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
-
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.
((((((sigh))))))
It doesn't matter, as the employer has not admitted anything related to the past issue, only what will happen in the future. If you bring a case, nothing that is written shows your version is right. THE CA AS DRAFTED ALLOWED THEM TO DO WHAT THEY DID LEGALLY. NOTHING ABOUT THAT HAS CHANGED.
If it's verbal, then it's hearsay. Even if the new employer writes it down, they still can't prove it happened, because it was verbal. As you have a lot of time on your hands I'd suggest you watch a bit of Judge Judy.
:wall::wall::wall::wall::wall: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 -
bluetownbarry wrote: »I'm not a gambler but my money's on incredibly dim.
you do know the difference between on the record and off the record i take it?0 -
mildred1978 wrote: »((((((sigh))))))
It doesn't matter, as the employer has not admitted anything related to the past issue, only what will happen in the future. If you bring a case, nothing that is written shows your version is right. THE CA AS DRAFTED ALLOWED THEM TO DO WHAT THEY DID LEGALLY. NOTHING ABOUT THAT HAS CHANGED.
If it's verbal, then it's hearsay. Even if the new employer writes it down, they still can't prove it happened, because it was verbal. As you have a lot of time on your hands I'd suggest you watch a bit of Judge Judy.
:wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:
i can assure you i have been told by every lawyer ive spoken to that letter from new employer is enough to prove that such information was provided.0 -
-
mildred1978 wrote: »Evidently you don't.
off the record only exists if both parties accept that its off the record.
the letter clearly states issues were confirmed by ex-employer and names individuals within the organisation that provided them the information.
just because the organisation cant prevent leaks, doesnt mean they are not liable if they occur.0 -
mildred1978 wrote: »!!!!!!!!!!
It says NOTHING about the past. It's all "will, will, will". They've admitted nothing. They haven't implied anything about their past understanding, nor agreed that they shouldn't have given out information.
Your lawyers are clearly imaginary friends of yours.
If you have such a hot team of lawyers, why have you been communicating with the ex-employer instead of them, and WHY DO YOU NEED THIS THREAD?
Perhaps you should stick to licking stamps. I'm not sure higher responsibilities are within your capabilities.
ok so you now admit that apart from 'hoping' that this will only cover future issues, everything else i have pretty much got what i wanted.
in terms of my lawyers i feel im better at communicating with my employer than they are, i just seek their advice.0 -
the letter clearly states issues were confirmed by ex-employer
Okay, this can be provenand names individuals within the organisation that provided them the information.
And if that individual told them verbally and goes on to deny it? The new employer couldn't prove a thing.just because the organisation cant prevent leaks, doesnt mean they are not liable if they occur.
Yes it does, because there are limits to what they can prevent. It's a test of reasonableness. If an employee who has been told in no uncertain terms not to say anything about you does so in writing in a way that can be traced to them, then the company can (and should) take disciplinary action.
If they badmouth you to a mate down the pub, who happens to know someone at your new employer, who passes the info on, there's nothing the ex-company can or should do. Because the passing of the information CANNOT BE PROVEN.
Let's change scenario to see if it penetrates your thick skull this way. Say your car is stolen. Your neighbour from 3 doors down, Mr Jones, tells you that Mr Smith from round the corner told him that it was taken by Mr Evans from 2 streets away. You write it in a statement for the police/insurance company.
Do you think the police would be able to use any of that as absolute concrete proof? NO, because it's HEARSAY!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 -
ok so you now admit that apart from 'hoping' that this will only cover future issues, everything else i have pretty much got what i wanted.
What the fook did you read, because that's not what I said anywhere?!in terms of my lawyers i feel im better at communicating with my employer than they are, i just seek their advice.
I'd suggest you communicate with the nearest brick wall, as hard as you can, with your forehead. You're a dreadful communicator.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: »Okay, this can be proven
And if that individual told them verbally and goes on to deny it? The new employer couldn't prove a thing.
Yes it does, because there are limits to what they can prevent. It's a test of reasonableness. If an employee who has been told in no uncertain terms not to say anything about you does so in writing in a way that can be traced to them, then the company can (and should) take disciplinary action.
If they badmouth you to a mate down the pub, who happens to know someone at your new employer, who passes the info on, there's nothing the ex-company can or should do. Because the passing of the information CANNOT BE PROVEN.
Let's change scenario to see if it penetrates your thick skull this way. Say your car is stolen. Your neighbour from 3 doors down, Mr Jones, tells you that Mr Smith from round the corner told him that it was taken by Mr Evans from 2 streets away. You write it in a statement for the police/insurance company.
Do you think the police would be able to use any of that as absolute concrete proof? NO, because it's HEARSAY!
the level of detail about the disciplinary incidents which was described in the letter is enough proof that they got told directly by ex employer.0 -
the level of detail about the disciplinary incidents which was described in the letter is enough proof that they got told directly by ex employer.
You're either utterly incapable of reading or understanding what I'm saying to you, or just being a !!!!he@d
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
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