breach of compromise agreement by employer.

Milkshock

SarEl wrote: »

Assuming we believe a word you say - which I for one don't. So again - do we care?

only if you dont believe, and thats entirely your right - but its not something you have any proof of.

SarEl

Milkshock wrote: »

only if you dont believe, and thats entirely your right - but its not something you have any proof of.

Certainly not. But neither do you. And since I do not need a job - again - do I care?

Milkshock

SarEl wrote: »

Certainly not. But neither do you. And since I do not need a job - again - do I care?

thats right start talking about whether you 'care' or not and not whether you are right or wrong :rotfl:

i dont 'care' if you 'care', but i do 'care' if you are wrong - which on this occasion, from start to finish - you have been!

and i still dont have a response from you on why you *continually* and for reasons which must be deeply held from your perspective, take the side of the employer, when people are posting on here looking for ways to take these people on, by hook or by crook, in the same way that the employer takes THEM on, on a daily basis.

i can refer to one thread from a few days ago where one person had their wages docked UNLAWFULLY by a rogue employer, and after establishing this poor person had done nothing wrong, you left the thread with nothing more to offer!

yes, im certain HR departments and employers would love to have someone like you around threatening the staff with the sack every 5 minutes!

mildred1978

Milkshock wrote: »

Further to our recent conversation, I write to confirm that in the event that prospective employers seek a reference in respect of Milkshock, relevant staff will only provide the reference attached to the compromise agreement and will not volunteer any other information.

I cannot agree to "deny" the existence of the warning or the circumstances relating to it but if the organisation is asked direct questions about it, it will decline to answer, unless required by law.

We will send copies of any reference we send out to Milkshock at the same time as we send it; I am not prepared to agree to Milkshock's request to record any other communications and email them to him. I will however impress upon staff the need to keep the circumstances of the compromise agreement confidential.

Hmmmm. So they didn't confirm that that was their understanding of the CA all along. And they haven't agreed to deny your disciplinary history. And they haven't guaranteed that no other 'leaks' about you will happen.

Not quite what you were absolutely convinced you were getting.

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.

They've done enough to placate you, but not given you any rope to hang them with. :T

Milkshock

where have they not guaranteed no leaks?

and its far from clear that they are saying this is a new development - i would be shocked if they attempted to say this wasn't the case initially, and is a new development.

denial of disciplinary was a wild card i threw in, but decline to answer will solve my issues, in my opinion.

mildred1978

Milkshock wrote: »

erm, yes they have.

No they haven't! They'll remind people that they should keep the details secret, but they can't enforce that!

Milkshock

mildred1978 wrote: »

No they haven't! They'll remind people that they should keep the details secret, but they can't enforce that!

and why can they enforce a 'decline to answer' then???

mildred1978

Milkshock wrote: »

and why can they enforce a 'decline to answer' then???

That's fine for requests made directly and officially to the ex employer, isn't it.

But if someone down the pub gets talking to someone who is thinking of employing you, there's nothing they can do, is there?

I can't decide if you're overly confident/arrogant or just incredibly dim to be honest.

Milkshock

mildred1978 wrote: »

That's fine for requests made directly and officially to the ex employer, isn't it.

But if someone down the pub gets talking to someone who is thinking of employing you, there's nothing they can do, is there?

I can't decide if you're overly confident/arrogant or just incredibly dim to be honest.

if a new employer comes back to me, as the new employer did, and categorically states they were told such and such - then its no longer down the pub is it? its on the bloody record!

my claim against ex employer is due to on the record statements made.

bluetownbarry

mildred1978 wrote: »

That's fine for requests made directly and officially to the ex employer, isn't it.

But if someone down the pub gets talking to someone who is thinking of employing you, there's nothing they can do, is there?

I can't decide if you're overly confident/arrogant or just incredibly dim to be honest.

I'm not a gambler but my money's on incredibly dim.