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
-
i think the point is a lot of actions managers and employers take are not done in an 'above board' manner. if they were so confident about their actions why not make them officially known rather than conduct whispering campaigns or other underhand tactics IF there is no prospect of any damage being done to their reputation?
of course the point is there IS a risk to themselves in law or even simply to their own jobs, and they dont want to be seen to be the ones left holding the gun.
Here's the thing. In a large % of employee/employer disputes one side will believe the other is in the wrong even if the other feels they have done everything 'by the book'. Interpretation of employment law or processes within it can vary by large degrees and as such even a 'watertight' process can be picked at by a determined lawyer - even if the only real aim of this is to p*ss off the employer and waste time until they make a payment to make the problem go away.
As such, it is not uncommon for employers to truncate or even forgo a formal process and try to jump straight to an end result. This will likely be against the strict letter of employment law but may be a pragmatic commercial decision with a degree of risk attached and accepted.
As I tell my managers, ultimately they can do whatever they want...as long as they are prepared to take personal responsibility for it afterwards and bear the cost out of departmental budgets. This usually gives them pause for thought (!) and results in a sensible approach to a situation that minimises risk to the employer and perhaps also, reduces time 'wasted' on process.
Each dispute situation will be different and require tailored approaches. many will be 100% straight down the line, others more complex involving perhaps an honest 'off the record' chat and a few so inherently risky that they require a compromise agreement on the table as a first step.
The above is what makes HR interesting for me. If it was black and white all the time It really would be deathly dull...Go round the green binbags. Turn right at the mouldy George Elliot, forward, forward, and turn left....at the dead badger0 -
Here's the thing. In a large % of employee/employer disputes one side will believe the other is in the wrong even if the other feels they have done everything 'by the book'. Interpretation of employment law or processes within it can vary by large degrees and as such even a 'watertight' process can be picked at by a determined lawyer - even if the only real aim of this is to p*ss off the employer and waste time until they make a payment to make the problem go away.
As such, it is not uncommon for employers to truncate or even forgo a formal process and try to jump straight to an end result. This will likely be against the strict letter of employment law but may be a pragmatic commercial decision with a degree of risk attached and accepted.
As I tell my managers, ultimately they can do whatever they want...as long as they are prepared to take personal responsibility for it afterwards and bear the cost out of departmental budgets. This usually gives them pause for thought (!) and results in a sensible approach to a situation that minimises risk to the employer and perhaps also, reduces time 'wasted' on process.
Each dispute situation will be different and require tailored approaches. many will be 100% straight down the line, others more complex involving perhaps an honest 'off the record' chat and a few so inherently risky that they require a compromise agreement on the table as a first step.
The above is what makes HR interesting for me. If it was black and white all the time It really would be deathly dull...
and this is the point, what if the 'process' itself is there to identify issues via checks which would preclude them from taking it further?
you are kind of saying the process is irrelevant, but my point is its there to make sure what they are doing is correct and would not be open to question later. for example at a tribunal.
covering up information is helpful to managers because it destroys evidence.0 -
and this is the point, what if the 'process' itself is there to identify issues via checks which would preclude them from taking it further?
you are kind of saying the process is irrelevant, but my point is its there to make sure what they are doing is correct and would not be open to question later. for example at a tribunal.
The process can be utterly irrelevant at times. Most of the time however it has a definite value as you say. My point is that you need to know when to apply a process fully and when it is an acceptable risk to step outside it. That's the skill.
I get good results in my work because I have developed some useful experience in this area. And when I say good results, I don't only mean for the company. Sometimes dragging an employee all the way through a full process in relation to a dispute is the cruellest most pointless thing you can do.Go round the green binbags. Turn right at the mouldy George Elliot, forward, forward, and turn left....at the dead badger0 -
The process can be utterly irrelevant at times. Most of the time however it has a definite value as you say. My point is that you need to know when to apply a process fully and when it is an acceptable risk to step outside it. That's the skill.
I get good results in my work because I have developed some useful experience in this area. And when I say good results, I don't only mean for the company. Sometimes dragging an employee all the way through a full process in relation to a dispute is the cruellest most pointless thing you can do.
well since its my thread i'll allude to my own situation about process not being followed. ordinarily, if i had never found out about my former employer speaking to my new employer, and the new employer said 'we have taken these comments by this 3rd party very seriously, and as a result we cannot employ you' then I couldn't have held my old employer responsible in any way. But because the new employer acted above board and told me that they spoke to my old employer and confirmed certain facts, I can now at least take it up with the ex-employer, and perhaps they will next time at worst keep quiet.
Now I cant say for certain whether or not the new employer would have given me the job on a no comment from the old employer, but its certainly open to question.
