breach of compromise agreement by employer.

bobajob_1966

mildred1978 wrote: »

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

My interpretation also - succinctly put.

Milkshock

bobajob_1966 wrote: »

My interpretation also - succinctly put.

expand please?

Cheeky_Monkey

Milkshock - why don't you do yourself and everyone else a favour and 'go forth and multiply' with your ET claim for compensation and see how far you get

Milkshock

Cheeky_Monkey wrote: »

Milkshock - why don't you do yourself and everyone else a favour and 'go forth and multiply' with your ET claim for compensation and see how far you get

I've got a lot further already than many thought I would get.

In fact some of the initial advice I received on here revolved around me suing my own lawyer for negligence!!!

this site is a complete joke, its meant to be to show the average man how they can take on the system and win, by playing businesses and organisations at their own game.

what i actually find is that 99% of posters rather than trying to redress obvious societal imbalances against the individual are actually desperate in their own delirium to prop up the status quo, the very same status quo that is holding them back!

saintjammyswine

Milkshock wrote: »

this site is a complete joke, its meant to be to show the average man how they can take on the system and win, by playing businesses and organisations at their own game.

No its not. Its about fair play, sharing knowledge etc. Not screwing people over.

saintjammyswine

Milkshock wrote: »

ok i know youve all been dying for an update and the text of the letter that the former employer was going to give me.

remember - no claim has as yet been put forward to former employer, but on the basis of what ive been told in it, im of a mind to take it to them, and ask them to justify what happened to me in my job fiasco in light of the CA and the comments they have made to me now.


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.

I'm assuming the circumstances surrounding the CA mean the pending issue that was outstanding before I left, and which is referenced in the background section of the CA.

"relevant staff will only provide the reference attached" OK so if an irrelevant (for want of a better phrase) member of staff is asked, according to this, they can say what they want.

Milkshock

saintjammyswine wrote: »

"relevant staff will only provide the reference attached" OK so if an irrelevant (for want of a better phrase) member of staff is asked, according to this, they can say what they want.

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.

shes only said relevant staff, because only specific staff have access to my reference as this is held on my personnel file. however in the above sentence shes closed off any avenue for anyone to comment about the disciplinary in any way.

Milkshock

saintjammyswine wrote: »

No its not. Its about fair play, sharing knowledge etc. Not screwing people over.

yes well, if like me, you have seen organisations and the system on a daily basis take the !!!! out of individuals, you would maybe share my point of view.

maybe im machiaveillian, but in my view, when you operate in a system wholly without honour, it is only reasonable to play that system by its own rules.

ILW

Milkshock wrote: »

yes well, if like me, you have seen organisations and the system on a daily basis take the !!!! out of individuals, you would maybe share my point of view.

maybe im machiaveillian, but in my view, when you operate in a system wholly without honour, it is only reasonable to play that system by its own rules.

Sounds like it's a crusade now.

My advice to solve your individual issues would be as follows:

Arrange an appointment to meet the head of HR and their lawyers.

At the meeting, throw alcoholic drinks over them.

When you get home send a few abusive emails and then slag them off on Facebook.

That should do the trick, people will be lining up to employ you.

Pete111

Milkshock wrote: »

I've got a lot further already than many thought I would get.

In fact some of the initial advice I received on here revolved around me suing my own lawyer for negligence!!!

this site is a complete joke, its meant to be to show the average man how they can take on the system and win, by playing businesses and organisations at their own game.

what i actually find is that 99% of posters rather than trying to redress obvious societal imbalances against the individual are actually desperate in their own delirium to prop up the status quo, the very same status quo that is holding them back!

Hell Yeah!!!!

Up the downtrodden masses who rely on the propogation of lies to prosper! Down with those who don't stand up for the (made up) rights of the abusive, backstabbing and deluded!!!

Who's with Me?!??



Oh.

Just Milkshock.