breach of compromise agreement by employer.

saintjammyswine

But YOU talked about it by denying instead of saying "no comment etc.......CA" as well.

ILW

Milkshock wrote: »

admission that there were disciplinary incidents to a new employer would do me no favours, of that i can assure you.

Lying about it will be even worse.

Milkshock

---

ILW

Milkshock wrote: »

so what would you advise me to do?

say there is a CA and i cant say any more than that? or be totally direct and upfront about it and tell them everything?

Tell them everything (unless there is something dodgy).

Milkshock

SarEl wrote: »

And win or loose, I can imagine that if your unproven and unevidenced belief that it is a current employee who has disclosed the information, I can imagine the employer will be more than happy to supply the stamps.

just a point on the true identity of the discloser of information - the supposed ex-employee who 'ratted' me actually left the organisation well before any disciplinary issues had occurred involving me.

therefore surely the only way this information can have come is from someone working within the organisation at present.

Milkshock

ILW wrote: »

Tell them everything (unless there is something dodgy).

and in a sense there was something dodgy....

or maybe not really dodgy, but portayed in a certain way could be viewed as dodgy

ILW

Milkshock wrote: »

and in a sense there was something dodgy....

or maybe not really dodgy, but portayed in a certain way could be viewed as dodgy

Either explain or avoid the issue then, (pref explain) but do not lie. If found out they may sack you months into the job for lying at the interview.

Milkshock

---

ILW

Milkshock wrote: »

but still not mention unless asked directly?

Would seem to be the best option.

But if asked directly or even indirectly you do need to have a plausible explanation at the ready. Denying it will only cause problems.

Uncertain

Milkshock wrote: »

im thinking of amending it slightly actually, again im sure they will agree:


the compromise agreement as it currently stands, and has always stood, since the date of its commencement, allows no room for any further dissemination of information about Milkshock to any prospective employer other than the agreed reference.

upon verbal or written request by any future employer the organisation shall deny any knowledge of any allegations, claims or issues (including formal disciplinary action, informal action or the existence of any compromise agreement involving Milkshock) relating to Milkshock's employment with the organisation that are not strictly in line with the terms and text of the agreed reference.

IF you can get them to write this then fine - it can do no harm but may not be as helpful as you seem to think.

However, I cannot imagine they will agree to the second paragraph as they are agreeing to lie. The best you can hope for is an agreement to issue the agreed reference and say nothing further.

SarEl has repeatedly given you good advice here, advice that would normally cost you a lot of money.

I know it may not seem fair or go against natural justice or however you want to phrase it but it is excellent advice given the current position.

If you know who the problem ex-employee is then it MIGHT just be worth a couple of hundred pounds to get a sharply worded solicitor's letter sent to him. This MIGHT just make him think twice about repeating the behaviour but, realistically, if it doesn't there is little you can do about it.

As I said before, whoever advised you on the wording of the CA is the main culprit here but again, sadly, it may not be realistic to pursue this either.