You may say I'm being silly in pursuing it, but to me the loss is very real and worth chasing. Certainly its only because of the existence of a CA that I'm able to do anything at all! So there's an example of a situation where managers may feel they can 'do what they want to do' but a contractual agreement will possibly hold them back from acting in a certain way - because they certainly dont have 'the right' to act that way.
Let me ask you then what advice you would give to your managers faced with a CA like mine and someone phoned up and asked about me? Spill the beans like they did?0 -
well since its my thread i'll allude to my own situation about process not being followed. ordinarily, if i had never found out about my former employer speaking to my new employer, and the new employer said 'we have taken these comments by this 3rd party very seriously, and as a result we cannot employ you' then I couldn't have held my old employer responsible in any way. But because the new employer acted above board and told me that they spoke to my old employer and confirmed certain facts, I can now at least take it up with the ex-employer, and perhaps they will next time at worst keep quiet.
Now I cant say for certain whether or not the new employer would have given me the job on a no comment from the old employer, but its certainly open to question.
You may say I'm being silly in pursuing it, but to me the loss is very real and worth chasing. Certainly its only because of the existence of a CA that I'm able to do anything at all! So there's an example of a situation where managers may feel they can 'do what they want to do' but a contractual agreement will possibly hold them back from acting in a certain way - because they certainly dont have 'the right' to act that way.
Let me ask you then what advice you would give to your managers faced with a CA like mine and someone phoned up and asked about me? Spill the beans like they did?
I would ask them to refer immediately to myself in HR - I would then say 'no comment'. You would most likely still lose the job offer....Go round the green binbags. Turn right at the mouldy George Elliot, forward, forward, and turn left....at the dead badger0 -
I would ask them to refer immediately to myself in HR - I would then say 'no comment'. You would most likely still lose the job offer....
and the reason for you telling them that would be because you think if any other information was given out, the organisation would be in breach of contract....
losing the job or not is a different issue and open to debate....
the point is try and play it by the book - as you have done here..........and see where it leads you
becuause actually i think it would potentially lead to a far different outcome than if you skipped steps.
its interesting because you are one of those who have said i have no case etc etc
but actually you have now turned round and said you would hold up the terms of the ca to their fullest!0 -
funilly enough if you did a poll here and asked everyone who has posted on this thread what you would do in my ex-employers situation or what advice you would give to my ex-employer - 99.9% would say at worst say nothing!
and many of those will tell you my Ca is a joke and full of holes that allows the ex employer to do what they want!
as i said my official reference was very good - at worst they could have said 'no comment', at best they could have said 'i can only refer you to the reference which we provided, and from our perspective it is true and accurate and we would recommend you base your opinion of his employment with us on that reference alone'
would that latter statement have lost me the job, i think not.0 -
and the reason for you telling them that would be because you think if any other information was given out, the organisation would be in breach of contract....
losing the job or not is a different issue and open to debate....
the point is try and play it by the book - as you have done here..........and see where it leads you
becuause actually i think it would potentially lead to a far different outcome than if you skipped steps.
its interesting because you are one of those who have said i have no case etc etc
but actually you have now turned round and said you would hold up the terms of the ca to their fullest!
TBH I wouldn't have offered you a CA in the first place, sounds like it would have been fairly easy to make you redundant without one.
Oh and just because I would have said 'no comment' please don't think I think you have a proper case...Go round the green binbags. Turn right at the mouldy George Elliot, forward, forward, and turn left....at the dead badger0 -
funilly enough if you did a poll here and asked everyone who has posted on this thread what you would do in my ex-employers situation or what advice you would give to my ex-employer - 99.9% would say at worst say nothing!
and many of those will tell you my Ca is a joke and full of holes that allows the ex employer to do what they want!
as i said my official reference was very good - at worst they could have said 'no comment', at best they could have said 'i can only refer you to the reference which we provided, and from our perspective it is true and accurate and we would recommend you base your opinion of his employment with us on that reference alone'
would that latter statement have lost me the job, i think not.
Not so. They have been informed separately of serious (and true) prior infractions by you and by saying the above the employer would basically be refusing to confirm those claims were incorrect.
I'd have pulled the offer. I daresay I wouldn't be alone.
Anyhoo I fear we are going round in circles. Do what you need to do obviously. I doubt either of us will convince the other they are correct.Go round the green binbags. Turn right at the mouldy George Elliot, forward, forward, and turn left....at the dead badger0 -
Not so. They have been informed separately of serious (and true) prior infractions by you and by saying the above the employer would basically be refusing to confirm those claims were incorrect.
I'd have pulled the offer. I daresay I wouldn't be alone.
Anyhoo I fear we are going round in circles. Do what you need to do obviously. I doubt either of us will convince the other they are correct.
A last point - where you work are disciplinaries kept on file for ever and ever? Is there a point at which they are removed from file?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