breach of compromise agreement by employer.
Options
Comments
-
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.
I can't actually - I've been at this game so long it's sort of set there.;)
Come on, semantics aside you know exactly what I mean - the way some posters bang on about the use of 'law' in relation to employee rights/process makes it seem that plod is about to burst in and drag us hapless HR bods away to the chokey....
T'was a lighthearted point really - Glad you agree the OP's argument has little merit however.Go round the green binbags. Turn right at the mouldy George Elliot, forward, forward, and turn left....at the dead badger0 -
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!
why is that?0 -
why is that?
mad rants and conspiracy theories perhaps?
If you can't summarise it in 3 bullets points it's probably too confusing to be a case.
(This is not from the CIPD code of conduct)Debt free 4th April 2007.
New house. Bigger mortgage. MFWB after I have my buffer cash in place.0 -
why is that?
Please see the comments posted by the majority of respondants on pages 1-18....
In a nutshell I think:
a) your CA is badly written in relation to the references
b) your ex-employer initially followed the CA and was then placed in an utterly unenviable position by the actions of someone they had no control over
c) You are going to have a hard time convincing a tribunal of your case given the above
I may be wrong however so let us know how you get on (probably 2013 by the time the backlog of cases allows yours to be heard)Go round the green binbags. Turn right at the mouldy George Elliot, forward, forward, and turn left....at the dead badger0 -
Please see the comments posted by the majority of respondants on pages 1-18....
In a nutshell I think:
a) your CA is badly written in relation to the references
b) your ex-employer initially followed the CA and was then placed in an utterly unenviable position by the actions of someone they had no control over
c) You are going to have a hard time convincing a tribunal of your case given the above
I may be wrong however so let us know how you get on (probably 2013 by the time the backlog of cases allows yours to be heard)
you are wrong and not only in terms of the possible outcome but in terms of the facts as they stand.
a)the ca has been confirmed by the employer to be watertight in terms of references. i.e. nothing other than the text should be given out ever under any circumstances. for what reason they have agreed to accept this, i dont know. their choice and they will have to stand by that. in court potentially.
b) but they actually officially disclosed everything instead of keeping quiet at the very least, thereby giving credence to the ex employee.
c) so im not going to have a hard time convincing anyone given the facts you have just stated, because they aren't the facts!
and who said anything about a tribunal?????0 -
mad rants and conspiracy theories perhaps?
If you can't summarise it in 3 bullets points it's probably too confusing to be a case.
(This is not from the CIPD code of conduct)
3 bullet points. ok then.
1. a watertight CA with a reference that is also watertight (as agreed by ex employer) is signed prior to my departure
2. 'ex employee' contacts a new employer to tip them off about me.
3. new employer contacts old employer who validate ex employee comments with either a verbal or written reference. New employer withdraw job.
Old employer has therefore breached contract with respect to references and there has been financial loss to me as a result.0 -
you are wrong and not only in terms of the possible outcome but in terms of the facts as they stand.
a)the ca has been confirmed by the employer to be watertight in terms of references. for what reason they have agreed to accept this, i dont know. their choice and they will have to stand by that. in court potentially.
b) but they actually officially disclosed everything instead of keeping quiet at the very least, thereby not giving credence to the ex employee.
c) so im not going to have a hard time convincing anyone given the facts you have just stated, because they aren't the facts!
and who said anything about a tribunal?????[/QUOTE]
Ummm. You know 'court' equals 'tribunal' right?
If the company choose to pay you off then more fool them. Would be surprised given your rationale and case but stranger things have happened...Go round the green binbags. Turn right at the mouldy George Elliot, forward, forward, and turn left....at the dead badger0 -
you are wrong and not only in terms of the possible outcome but in terms of the facts as they stand.
a)the ca has been confirmed by the employer to be watertight in terms of references. for what reason they have agreed to accept this, i dont know. their choice and they will have to stand by that. in court potentially.
b) but they actually officially disclosed everything instead of keeping quiet at the very least, thereby not giving credence to the ex employee.
c) so im not going to have a hard time convincing anyone given the facts you have just stated, because they aren't the facts!
and who said anything about a tribunal?????[/QUOTE]
Ummm. You know 'court' equals 'tribunal' right?
The OP clearly had a glittering career in HR.........!! :rotfl:Science adjusts its views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved.
:A Tim Minchin :A
0 -
mildred1978 wrote: »0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.8K Spending & Discounts
- 235.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.2K Life & Family
- 248.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards