breach of compromise agreement by employer.

SarEl

LadyMissA wrote: »

god how boring. Why could this person SarEl say 'sorry I am a lawyer etc' and not just lay into me. Very heavy agressively. If I am wrong I am wrong but they is no need to get personal

Perhaps because you have been told by many people to stop telling posters that you know something to be a fact when you do not...

LadyMissA wrote: »

then I am telling you , you can sue them for loss of earnings at a tribunal

Loss of earning is your salary x the years left to work till you retire!

... and yet you persist in ignoring the fact that you do not know what you are talking about, arguing about having been told it by someone else (which is what you always say when challenged) as though that makes it true, and then you go on to make stuff up about what people are saying to make yoruself right.

It is wildly unfair to posters to claim to know something for a fact, when you are in fact simply repeating something you may have heard, and which you have no perosnal knowledge of being a truth. Having an opinion on a situation is one thing - telling people that they have a legal case when you have no clue about the law is lying. You may not see it that way - but prteending to have knowledge that you do not have is lying to people. And God help them if they then take some action based on what you have told them. What you are doing is dangerous to other people, and you simply do not listen when you are told this time after time

LadyMissA

SarEl wrote: »

Perhaps because you have been told by many people to stop telling posters that you know something to be a fact when you do not...



... and yet you persist in ignoring the fact that you do not know what you are talking about, arguing about having been told it by someone else (which is what you always say when challenged) as though that makes it true, and then you go on to make stuff up about what people are saying to make yoruself right.

It is wildly unfair to posters to claim to know something for a fact, when you are in fact simply repeating something you may have heard, and which you have no perosnal knowledge of being a truth. Having an opinion on a situation is one thing - telling people that they have a legal case when you have no clue about the law is lying. You may not see it that way - but prteending to have knowledge that you do not have is lying to people. And God help them if they then take some action based on what you have told them. What you are doing is dangerous to other people, and you simply do not listen when you are told this time after time

I know nothing at all - thanks

It wasn't something i heard it was what the HR Manager told me when they were going to let me go if I hadn't been able to explain the wrong reference

I wont bother to post anything again -horray you all say - thanks for being so friendly

Errata

I have no legal knowledge, so I'm guessing. If the old employer had told the prospective employer 'We refer you to the reference we sent you' end of conversation, the new employer would have been certain what they were smelling was a rat and would not have confirmed the job offer - which I presume was subject to satisfactory references, which the new employer would have decided were not satisfactory.

Mistral001

Milkshock wrote: »

im not saying im suing new employer, im suing ex employer...

I see. You probably need to engage a solicitor in that case. However, the ex-employer will probably fight the case very strongly as well. They will see it as a matter of principle. They might even think they will loose the case, but will want their day in court none-the-less, even if they have to pay out a bit more than settling out of court.

Milkshock

---

Errata

Apols - I didn't understand the timeline (or missed a post, easily done).

Uncertain

k3lvc wrote: »

In which case I'm interested what the experts have to say. I'd expect the CA to be provided as a first request but if the new employer came back with a specific request I can't imagine that your ex-employer would misrepresent the situation (or ignore the question)

Don't know if I qualify as an "expert" but here goes.......

Had the compromise agreement been properly worded the ex-employer would have had no alternative but to ignore the question. They would have signed a legally binding agreement to give an agreed reference and no more. The moment they go beyond this they leave themselves open to a claim for breach of contract.

They did not have to enter into the agreement. If they felt it placed them in a difficult position the correct thing to have done was refused to sign. They entered into the agreement for commercial reasons presumably because they felt is was cheaper than the cost of defending or paying a claim from their employee.

There is no legal requirement for an employer to provide a reference at all. However, by signing an agreement they entered into a contractual agreement to provide one in an agreed form. If they then renege on this they are in breach of contract. If honouring the agreement opens them up to a claim from some other party that is their problem, they should have thought of that before they signed!

Milkshock

[

---

sarahdd

The CA means they can only state whats on the reference agreed if your new job wants to know anyhting else they would have to decline to answer. if they ask about disiplin then your employer would have to state no with a CA and like the person said thats their problem.

Take legal action, I think you can get in terms of payout the salary you have missed out on. That is wages for new job for how many years the court see fit. Go for it you have the law on your side your P E is in breach of contract.

SarEl

sarahdd wrote: »

The CA means they can only state whats on the reference agreed if your new job wants to know anyhting else they would have to decline to answer. if they ask about disiplin then your employer would have to state no with a CA and like the person said thats their problem.

Take legal action, I think you can get in terms of payout the salary you have missed out on. That is wages for new job for how many years the court see fit. Go for it you have the law on your side your P E is in breach of contract.

You did read the thread, didn't you? The whole point of the lengthy debate here was specifically that the clause restricting the employer from disclosing anything except the reference was not included in the CA, and the employer was therefore not bound by such a clause.

And it is not true to say that "if they ask about disiplin then your employer would have to state no with a CA". The employer would if the CA contained a clause that restructed their right to disclose further information, which this one appears not to do, have to decline to answer - if the say "no" they are lying, and they cannot lie unless they wish to be sued should the new employer find out that the reference was not truthful.