ET Query,

Akoto

I'm heading towards the ET. As I had a dispute at the time of my departure from my old employer I have made an application to the ET, which, seemingly, has been accepted. I wont go into major details but one point I want to pick up on is the fact that I was made redundant and signed a Compromise Agreement. My agreement says my reason for leaving was redundancy. The employer is now saying I was not made redundant, but that my employment was terminated by mutual agreement. Are they allowed to term it as such - obviously I don't think they are. Are there any benefits to me for pursuing this point with the tribunal?

Emmzi

generally a compromise agreement includes a clause precluding you from taking action against the employer such as an ET. So I would check very carefully. You may get thrown out at the first hearing, so it may not be worth the stress - please go and check the wording and report back!

you can be made redundant by mutual agreement-ish. (VR as opposed to CR) do you have concerns about the wording?

Akoto

Emmzi wrote: »

generally a compromise agreement includes a clause precluding you from taking action against the employer such as an ET. So I would check very carefully. You may get thrown out at the first hearing, so it may not be worth the stress - please go and check the wording and report back!

you can be made redundant by mutual agreement-ish. (VR as opposed to CR) do you have concerns about the wording?

Yes I do take your point about the CA potentially precluding action against employer and am aware what I may be up against in that regard.

And as an aside I have concerns that the CA has not been fully adhered to by the employer with regards confidentiality - therefore potentially has been breached, a point I have made to the Tribunal and it may be this potential breach that has allowed it to get through so far?

Yes I am 'slightly' concerned about the wording which states:

'A major re-organisation of the organization occurred and the employees post was deleted. His employment will cease by reason of redundancy'

What do you think?

Emmzi

I think that is very clearly redundancy.

You have signed the CA? You took legal advice before you signed it?

Akoto

Emmzi wrote: »

I think that is very clearly redundancy.

You have signed the CA? You took legal advice before you signed it?

Yes, on both counts. The employer paid my costs with regards the legal advice. There is a clause which waives rights to take on the employer at the ET, however I'm wondering whether a potential breach of other clauses in the agreement means all bets are off with regards to what I can do re. action against them? Obviously that's what I'm hoping!

Emmzi

Um, no. No action = no action. Mainly if they paid you the cheque, haven't said anything defamatory, have not conducted a hate campaign etc, you are on a hiding to nothing.

Can't really help more unless you say what they have done. I'm guessing something about stating a different reason for leaving in a reference. Unless you had an agreed reference as part of the CA then "mutual agreement" is factual, so pretty much stuffed I am afraid. But do go back to the original lawyer if you want a second opinion.

Akoto

Emmzi wrote: »

Um, no. No action = no action. Mainly if they paid you the cheque, haven't said anything defamatory, have not conducted a hate campaign etc, you are on a hiding to nothing.

Can't really help more unless you say what they have done. I'm guessing something about stating a different reason for leaving in a reference. Unless you had an agreed reference as part of the CA then "mutual agreement" is factual, so pretty much stuffed I am afraid. But do go back to the original lawyer if you want a second opinion.

Well I have evidence that they supplied knowledge of the agreement plus additional disciplinary issues to a prospective employer, which cost me a job. And yes there was an agreed reference (reason for leaving in the reference as stated previously), plus a confidentiality clause which precludes any information about me (beyond said reference) to be disclosed to a third party.

So in essence a potential double breach.

Emmzi

But that isn't an ET as such as it happened when you were no longer an employee. You need a different form of redress. And a lawyer to advise on the strength of your evidence ("my mate says", for example, will not do it.)

Akoto

Emmzi wrote: »

But that isn't an ET as such as it happened when you were no longer an employee. You need a different form of redress. And a lawyer to advise on the strength of your evidence ("my mate says", for example, will not do it.)

Obviously I have a letter from the new employer detailing what was told to them etc. And saying that I couldn't start due to information disclosed to them. They named people in the organisation who they spoke to as well. Everyone in the new organisation is denying saying anything out of line of course, I suppose as the conversations were verbal they feel there is no written evidence. Of course everything in these conversations was written down - and nothing is really 'off the record' these days is it?

Anyway you are saying the civil courts are they way to go, in essence?

Emmzi

I'm saying talk to an employment lawyer to establish if you have a strong case and if it is worth it. I would never give "advice" as a) no law degree and b) only 3 lines of background to go on!

Or, you could talk to old employer, present the evidence, and see if you can resolve it to your satisfaction out of court/ ET/ whatever.

Akoto

Emmzi wrote: »

I'm saying talk to an employment lawyer to establish if you have a strong case and if it is worth it. I would never give "advice" as a) no law degree and b) only 3 lines of background to go on!

Or, you could talk to old employer, present the evidence, and see if you can resolve it to your satisfaction out of court/ ET/ whatever.

Well clearly old employer is doing nothing but deny which is why I'm gong to court, however, one thing you did say was the fact that they paid for my legal advice in some way strengthened their hand?