breach of compromise agreement by employer.

t0rt0ise

Milkshock wrote: »

why does it make a difference which department they came from, since everyone in the organisation is bound by the CA.

As a matter of fact the person does work in HR. And?

That isn't usually so with a CA. It's usually between the employer and the employee only. I can't imagine that your CA was drawn up to include all other employees without their consent or knowledge.

If the person who dobbed you in was an HR employee then they may be disciplined in the usual way as they have breached confidentially and so on, but that has nothing to do with the CA itself.

Milkshock

t0rt0ise wrote: »

That isn't usually so with a CA. It's usually between the employer and the employee only. I can't imagine that your CA was drawn up to include all other employees without their consent or knowledge.

If the person who dobbed you in was an HR employee then they may be disciplined in the usual way as they have breached confidentially and so on, but that has nothing to do with the CA itself.

and who is the employer in this case?

i really do hope you are not trying to say that its impossible for the organisation to breach the Ca as they are all employees and not the employer????

if you are serious i will get the letter of assurance to specify that all employees are included just in case.

justanopinion

Surely if you had worked in HR for 9 years, you would realise that stating, 'No comment,' on a reference follow up would be all the new employer needed to hear to decide against a job offer?

If i sent a reference request and got back a nice factual statement, I would know something untoward had happened... And if a call to the company got a stunted no comment response it would be obvious they did not know what to say.

Milkshock

justanopinion wrote: »

Surely if you had worked in HR for 9 years, you would realise that stating, 'No comment,' on a reference follow up would be all the new employer needed to hear to decide against a job offer?

If i sent a reference request and got back a nice factual statement, I would know something untoward had happened... And if a call to the company got a stunted no comment response it would be obvious they did not know what to say.

possibly

but thats not what happened here.

anyway i know people in hr who were hired on the back of one line references. which were not verified further.

mildred1978

justanopinion wrote: »

Surely if you had worked in HR for 9 years, you would realise that stating, 'No comment,' on a reference follow up would be all the new employer needed to hear to decide against a job offer?

If i sent a reference request and got back a nice factual statement, I would know something untoward had happened... And if a call to the company got a stunted no comment response it would be obvious they did not know what to say.

Given the paltry payoff I doubt he was high ranking. 9/16 years of licking envelopes doesn't get you much professional knowledge. Probably results in something of an attitude though :whistle:

Milkshock

mildred1978 wrote: »

Given the paltry payoff I doubt he was high ranking. 9/16 years of licking envelopes doesn't get you much professional knowledge. Probably results in something of an attitude though :whistle:

the figures and length of service have been deliberately changed by me on this forum at various points to avoid detection.

Milkshock

mildred1978 wrote: »

Given the paltry payoff I doubt he was high ranking. 9/16 years of licking envelopes doesn't get you much professional knowledge. Probably results in something of an attitude though :whistle:

reducing the argument to personal abuse is a sign youve lost anyway.

Hiccups_2

Just read this very interesting thread and felt compelled to comment.

IMO, the ex employer does not need to lie nor do they need to arouse suspicion by saying "no comment". In response to any telephone follow ups, they could simply and truthfully say, "I'm sorry we can only provide a written reference and the information provided in the written reference is correct". After all, most companies don't have the resources to needlessly deal with follow up calls after reference requests, it's time consuming enough to have to deal with the paperwork of providing references in the first place.

Frankly, and perhaps I'm in the minority, the "ex-employee" who caused trouble for the OP, sounds like someone with a grievance of their own as someone who is deliberately stirring up trouble; which is obvious from the content of their e-mail to the new employer. As an employer, I would be more dubious about some random stranger contacting me to make allegations against a person I've just hired (unless they provided evidence with the e-mail). Obviously, I'd want to check it out but even a "no comment" would be enough to cast serious credibility on the stranger's assertions especially the comment that went along the lines of "ask HR who will confirm this".

Hiccups_2

I have to say I'm slightly dismayed at the cynicism and negativity of most of the posters who have responded to the OP. You don't get, if you don't try. There's a big difference between winners and people who just give up. Most of the things we value that have contributed to advancements in our quality of life came into being because someone fought for it or persisted through each failure to create it / find a solution.

At the end of the day the OP has nothing to lose in pushing his ex-employer for clarification on the terms of the CA. The ex-employer did after all sign the original CA and I believe the OP when he/she says that their ex-employer is co-operating in resolving the problem that has arisen, because the whole point of the CA was to get the OP to shut up and go away. They don't want to deal with more time consuming correspondence / complaints.

The difficulty in legal cases is always evidence and I strongly suspect the ex employer has not considered the possibility that the new employer provided the information to the OP in writing. I gather from the OP's posts that he/she has not made reference to the existence of the written correspondence from the new employer. After all, bad news of this kind is usually received via telephone whereby the converstaion can be disputed. I also suspect that the ex-employer is aware of the nasty shenanigans of their own employees to some extent. IMO, they are genuinely trying to appease the OP and to stop this thing in tracks.

As for the comments telling the OP to find another career that has nothing to do with HR - no offence to the few good, intelligent HR people out there - but the overwhelming majority of HR professionals I have come across have been as thick as two short planks and have been completely devoid of any sense of morality or obligation to their profession or their oganisation's employees. It sounds to me like the OP's ex-employer's HR team fit that bill.

No-one on this forum has any idea of how good the OP was at their job, the fact that s/he didn't "get on" in his/her previous job sounds more like office politics than anything else.

I also don't think the OP can be accused of being a troll for wisely altering parts of his/her story to avoid detection, but this only serves to highlight that you can't get legal advice from an anonymous forum, especially when you need to alter the facts to preserve your anonymity.

Good luck OP, hope it all works out.

Emmzi

Hiccups wrote: »

As for the comments telling the OP to find another career that has nothing to do with HR - no offence to the few good, intelligent HR people out there - but the overwhelming majority of HR professionals I have come across have been as thick as two short planks and have been completely devoid of any sense of morality or obligation to their profession or their oganisation's employees. It sounds to me like the OP's ex-employer's HR team fit that bill.

That may be because HR professionals have no real obligation to the employees, only to the employer. I think you are confusing them with "the union."

And am not thick as two short planks. One, maybe. I don't think it is fair to say "no offence.." and then go on to be massively offensive. Is like "I'm not racist but.."