Employee Confidentiality

saintjammyswine

Oh no, please, just ..... no! - Sorry - meant to be for the Eskimo comment ^^^^

Pete111

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Actually, you have no right to spout about a person's performance to anyone and everyone - whether true or not. Should you even BE in HR if you can't keep private & confidential information to yourself?

Indeed but in answer to a specific question in a greivance it may be pertinent and I can see why it may have come up.

The correct answer is of course. 'We cannot discuss or comment on the views of X and they are irrelevant here..' However I can see why the company may have rationalised giving some detail and reiterate, there is very little risk to them having done so. As Sar El says, it looks like the individual first breached the privacy of the OP's wife - not the company - they merely responded.

As a side note I assure you I'm aware of my HR responsibilities. Just as I am aware of the many many grey areas of employment law/process and the need to apply both commercial reality and commonsense to my work. Go figure....

I'm also interested to understand what you think kicking up a fuss would actually acheive? (other than at best, an apology)

Sambucus_Nigra

saintjammyswine wrote: »

Oh no, please, just ..... no! - Sorry - meant to be for the Eskimo comment ^^^^

I'm not Eskimo - whoever he or she is/was.

I am presuming that they regularly mention solicitors?

Anyway - moving on. I am genuinely surprised how many people would let an ex employer basically slag them off and not at least complain about it. *stunned.

SarEl

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

This is an open forum, and the OP asked for opinions. Just because you have answered does not mean other people cannot answer and give their viewpoint. And that is mine.
.

I am sorry - at what point did I say that other people (such as you) cannot answer? Nowhere. I simply expressed my view that your advice was likely to lead to greater problems than any it might solve. Presumably I am permitted to comment on your views, as you do on mine?

Sambucus_Nigra

Pete111 wrote: »

I'm also interested to understand what you think kicking up a fuss would actually acheive? (other than at best, an apology)

And what's wrong with an apology?

I've put in post 16 what I'd be asking for.

Anyway - this isn't about me; it's about the OP. Presumably they are after opinions so I've made mine very clear on the matter. Even though I'm in the minority here.

saintjammyswine

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

I'm not Eskimo - whoever he or she is/was.

I am presuming that they regularly mention solicitors?

Anyway - moving on. I am genuinely surprised how many people would let an ex employer basically slag them off and not at least complain about it. *stunned.

Dont worry, just have a look at some of their posts.

Pete111

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

And what's wrong with an apology?

I've put in post 16 what I'd be asking for.

Anyway - this isn't about me; it's about the OP. Presumably they are after opinions so I've made mine very clear on the matter. Even though I'm in the minority here.

Nothing at all.....Though your initial calls for 'reparations' and noises about solicitors have (not unreasonably) made myself and others focus on the legal and financial aspects of your advice.

One senses that an apology alone would not be your primary motive here!

Sambucus_Nigra

SarEl wrote: »

I am sorry - at what point did I say that other people (such as you) cannot answer? Nowhere. I simply expressed my view that your advice was likely to lead to greater problems than any it might solve. Presumably I am permitted to comment on your views, as you do on mine?

Absolutely - but you DO tend to say things like 'it seems shrugging it off is best' in answer to me when I have said or intimated no such thing.

Sambucus_Nigra

Pete111 wrote: »

Nothing at all.....Though your initial calls for 'reparations' and noises about solicitors have (not unreasonably) made myself and others focus on the legal and financial aspects of your advice.

One senses that an apology alone would not be your primary motive here!

I never said I'd GET a solicitor. Interesting that you all jumped on that one. I said I'd want to know what reparations they would make before I consulted a solicitor...not that I would ever follow it up with one.

Sambucus_Nigra

saintjammyswine wrote: »

Dont worry, just have a look at some of their posts.

Go on then - spill. I'm intrigued.