breach of compromise agreement by employer.

Milkshock

Jarndyce wrote: »

Oh !!!!!! you obviously are the OP why are you still denying it. What a joker.

he isnt i can assure you.

Hiccups_2

Milkshock wrote: »

he isnt i can assure you.

She...........

Emmzi

Milkshock wrote: »

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.

1. the employer can't agree it is watertight, a judge or an ET would decide that

2. got the employee's name? got a confession?

3. as previously discussed this was not in the CA, whatever the employer may have said subsequently. If you are saying "verbal or written" then you o not have the proof of what was said. And you may be in an excluded career, Again ET or judge to decide.

Your case is far from waterproof. And you DO sound like a mad conspiracy theorist...

Milkshock

Hiccups wrote: »

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.

the issue as it stands is the CA states 'on written request the employer shall provide a reference in line with that at schedule 2 to any prospective future employer.' some here have taken that to give the ex employer an escape route.

i dont agree, neither does my lawyer, and neither does the ex employer, which is why they are writing me a letter of assurance that their understanding of the agreement has always been that only the reference should ever be provided whenever or however the request comes about.

yet still people are banging on about my ca being holey.

Emmzi

Well, soon you will have a judge or an ET to decide for you. Who gives a stuff what we think?? You have a lawyer, you are paying for their advice, so surely you trust it more than random t'internet people?

Have a cuppa, wait for your day of victory, then you may come back and do the told you so dance!

Now. Was there anything else you wanted?

Milkshock

Emmzi wrote: »

1. the employer can't agree it is watertight, a judge or an ET would decide that

2. got the employee's name? got a confession?

3. as previously discussed this was not in the CA, whatever the employer may have said subsequently. If you are saying "verbal or written" then you o not have the proof of what was said. And you may be in an excluded career, Again ET or judge to decide.

Your case is far from waterproof. And you DO sound like a mad conspiracy theorist...

1. so if all parties that have signed the agreement understand that it means you cant provide any other detail, you think a judge would ignore that? interesting.

2. yes. i have a name. in writing from new employer.

3. i have the proof in writing from new employer, who wrote to me and said 'you hr department and manager confirmed to us xyz'. if this confirmation was written or verbal i dont know, but they did say it. one way or the other.

and for your other point, see 1, above. not in an excluded career.

Milkshock

Emmzi wrote: »

Well, soon you will have a judge or an ET to decide for you. Who gives a stuff what we think?? You have a lawyer, you are paying for their advice, so surely you trust it more than random t'internet people?

Have a cuppa, wait for your day of victory, then you may come back and do the told you so dance!

Now. Was there anything else you wanted?

no.

you can go now.:rotfl:

mildred1978

Milkshock wrote: »

the issue as it stands is the CA states 'on written request the employer shall provide a reference in line with that at schedule 2 to any prospective future employer.' some here have taken that to give the ex employer an escape route.

i dont agree, neither does my lawyer, and neither does the ex employer, which is why they are writing me a letter of assurance that their understanding of the agreement has always been that only the reference should ever be provided whenever or however the request comes about.

yet still people are banging on about my ca being holey.

I'm amazed that letter isn't in your grubby hands already

mildred1978

Milkshock wrote: »

1. so if all parties that have signed the agreement understand that it means you cant provide any other detail, you think a judge would ignore that? interesting.

So in 10 years time, when the current staff have gone, you think their replacements will read the words WHICH FORM THE LEGAL CONTRACT in the way you do, do you?

mildred1978

Milkshock wrote: »

the issue as it stands is the CA states 'on written request the employer shall provide a reference in line with that at schedule 2 to any prospective future employer.' some here have taken that to give the ex employer an escape route.

Which was provided. Your CA AS LEGALLY WORDED doesn't prevent them from answering follow up questions. And you can't now add that retrospectively.

So LEGALLY, they did nothing wrong!