We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
breach of compromise agreement by employer.
Comments
-
saintjammyswine wrote: »Err, the whole reason for this farce of a thread is that someone has done exactly that...no?
Yes but lets be honest. I don't really want to look myself in the mirror and see someone who could be compared to any of the characters portrayed in this story...do I?
OP you are a quite a piece of work but I'm just messing. I won't tell my friend of your fiendish (though in my opinion rather delusional) plans.Go round the green binbags. Turn right at the mouldy George Elliot, forward, forward, and turn left....at the dead badger0 -
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.
Precisely!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....
Your answer demonstrates that you are the one who has chosen to misinterpret and apply a meaning to the word "unlawful" that is not accurate.
Interesting that you have placed the word law in inverted commas as if the legislation relating to employment rights is somehow not legitimate. Tell me, has your organisation ever had any interest in complying with the Employment Rights Act 1996, Employment Act 2002, Equality Act 2010 etc. ?
I would expect HR to implement / enforce policies in accordance with the law.
Unfortunately, this sort of attitude only confirms my admittedly prejudiced and negative opinion of HR professionals. Again, I make clear that my comments are not aimed at all HR professionals. I only seek to point out that the bad apples give the rest a bad name.0 -
Yes but lets be honest. I don't really want to look myself in the mirror and see someone who could be compared to any of the characters portrayed in this story...do I?
OP you are a quite a piece of work but I'm just messing. I won't tell my friend of your fiendish (though in my opinion rather delusional) plans.
i know you're only kidding. its just that i have a serious issue with some members of the hr unit where i worked, and im sure they have a problem with me.
and this is how it has played out, unfortunately.
its like when people get divorced, in some cases rational thought goes out of the window and all thats left is a desperate attempt by both parties to ruin each other.0 -
Precisely!
Your answer demonstrates that you are the one who has chosen to misinterpret and apply a meaning to the word "unlawful" that is not accurate.
Interesting that you have placed the word law in inverted commas as if the legislation relating to employment rights is somehow not legitimate. Tell me, has your organisation ever had any interest in complying with the Employment Rights Act 1996, Employment Act 2002, Equality Act 2010 etc. ?
I would expect HR to implement / enforce policies in accordance with the law.
Unfortunately, this sort of attitude only confirms my admittedly prejudiced and negative opinion of HR professionals. Again, I make clear that my comments are not aimed at all HR professionals. I only seek to point out that the bad apples give the rest a bad name.
Oooooooo loving this Bad Apple tag. :cool:
Get real Hiccups. Of course it's vital to abide by employment law.....Just as it's vital to know when to take a calculated risk by bending it when commercial reality rears it's ugly head.
(Bad to the bone.....Bbbbbbbbad....Bad to the bone...:rotfl:)Go round the green binbags. Turn right at the mouldy George Elliot, forward, forward, and turn left....at the dead badger0 -
I should be clear in that I did not encourage the OP to pursue legal action in my original post. My position is that he has every right to follow up his ex-employer to resolve this issue and to ensure that it never happens again, through seeking clarification on the terms of his CA and whatever he needs to do to achieve that.
I'm not saying that this applies in the OP's situation but blagging and bluffing often play a part in negotiating better terms of settlement. This is not a crime.
What annoyed me when reading through this thread was that almost all those who offered "advice" told the OP he did not have a hope of "resolution" on the basis that his CA was not watertight. Note, I said resolution, NOT being successful in legal proceedings.
Furthermore, his CA could be watertight then again it might not be, because after all the OP has not published his CA here for everyone to fully scrutinize. He has provided a few extracts, that is all. Who knows, there may be some provision elsewhere that covers / or amends the potential loopholes in the statements that have been posted in this thread. No can say for sure without reading the CA in its entirety.
Secondly, most posters have gone on and on about the CA not being watertight, whereas the OP's interaction with his ex-employer appear to suggest that this is not being considered as an issue at all (for the moment - I'm not disputing that it will come into question IF the OP proceeds with legal action). Based on what the OP has said, it appears that his "negotiations" with his ex-employer are going well for him so far, why knock that on the basis that his CA is not watertight?
I'm also very uncomfortable about the gang mentality on here sometimes, including the fact that I've been accused of being the OP just because of a different viewpoint. I wholehearted apologise to anyone who thinks this thread should be limited to everyone have a dig at the OP, but that is something I happen to disagree with.0 -
Badass Pete does have a certain ring to it :rotfl:0
-
I should be clear in that I did not encourage the OP to pursue legal action in my original post. My position is that he has every right to follow up his ex-employer to resolve this issue and to ensure that it never happens again, through seeking clarification on the terms of his CA and whatever he needs to do to achieve that.
I'm not saying that this applies in the OP's situation but blagging and bluffing often play a part in negotiating better terms of settlement. This is not a crime.
What annoyed me when reading through this thread was that almost all those who offered "advice" told the OP he did not have a hope of "resolution" on the basis that his CA was not watertight. Note, I said resolution, NOT being successful in legal proceedings.
Furthermore, his CA could be watertight then again it might not be, because after all the OP has not published his CA here for everyone to fully scrutinize. He has provided a few extracts, that is all. Who knows, there may be some provision elsewhere that covers / or amends the potential loopholes in the statements that have been posted in this thread. No can say for sure without reading the CA in its entirety.
Secondly, most posters have gone on and on about the CA not being watertight, whereas the OP's interaction with his ex-employer appear to suggest that this is not being considered as an issue at all (for the moment - I'm not disputing that it will come into question IF the OP proceeds with legal action). Based on what the OP has said, it appears that his "negotiations" with his ex-employer are going well for him so far, why knock that on the basis that his CA is not watertight?
I'm also very uncomfortable about the gang mentality on here sometimes, including the fact that I've been accused of being the OP just because of a different viewpoint. I wholehearted apologise to anyone who thinks this thread should be limited to everyone have a dig at the OP, but that is something I happen to disagree with.
Oh !!!!!! you obviously are the OP why are you still denying it. What a joker.0 -
Cheeky_Monkey wrote: »Badass Pete does have a certain ring to it :rotfl:
It does doesn't it?. Maybe I should be leader of the gang. After all, we have the 'mentality' already. (apparently)Go round the green binbags. Turn right at the mouldy George Elliot, forward, forward, and turn left....at the dead badger0 -
Another thing I would just like to point out is the double standards that often creep in here.
The OP was criticised at one point for potentially not being able to prove or provide evidence of what had happened. However, the way I see it is that he's in a much better position than a lot of people would be because he received information from the new employer in writing.
Remember, Judges can make decisions on the balance of probablity if the evidence isn't clear cut.
Nonetheless, the OP was told to give up.
Yet, at the same time, when the issue cropped up about the employer having to lie to a new employer (in a verbal conversation over the telephone the content of which could be disputed), most people jumped at the possibility of the new employer taking legal action against the ex-employer for losses arising from false reference. Remember, the legal process would be just as rigorous for the new employer, including providing evidence of what was said, and proving evidence of loss and that the loss resulted from the ex-employer's actions.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards