breach of compromise agreement by employer.

Uncertain

mjm3346 wrote: »

Dear Mr Prospective employer,

thank you for your request for information regarding the past conduct of Mr Milkshock. Under the terms of a compromise agreement I cannot release any further information without his consent, I have written to him today and will contact you again when I have his response.

Yours etc.

Last Boss.

---

Dear Last Boss

Thank you for your response which tells us all we need to know, we have found a more suitable candidate/the job is no longer available/etc so we do not need any further information on Mr Milkshock.

etc.

Sums the situation up pretty well!

To be fair a well written CA normally forbids the parties from mentioning the existence of the agreement so IF this is the case Last Boss would have to delete a few words from your draft letter.

However, I don't think this was a well written CA which is what has caused this twenty nine page farce in the first place.

SarEl

Milkshock wrote: »

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?

You have made it clear here, and on other posts, that you do not think my legal advice has any value. Therefore it has nothing to do with my opinion of you (which couldn't be a lot lower, admittedly) and everything to do with the fact that I see no point in wasting my time.

However, if you wish to speak about legal ethics, a lawyer does not represent people they know to be guilty if they continue to protest their innocence. You told your potential new employer that you were subject to no disciplinaries (a lie) and you admitted that you were in fact subject to disciplinary action at the time you left and had previous warning(s). It would therefore be against "professional ethics" to support you in your attempts to continue to avoid telling the truth.

VictimOfImpersonation

I haven't had the time to read this entire thread but I think I have read enough to congratulate the OP.

The question of references I think is a throwback to a bygone age of doffed caps. Asking for references should be outlawed. Making any allegation about a person in relation to recruitment that is not a criminal offence proven in a court of law should be outlawed.

Questioning a prospective recruit about gaps in a CV should be outlawed.

Employers have it too easy already with extended probation periods and lack of employee rights in the first 12 months.

Why should an ex employee have to "rebuild" a career unless they have admitted to making a mess of a previous one?

Most disciplinary, capability and misconduct files opened by employers in the UK are based on one or more lies. That they should rest on file and later be used as evidence of some "truth" is a farcical nonsense and probably a breach of Data Protection law if nothing else.

Our working lives have (apart from those enjoyed by public servants and a few others with long term survival instincts or luck) become extremely transient. They have also become much longer. There is really no valid argument by any employer that they should train younger recruits with virgin CVs in preference to older hacks who have had a few lumps knocked out them, yet constantly we hear the old stereotypical mantras trotted out by politicians about the need to find opportunities "young" apprentices and "young" graduates as if the rest of us have somehow had our chance and must lump or "rebuild" whatever cards we currently hold in our well randomised and gappy career hands.

It is quite wrong that to get on in the employment market you effectively have to gag yourself for fear of someone later saying that you are "difficult".

I do not understand why this major equality issue has not been more properly tackled by the employment legal profession other than the fact that most employment legal types tend to find that working for employers is their bread and butter business and that few long -lasting plaudits are won by wannabe rich lawyers who get reputations for tieing employers in knots.

In this respect I think the employment legal system is largely corrupted.

Once more I congratulate the OP on his tenacity.

Jarndyce

VictimOfImpersonation wrote: »

I haven't had the time to read this entire thread but I think I have read enough to congratulate the OP.

The question of references I think is a throwback to a bygone age of doffed caps. Asking for references should be outlawed. Making any allegation about a person in relation to recruitment that is not a criminal offence proven in a court of law should be outlawed.

Questioning a prospective recruit about gaps in a CV should be outlawed.

Employers have it too easy already with extended probation periods and lack of employee rights in the first 12 months.

Why should an ex employee have to "rebuild" a career unless they have admitted to making a mess of a previous one?

Most disciplinary, capability and misconduct files opened by employers in the UK are based on one or more lies. That they should rest on file and later be used as evidence of some "truth" is a farcical nonsense and probably a breach of Data Protection law if nothing else.

Our working lives have (apart from those enjoyed by public servants and a few others with long term survival instincts or luck) become extremely transient. They have also become much longer. There is really no valid argument by any employer that they should train younger recruits with virgin CVs in preference to older hacks who have had a few lumps knocked out them, yet constantly we hear the old stereotypical mantras trotted out by politicians about the need to find opportunities "young" apprentices and "young" graduates as if the rest of us have somehow had our chance and must lump or "rebuild" whatever cards we currently hold in our well randomised and gappy career hands.

It is quite wrong that to get on in the employment market you effectively have to gag yourself for fear of someone later saying that you are "difficult".

I do not understand why this major equality issue has not been more properly tackled by the employment legal profession other than the fact that most employment legal types tend to find that working for employers is their bread and butter business and that few long -lasting plaudits are won by wannabe rich lawyers who get reputations for tieing employers in knots.

In this respect I think the employment legal system is largely corrupted.

Once more I congratulate the OP on his tenacity.

Hellooooo Milkshock!!:wave:

pelirocco

VictimOfImpersonation wrote: »

I haven't had the time to read this entire thread but I think I have read enough to congratulate the OP.

The question of references I think is a throwback to a bygone age of doffed caps. Asking for references should be outlawed. Making any allegation about a person in relation to recruitment that is not a criminal offence proven in a court of law should be outlawed.

