Suspended During Grievance

Uncertain

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Have you already provided references or are they wanting one from your current employer? If so you certainly need to focus on the issue of the reference - it is worth more than the money, in my view.

I totally agree. You are going to need to move quite quickly on this to make sure that the prospective new employer gets a satisfactory response.

The £350+VAT doesn't surprise me as £250+VAT was the going rate for CA's 10 years ago.

Me neither!. I'm a few years out of touch but I doubt if any of your profession will get out of bed for £250! :rotfl:

zzzLazyDaisy

Uncertain wrote: »

I totally agree. You are going to need to move quite quickly on this to make sure that the prospective new employer gets a satisfactory response.



Me neither!. I'm a few years out of touch but I doubt if any of your profession will get out of bed for £250! :rotfl:

And why would we? At that rate it could be more profitable staying IN bed! (Shhhhhhh.... don't tell the Law Society I said that!) :rotfl:

kelly_borntoshop

ok - i have the agreement. (amongst other things).

it states my termination as 31st january and i will be paid up until this date.

there doesnt seem to be an offer clause thankfully.

the offer is £1000 plus 1 months "net" pay @ £1200 - is that right?? no notice pay either.

the reference is included in the agreement clause- it says "will stick to this paragraph etc as noted in section 2, section 2 is titled reference and completely blank.

i also have the outcome from the grievance.

also a disciplinary hearing email with the date Wednesday 13th February. it states that i may be fired.

yes i have a feeling this new employer wants a reference. i have to sign the job offer and return, he seems keen to get it done. in all honesty, i have had a bit of a think, and i am considering something part time.

would you like more detail or is that sufficient.

kelly_borntoshop

the list of things i cant take them to court for is 2 pages long :rotfl:

kelly_borntoshop

the email also says - Thank you for your email of 31 January 2013, I would like to respond to the points you raise as follows:-

i sent it today...

Uncertain

kelly_borntoshop wrote: »

the list of things i cant take them to court for is 2 pages long :rotfl:

That is quite normal!

Effectively they will try to exclude everything except the very few things the law says they can't.

Uncertain

kelly_borntoshop wrote: »

the offer is £1000 plus 1 months "net" pay @ £1200 - is that right?? no notice pay either.

Well surely that is the month's pay in lieu of notice (i.e February) plus £1000 compensation for the loss of your employment.

kelly_borntoshop

Uncertain wrote: »

Well surely that is the month's pay in lieu of notice (i.e February) plus £1000 compensation for the loss of your employment.

since there was no contract is it not a statutory weeks pay in lieu?

the "new" contract states a week... dunno. i will have look and see what it says.

Uncertain

kelly_borntoshop wrote: »

the reference is included in the agreement clause- it says "will stick to this paragraph etc as noted in section 2, section 2 is titled reference and completely blank.

Again that is normal. Usually the agreed reference wording is an appendix rather than actually in the CA.

The important thing is that the CA says they must stick to that wording and not say anything else (ideally without your prior approval - although they may not agree to that extra bit).

Given the new job you need to get the wording agreed ASAP.

Wait for Daisy but I would suggest sending them her draft wording for their approval.

Uncertain

kelly_borntoshop wrote: »

since there was no contract is it not a statutory weeks pay in lieu?

the "new" contract states a week... dunno. i will have look and see what it says.

Yes, but I wouldn't argue!

Better to have four weeks taxable than only a week if they twig.

If the agreement says four, that is what they will have to pay. Too late once it is signed!