I see a solicitor about it.

I'd get the proof first though - not sure whether you already have that in writing or not.

While I can see your point about being angry - on what basis do you think that a solicitor could do anything? Because the company are hardly going to be impressed by empty threats.

If this was said, and we do not know it was apart from the word, as someone pointed out, of another disgruntled employee, then what exactly has the employer done wrong? They have stated an opinion. They are entilted to state an opinion. But looking at the OP - what could that opinion be based on? Perhaps the fact that the OP's wife didn't like the working environment because of tragets being set on selling etc? Well, I can quite understand why someone wouldn't be happy about that sort of work, yes. But it sort of implies also that she wasn't meeting those targets, doesn't it? So "under-achieving" on targets? So if you could find a piece of law that enabled you to take some form of action - and we don't know that this can be done because we know nothing about the context of this alleged breach of confidence (and there is no general law of confidentiality) and it went to court, the employer will (a) defend on the basis of legitimate opinion and (b) drag up all the evidence of "under-achieving" to validate their opinion. So from being one alleged comment that nobody has heard, it will become an alleged comment that everyone has heard, and almost certainly one that she would loose a case over! And since there has been no loss or damage to her, then there is no award that could be made even if she won, which is unlikely.

It seems that shrugging it off is the best thing to do - it is no skin off her nose, it hasn't done her any damage, and if she hadn't been told this then she would have been none the wiser and a great deal happier. What is to be gained, except a solicitors bill, by trying to do something about it?

Sambucus_Nigra

SarEl wrote: »

While I can see your point about being angry - on what basis do you think that a solicitor could do anything? Because the company are hardly going to be impressed by empty threats.

If this was said, and we do not know it was apart from the word, as someone pointed out, of another disgruntled employee, then what exactly has the employer done wrong? They have stated an opinion. They are entilted to state an opinion. But looking at the OP - what could that opinion be based on? Perhaps the fact that the OP's wife didn't like the working environment because of tragets being set on selling etc? Well, I can quite understand why someone wouldn't be happy about that sort of work, yes. But it sort of implies also that she wasn't meeting those targets, doesn't it? So "under-achieving" on targets? So if you could find a piece of law that enabled you to take some form of action - and we don't know that this can be done because we know nothing about the context of this alleged breach of confidence (and there is no general law of confidentiality) and it went to court, the employer will (a) defend on the basis of legitimate opinion and (b) drag up all the evidence of "under-achieving" to validate their opinion. So from being one alleged comment that nobody has heard, it will become an alleged comment that everyone has heard, and almost certainly one that she would loose a case over! And since there has been no loss or damage to her, then there is no award that could be made even if she won, which is unlikely.

It seems that shrugging it off is the best thing to do - it is no skin off her nose, it hasn't done her any damage, and if she hadn't been told this then she would have been none the wiser and a great deal happier. What is to be gained, except a solicitors bill, by trying to do something about it?

IF I had the evidence......as I said then yes, I'd do something.

It is not good form to go spouting about past employees - we don't know who the third party is - we don't know the ins and outs and as this could harm future employment opportunities it needs to be followed up and an apology needs to be made IF there is evidence and the third party is a relevant person who never needed this information.

I very much doubt that you would let your reputation be damaged in this way - we've seen you get upset when other people have suggested [quite wrongly] that your methods are in question [and that's on an anonymous forum] and I'd expect any professional to follow up something like this.

MrsManda

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

It is not good form to go spouting about past employees - we don't know who the third party is - we don't know the ins and outs and as this could harm future employment opportunities it needs to be followed up and an apology needs to be made IF there is evidence and the third party is a relevant person who never needed this information.

From reading the OP, could it be that the OP's wife's friend named her in the grievance as an example of other employees who have had the same problem? If this was the case, is the employer within his right to use information about the OP's wife to counter the grievance?

Sambucus_Nigra

MrsManda wrote: »

From reading the OP, could it be that the OP's wife's friend named her in the grievance as an example of other employees who have had the same problem? If this was the case, is the employer within his right to use information about the OP's wife to counter the grievance?

Yes if it's correct but if the wife never had a performance review who can they be said to have been underperforming? And - surely that is between HER and the employer? Why would HER performance be being discussed with another employee?

Would you be happy having your performance discussed with someone other than your management and above?

Jarndyce

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Yes if it's correct but if the wife never had a performance review who can they be said to have been underperforming? And - surely that is between HER and the employer? Why would HER performance be being discussed with another employee?

Would you be happy having your performance discussed with someone other than your management and above?

I think if I no longer worked there and had moved on and got another job I wouldn't give two hoots.

This is gossip, nothing more and nothing less. There is nothing the OP can do about it legally or otherwise and they should just move on and forget it.