breach of compromise agreement by employer.

Milkshock

Hiccups wrote: »

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".

yes absolutely, and they made that clear to me when they received the email.

as i said as for the withdrawal letter saying i 'lied', i have other correspondence from the new employer indicating that they contacted my ex-employer who confirmed everything that the 'ex-employee' said.
so that withdrawal letter doesn't even need to be produced as evidence for the purposes im going to be using it for as other emails confirm the same thing (without the lying part obviously).

mildred1978

Milkshock wrote: »

yes absolutely, and they made that clear to me when they received the email.

as i said as for the withdrawal letter saying i 'lied', i have other correspondence from the new employer indicating that they contacted my ex-employer who confirmed everything that the 'ex-employee' said.
so that withdrawal letter doesn't even need to be produced as evidences for the purposes im going to be using it for as other emails confirm the same thing (without the lying part obviously).

You do know that talking to yourself is the first sign of madness, don't you? Using capital letters at the starts of sentences doesn't detract from the fact that your AE has exactly the same writing style/syntax as you!! :rotfl:

mildred1978

Milkshock wrote: »

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

I wasn't talking to you.

Is creating a new user to agree with you on your own thread a winning sign then, or a sign that you're floundering? :think:

mildred1978

Hiccups wrote: »

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.

Just in case this magically disappears. Comedy gold

mildred1978

Hiccups wrote: »

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".

Brilliant! :rotfl:

Milkshock

Hiccups wrote: »

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.

you have hit the nail on the head here. i haven't told ex-employer of existence of written evidence from new employer, and they probably think there is very little evidence of anything at all in this case.

what they do know is that a job offer was withdrawn after an ex-employee contacted a new employer with sketchy details of my employment history which contradicts my (and I will say it) glowing reference written by my own manager in the new unit i was working for. beyond that i suspect they know nothing.

you rightly suspect that ex-employers management is deeply suspicoius of hr staff as a whole due to various issues that went on in the unit (such as engineering the firing of their own head of department for misconduct less than 18 months previously)

therefore management senior to and responsible for hr (namely the head who is in overall charge of HR, legal and IT and who authorised the signing of my CA) are as you rightly claim, trying to assert in every way possible, including issuance of a letter of assurance, the total validity of the CA in the very strictest terms, in order a) to bring about internal discipline to its own staff, and b) hopefullly appease me.

the problem they will have now is the amount of evidence (of which they are not aware) that I have to prove that they have broken the CA. Or perhaps they do think I have the evidence and believe that in any case their liabilities are minimal at best.

I also mentioned that I believe the 'rat' is a present member of HR staff, for various reasons. What I will say is that the ex-employee who it is claimed has written this email left long before I signed a CA and was made redundant, and indeed they left long before any issues of my misconduct arose. Therefore how could this ex-employee know of the detail surrounding me? Who but the HR department would have access to my personal file in order to disseminate this information?

Many people here have stated as fact that this ex-employee has a vendetta against me. I'd like to make it clear that this would certainly be news to me, as although I know who they are, I certainly had no quibble with them, and nor they with me. I never had any issue of any kind with them. And neither have I ever contacted them, or they me.

So what we are actually left with is a semi-detailed e-mail which actually signs off with the words "contact anyone in the HR department and they will tell you all about him". Of course it would, as they want someone to phone them up to confirm their own information!

The evidence as to the writer of this e-mail points only in one direction - member or members of the HR unit itself.

mildred1978

Milkshock wrote: »

you have hit the nail on the head here. i haven't told ex-employer of existence of written evidence from new employer, and they probably think there is very little evidence of anything at all in this case.

what they do know is that a job offer was withdrawn after an ex-employee contacted a new employer with sketchy details of my employment history which contradicts my (and I will say it) glowing reference written by my own manager in the new unit i was working for. beyond that i suspect they know nothing.

you rightly suspect that ex-employers management is deeply suspicoius of hr staff as a whole due to various issues that went on in the unit (such as engineering the firing of their own head of department for misconduct less than 18 months previously)

therefore management senior to and responsible for hr (namely the head who is in overall charge of HR, legal and IT and who authorised the signing of my CA) are as you rightly claim, trying assert in every way possible, including issuance of a letter of assurance, the total validity of the CA in the very strictest terms, in order a) to bring about internal discipline to its own staff, and b) hopefullly appease me.

the problem they will have now is the amount of evidence (of which they are not aware) that I have to prove that they have broken the CA. Or perhaps they do and believe that in any case their liabilities are minimal at best.

I also mentioned that I believe the 'rat' is a present member of HR staff, for various reasons. What I will say is that the ex-employee who it is claimed has written this email left long before I signed a CA and was made redundant, and indeed they left long before any issues of my misconduct arose. Therefore how could this ex-employee know of the detail surrounding me? Who but the HR department would have access to my personal file in order to disseminate this information?

Many people here have stated as fact that this ex-employee has a vendetta against me. I'd like to make it clear that this would certainly be news to me, as although I know who they are, I certainly had no quibble with them, and nor they with me. I never had any issue of any kind with them. And neither have I ever contacted them, or they me.

So what we are actually left with is a semi-detailed e-mail which actually signs off with the words "contact anyone in the HR department and they will tell you all about him". Of course it would, as they want someone to phone them up to confirm their own information!

The evidence as to the writer of this e-mail points only in one direction - member or members of the HR unit itself.

Hilarious!

Firstly that your AE has managed to "hit the nail on the head" (how amazing) and then you reply as you but suddenly discover your shift key half way through your reply!!

:rotfl:

Milkshock

mildred1978 wrote: »

Hilarious!

Firstly that your AE has managed to "hit the nail on the head" (how amazing) and then you reply as you but suddenly discover your shift key half way through your reply!!

:rotfl:

ok then....

Hiccups_2

@ mildred1978 - I hate to disappoint, but do you not consider it feasible for someone to have an opinion different to your own or the vast majority of people on this thread? I lurk on this forum and didn't feel compelled to comment until I saw this thread. Just because I have some empathy for the OP's situation and can see it from a different angle, does not mean that I am the OP. In fact, you're more than welcome to contact MSE and ask them to corroborate whether the OP and I share the same I.P. address or indeed geographical location. I'm willing to bet my house, car and all my life savings on the fact that we don't.

I came to the conclusions I did by reading through the OP's posts, without being drawn into the cynical comments of others. After all, the only person on this thread who has access to all the facts of this case is the OP, everyone else can only speculate at best.

mildred1978

Hiccups wrote: »

@ mildred1978 - I hate to disappoint, but do you not consider it feasible for someone to have an opinion different to your own or the vast majority of people on this thread? I lurk on this forum and didn't feel compelled to comment until I saw this thread. Just because I have some empathy for the OP's situation and can see it from a different angle, does not mean that I am the OP. In fact, you're more than welcome to contact MSE and ask them to corroborate whether the OP and I share the same I.P. address or indeed geographical location. I'm willing to bet my house, car and all my life savings on the fact that we don't.

I came to the conclusions I did by reading through the OP's posts, without being drawn into the cynical comments of others. After all, the only person on this thread who has access to all the facts of this case is the OP, everyone else can only speculate at best.

Okay then...... :rotfl: