breach of compromise agreement by employer.

Hiccups_2

@ Emmzi

I made clear that the comment did not apply to the few individuals who are a credit to their profession. As in most professions the best are few and far between. I don't retract the comment because in my personal experience I have found my comment applies and it is those people who are IMO bringing the HR profession into disrepute. Tell me, is it not the case that the CIPD membership requires HR professionals NOT to support managers if their actions are unlawful. Well, the HR professionals I've come across didn't think so and their stupidity in helping these managers covered their tracks more often than not landed their employer in hot water. So, no I wasn't thinking about unions.

Hiccups_2

@ mildred1978 - Like I said, put your money where your mouth is.

Emmzi

Hiccups wrote: »

@ Emmzi

I made clear that the comment did not apply to the few individuals who are a credit to their profession. As in most professions the best are few and far between. I don't retract the comment because in my personal experience I have found my comment applies and it is those people who are IMO bringing the HR profession into disrepute. Tell me, is it not the case that the CIPD membership requires HR professionals NOT to support managers if their actions are unlawful. Well, the HR professionals I've come across didn't think so and their stupidity in helping these managers covered their tracks more often than not landed their employer in hot water. So, no I wasn't thinking about unions.

1. you don't have to be a CIPD member to work in HR

2. The code of conduct is on CIPD website, feel free to have a look. However you can only advise management so far, you are not their mother!

3. your experience =/= the whole profession.

mildred1978

Emmzi wrote: »

1. you don't have to be a CIPD member to work in HR

And you don't have to be qualified to be a member of CIPD

mildred1978

Hmmmmm, so when Milkshock is online, Hiccups is offline. The second Hiccups logs off, guess who appears.....!!!

Come on OP, this is laughable now.

Jarndyce

mildred1978 wrote: »

Hmmmmm, so when Milkshock is online, Hiccups is offline. The second Hiccups logs off, guess who appears.....!!!

Come on OP, this is laughable now.

"The Following User Says Thank You to Hiccups For This Useful Post: Show me >> Milkshock"

:D:D:D:rotfl:

Milkshock

Emmzi wrote: »

1. you don't have to be a CIPD member to work in HR

2. The code of conduct is on CIPD website, feel free to have a look. However you can only advise management so far, you are not their mother!

3. your experience =/= the whole profession.

he said not support if their actions are unlawful.

and anyway the number of times ive seen hr staff collude with managers on actions that are or border on being unlawful (such as my own case) would suggest a level of support goes on.

Pete111

Milkshock wrote: »

he said not support if their actions are unlawful.

and anyway the number of times ive seen hr staff collude with managers on actions that are or border on being unlawful (such as my own case) would suggest a level of support goes on.

I love the way people on T'internet refer to things being 'unlawful' in relation to employment law as if if they were a criminal offence...

Ultimately the only arbiter of employment law is an employment tribunal. Until you get to one then noone knows whether something is within the tenets of employment law or otherwise (or both - tribunals often caveat their findings).

Personally I think the OP is out on a limb with their argument but then again I work in HR so I would say that...best I nip off and do some 'unlawful' colluding!

mildred1978

Milkshock wrote: »

he said not support if their actions are unlawful.

and anyway the number of times ive seen hr staff collude with managers on actions that are or border on being unlawful (such as my own case) would suggest a level of support goes on.

What exactly was your role in HR then?

Jarndyce

Pete111 wrote: »

I love the way people on T'internet refer to things being 'unlawful' in relation to employment law as if if they were a criminal offence...

Ultimately the only arbiter of employment law is an employment tribunal. Until you get to one then noone knows whether something is within the tenets of employment law or otherwise (or both - tribunals often caveat their findings).

Personally I think the OP is out on a limb with their argument but then again I work in HR so I would say that...best I nip off and do some 'unlawful' colluding!

The whole point in using the word 'unlawful' rather than 'illegal' is that it distinguishes between civil and criminal law. Therefore unlawful is the correct term to use, and does not suggest for one minute(to anyone with the slightest knowledge of employment law) that any criminal offence has taken place.

Just as a criminal act isn't officially branded illegal until a court has judged it so, then equally that applies to unlawful acts and tribunlas, but that is a very semantic point. We know that discrimination is unlawful, for example, we only need a tribunal to tell us whether a particular act constitutes discrinination, and is therefore de facto unlawful.

So you can take that smug HR look off your face.:D

Having said that I should make clear I have no sympathy with the OP's arguments whatsoever.