breach of compromise agreement by employer.

VictimOfImpersonation

Have you read the thread?

I think I have read enough to appreciate that the OP is human.

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'?

I could point to lots but it would require me to engage gladiatorially with the blighted employment market here and now wouldn't it? Many readers might enjoy the spectacle but I have learned to choose my battles.

unless you are difficult and unable to work with people.

Being difficult in response to provocation is not a crime or even a liability. Indeed it might be seen as an asset by some humans. Unable to work with people? Why? Says who? The false witness, judge and jury?

If your concept of truth is that it is true to state that a disciplinary/misconduct or capability file was opened in an employee's name even though no admission was made by that employee then that is my example of corruption and abuse of Data Protection laws.

I know the OP in this case opened himself to disciplinary action but that wasn't my point. My point was the general case which is stacked against an employee with a grievance.

Again I say congratulations to the OP for his tenacity ... and look what a bunch of laughing hyenas that brings out ... a few humans around here might be nicer.

Uncertain

Milkshock wrote: »

sorry i thought you meant people who still work there

and if pushed im sure i could still, i think, prove a causal link between the ex-colleague and the current employer.

for example the ex-colleague left before any documented incidents involving me occurred. and had certainly left well in advance of me leaving with a CA, which is what their e-mail clearly said had happened to me.

Oh for heaven's sake.

About the strongest wording you will find in a normal CA something to the effect that "the employer will use reasonable endeavours to ensure that other members of staff keep to the terms of the agreement".

Obviously, once somebody has left the employer has no control over them whatsoever. If that individual goes on to libel you then you might, in theory, have a claim against them personally. However, if they simply tell the truth there is nothing whatever you can do.

You seem to have a completely unrealistic idea of what you can protect with a CA.

If the prospective employer seeks a reference and gets the agreed words back then that is fine providing it stops there. However, the moment they dig beyond this and are told "we can't answer that" or words to that effect big alarm bells will ring. That may not seem fair in your idealised world but that is the hard fact.

Milkshock

Uncertain wrote: »

Oh for heaven's sake.

About the strongest wording you will find in a normal CA something to the effect that "the employer will use reasonable endeavours to ensure that other members of staff keep to the terms of the agreement".

Obviously, once somebody has left the employer has no control over them whatsoever. If that individual goes on to libel you then you might, in theory, have a claim against them personally. However, if they simply tell the truth there is nothing whatever you can do.

You seem to have a completely unrealistic idea of what you can protect with a CA.

If the prospective employer seeks a reference and gets the agreed words back then that is fine providing it stops there. However, the moment they dig beyond this and are told "we can't answer that" or words to that effect big alarm bells will ring. That may not seem fair in your idealised world but that is the hard fact.

your opinion, and this is not what happened in my case anyway. im happier without my ex-employer colluding with themselves....erm sorry...ex-employee!

and you havent addressed the point of how the ex employee will have known detailed facts about me since he left well before any incidents occurred.

ILW

Probably would have been better if you had just behaved yourself in the first place. There will be no winners in this situation.

Milkshock

ILW wrote: »

Probably would have been better if you had just behaved yourself in the first place. There will be no winners in this situation.

including ex-employer, yes i agree. and remember its they who have acted as judge jury and hangman here.

saintjammyswine

VictimOfImpersonation wrote: »

I think I have read enough to appreciate that the OP is human.I could point to lots but it would require me to engage gladiatorially with the blighted employment market here and now wouldn't it? Many readers might enjoy the spectacle but I have learned to choose my battles.Being difficult in response to provocation is not a crime or even a liability. Indeed it might be seen as an asset by some humans. Unable to work with people? Why? Says who? The false witness, judge and jury?

If your concept of truth is that it is true to state that a disciplinary/misconduct or capability file was opened in an employee's name even though no admission was made by that employee then that is my example of corruption and abuse of Data Protection laws.

I know the OP in this case opened himself to disciplinary action but that wasn't my point. My point was the general case which is stacked against an employee with a grievance.

Again I say congratulations to the OP for his tenacity ... and look what a bunch of laughing hyenas that brings out ... a few humans around here might be nicer.

My god you even type like Milkshock!

Milkshock

saintjammyswine wrote: »

My god you even type like Milkshock!

you mean articulate, intelligent and insightful. yes i agree. its good to know there are others like me out there who can express themselves:)

saintjammyswine

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

ILW

Milkshock wrote: »

including ex-employer, yes i agree. and remember its they who have acted as judge jury and hangman here.

You do see to have admitted some pretty dire offences though.
Cannot understand why they did not just give you the elbow, most places would have.

Milkshock

ILW wrote: »

You do see to have admitted some pretty dire offences though.
Cannot understand why they did not just give you the elbow, most places would have.

and perhaps this is the most pertinent question you have asked.

if not sacked, then why not?

a drink over someone under provocation due to the fact that he was trying it on with an ex of mine? - yes that is what happened. i think its not an unnatural reaction regardless of circumstances.

and of course that ex, because she is my ex would not stand up for me in the circumstances at the investigation.

as a matter of fact i held back from not punching the guys lights out.

those in charge knew the 'circumstances' and gave me a warning