breach of compromise agreement by employer.

mildred1978

skintandscared wrote: »

I have seen power struggles. But thankfully they have, mostly, been between adults who have the mental capacity and professionalism to deal with them in a sensible, adult and socially acceptable way. The problems only arise when one or both parties are arrogant, paranoid, unprofessional or have anger management issues. I'm 44 years old with 27 years experience of an office environment so do not patronise me and suggest I have "limited understanding".

It suggests that the OP's experience is somewhat limited if they think what they describe is common across organisations.

I remember taking a secondment several years ago to work for someone that I didn't particularly get on with. We had an initial chat and agreed that if/when we p1ssed each other off we'd go to the pub and sort it out*. It never actually happened, probably because we had a plan to fix it if it did go horribly wrong. He was a complete @rsehole, but as he left me to my own devices it kind of worked for both of us.

*Before Milkshock jumps on this, I'll clarify that it wasn't so we could throw drinks and punches. :rotfl:

Milkshock

all i will say is think about this - i was able to walk away with an agreed reference, compromise agreement and redundancy payment.

doesnt that suggest to you that at least at some level it was recognised as 6 of one and half a dozen of the other?

saintjammyswine

Milkshock wrote: »

the problem i face is that the organisation is sending out an ultra clean reference, so i will get the blame for that as well!

in fact the new employer said as much!

when i met them to discuss the issues they were stunned because my reference was so good, it was like they had been cheated.

but the fact is that clean reference is going to be sent out to every employer from now on.

why should i be punished for it?

Because you messed up, these are the consequences, live with it.

saintjammyswine

Milkshock wrote: »

again, if you've never seen power struggles, and what happens to those who lose power struggles, and how they are branded by their opponents, then your understanding of the workplace, and life - is limited.

Who are you, Ceasar?

NiallB

The point which you seem to be working very hard to ignore is that normal grown-ups manage to sort out disagreements at work WITHOUT having to resort to throwing drinks or !!!!!ing by email behind their colleagues backs.

However you seem determined that your lapses in judgement are everybody else's fault, you're in the right, and people on this board with years of experience are idiots.

http://www.wit-t-shirts.com/funny_Tshirts/pictures/funny_tees/I%27m_OUT.jpg

Milkshock

NiallB wrote: »

The point which you seem to be working very hard to ignore is that normal grown-ups manage to sort out disagreements at work WITHOUT having to resort to throwing drinks or !!!!!ing by email behind their colleagues backs.

However you seem determined that your lapses in judgement are everybody else's fault, you're in the right, and people on this board with years of experience are idiots.

http://www.wit-t-shirts.com/funny_Tshirts/pictures/funny_tees/I%27m_OUT.jpg

so you are saying im not feeling guility enough?

laughable

i have to get on with my life as much as the next man and i really cant be wasting my time thinking about anything else.

for lapses in judgement are all they were.

although i am not old myself i long for the old days where you could tell someone to go !!!! themselves and that was considered part and parcel of daily life!

anyone is welcome to call me a !!!! to my face, just expect to be called one back and dont complain about it!

Milkshock

right they've agreed to an addendum to my CA, plus an (as yet unspecified) level of compensation to myself. Thanks to my solicitor for sorting that out for me! The wording she has proposed is as follows. Any lawyers/barristers (yes I do mean you SarEl) care to comment on the potential for get out clauses in the future?


It is agreed that this addendum to contract overrides Clause 9 of the Compromise Agreement between - and - , dated March 2011. The rest of the Agreement remains in full force.

The Employer agrees from this date forth, upon request by any prospective employer, company or agency, to provide a reference identical to that set out at Schedule 2.

The Employer agrees that they will not deviate from the contents of this reference under any circumstances and will not provide any additional information to any persons whatsoever, including but not limited to specific requests for information regarding past conduct and disciplinary sanctions.

If approached by any prospective employer, company or agency requesting additional information or requesting a reference in a different format to that agreed at Schedule 2, the Employer confirms they will contact the Employee for confirmation that he is happy for the information to be provided.

SarEl

Milkshock wrote: »

Any lawyers/barristers (yes I do mean you SarEl) care to comment on the potential for get out clauses in the future?
.

After your performance on here? No.

Milkshock

SarEl wrote: »

After your performance on here? No.

A shame

and i thought you as a legal professional would have the ability to take each issue on its merits and not allow your opinions of said specific issues to be coloured by your general opinion of the person raising them.

that would after all be legally ethical, wouldnt it?

Bobl

Quite a climb down from your earlier guarantee of a new backdated agreement enabling you to take legal action against them. They are obviously not as stupid as you think.

So whilst this ensures any future initial reference will stick to the agreement, any request for additional information, around disciplinary action etc, will be rejected by you which for me would ring alarm bells.

However, you have what you wanted in the first place so that in itself is a positive.