Questioning a prospective recruit about gaps in a CV should be outlawed.

Employers have it too easy already with extended probation periods and lack of employee rights in the first 12 months.

Why should an ex employee have to "rebuild" a career unless they have admitted to making a mess of a previous one?

Most disciplinary, capability and misconduct files opened by employers in the UK are based on one or more lies. That they should rest on file and later be used as evidence of some "truth" is a farcical nonsense and probably a breach of Data Protection law if nothing else.

Our working lives have (apart from those enjoyed by public servants and a few others with long term survival instincts or luck) become extremely transient. They have also become much longer. There is really no valid argument by any employer that they should train younger recruits with virgin CVs in preference to older hacks who have had a few lumps knocked out them, yet constantly we hear the old stereotypical mantras trotted out by politicians about the need to find opportunities "young" apprentices and "young" graduates as if the rest of us have somehow had our chance and must lump or "rebuild" whatever cards we currently hold in our well randomised and gappy career hands.

It is quite wrong that to get on in the employment market you effectively have to gag yourself for fear of someone later saying that you are "difficult".

I do not understand why this major equality issue has not been more properly tackled by the employment legal profession other than the fact that most employment legal types tend to find that working for employers is their bread and butter business and that few long -lasting plaudits are won by wannabe rich lawyers who get reputations for tieing employers in knots.

In this respect I think the employment legal system is largely corrupted.

Once more I congratulate the OP on his tenacity.

Ha Ha Ha , you obviously have never had to employ anyone

The OP wouldnt be in the position of having to '' rebuild'' his career if he had been capable of turning up to work and and doing the job he had been paid for ................and yes that does include being able to work along side colleagues in a proper manner

saintjammyswine

VictimOfImpersonation wrote: »

I haven't had the time to read this entire thread but I think I have read enough to congratulate the OP. :eek:

The question of references I think is a throwback to a bygone age of doffed caps. Asking for references should be outlawed. :shocked: Making any allegation about a person in relation to recruitment that is not a criminal offence proven in a court of law should be outlawed.:shocked:

Questioning a prospective recruit about gaps in a CV should be outlawed.:shocked:

Employers have it too easy already with extended probation periods and lack of employee rights in the first 12 months.

Why should an ex employee have to "rebuild" a career unless they have admitted to making a mess of a previous one? - Have you read the thread?

Most disciplinary, capability and misconduct files opened by employers in the UK are based on one or more lies. That they should rest on file and later be used as evidence of some "truth" is a farcical nonsense and probably a breach of Data Protection law if nothing else. - any evidence of these 'facts'?

Our working lives have (apart from those enjoyed by public servants and a few others with long term survival instincts or luck) become extremely transient. They have also become much longer. There is really no valid argument by any employer that they should train younger recruits with virgin CVs in preference to older hacks who have had a few lumps knocked out them, yet constantly we hear the old stereotypical mantras trotted out by politicians about the need to find opportunities "young" apprentices and "young" graduates as if the rest of us have somehow had our chance and must lump or "rebuild" whatever cards we currently hold in our well randomised and gappy career hands.

It is quite wrong that to get on in the employment market you effectively have to gag yourself for fear of someone later saying that you are "difficult". - unless you are difficult and unable to work with people.

I do not understand why this major equality issue has not been more properly tackled by the employment legal profession other than the fact that most employment legal types tend to find that working for employers is their bread and butter business and that few long -lasting plaudits are won by wannabe rich lawyers who get reputations for tieing employers in knots.

In this respect I think the employment legal system is largely corrupted.

Once more I congratulate the OP on his tenacity.:shocked:

I really dont know what to say apart from another :shocked:.

SarEl

It isn't an equality issue to be "discriminated" against on the basis you are a prat. Which is about all anyone could come up with to describe someone who throws drinks over their work colleagues, sends out insulting and offensive e-mails about their work colleagues, and has a string of complaints against them about their behaviour towards their work colleagues. And then is surprised (a) that the employer is displeased and wants to discipline them and (b) that said colleagues hate him enough to contact the potential new employer and rat him out.

As we often observe on here, although admittedly it is usually about bad employers - "what goes around, comes around". In Milkshocks case his compromise agreement will be of utterly no benefit if his former colleagues continue to "find out" where he is applying and continue to "rat him out" - nothing to do with the employer telling or not, that isn't.

Jarndyce

SarEl wrote: »

It isn't an equality issue to be "discriminated" against on the basis you are a prat.

Excellent! :T:T:T:D

ILW

Prats have human rights as well you know.

Milkshock

SarEl wrote: »

It isn't an equality issue to be "discriminated" against on the basis you are a prat. Which is about all anyone could come up with to describe someone who throws drinks over their work colleagues, sends out insulting and offensive e-mails about their work colleagues, and has a string of complaints against them about their behaviour towards their work colleagues. And then is surprised (a) that the employer is displeased and wants to discipline them and (b) that said colleagues hate him enough to contact the potential new employer and rat him out.

As we often observe on here, although admittedly it is usually about bad employers - "what goes around, comes around". In Milkshocks case his compromise agreement will be of utterly no benefit if his former colleagues continue to "find out" where he is applying and continue to "rat him out" - nothing to do with the employer telling or not, that isn't.

well if they do, then they will be challenged in a court of law next time, so yes it will be of benefit.