"Resignation" vs. "Mutual Agreement" for reason for termination of contract

Undervalued

Another_not_new_user wrote: »

And I would want to be clear on the terms of your settlement agreement, but usually you are not permitted to disclose it or anything to do with it - so you can't "cover it" in your interviews because any disclosure makes the agreement null and void and subject to reclaim of the payment from you.

Most compromise / settlement agreements I've seen make an exception allowing the employee to discuss it as far as is necessary with a prospective employer or agency.

I agree it is worth checking but it should be possible to get something to this effect included.

Another_not_new_user

Undervalued wrote: »

Most compromise / settlement agreements I've seen make an exception allowing the employee to discuss it as far as is necessary with a prospective employer or agency.

I agree it is worth checking but it should be possible to get something to this effect included.

Most commonly say the opposite of this. They allow disclosure to a legal representative and to immediate family, and nobody else.


But my main concern here is not what the terms of the settlement agreement are. These are minor details in this circumstance. It is that I am not convinced that they can bind the employer to it. The OP is a teacher in education - a regulated industry in which the rules of disclosure vary from those of the general working population. We all know that if an employer wants to get around an agreement, it isn't that hard, albeit they shouldn't. But in this case disclosure can be argued to be a requirement, which potentially leaves the OP much more vulnerable. If they disclose more information they have a good position for a defence against breach, and if they refuse to answer specific questions because of the agreement, then the new employer is unlikely to wish to appoint when they cannot ascertain the answers they want - it will put them on alert that there is a problem, and they won't care whose problem it was.


That is why I think the OP needs to be very clear about what would be said about anything and what might be said - or not said. If, for example, a specific question is raised about behaviour management - not answering isn't an option as this is a professional skill; if they say that there have been issues with it, then that won't help the OP; and if they say there haven't been any issues that would be a lie for which they can be sued!


All in all I think I would agree with Snakey - look for supply teaching. This evades all need for benefits, and stick at it for the rest of the teaching year and this becomes the last employment and a new reference. It is a much easier position to handle and explain, and does away with the need to tell anyone. Supply teachers are generally in demand, and the agency is taking no risk compared to a school - they give assignments to those they can depend on, and if they encounter no problems they will be happy, but if they do, well it's a case of don't come in tomorrow, like all agency work. It's far more likely to create a new start and a clean sheet.

steampowered

A standard agreed form reference would just confirm job title and dates of employment.

I don't see why it is necessary to say 'resignation' or 'mutual agreement' or anything like that. It is not necessary for the reference to state the reason why your employment came to an end - this is not necessary for checks and best explained at interview.

I don't think it is particularly suspicious these days. These days most large companies and nearly all professional firms have a policy of only giving standard form references for all employees. I don't think it looks too unusual even among SMEs.

Another_not_new_user

steampowered wrote: »

A standard agreed form reference would just confirm job title and dates of employment.

I don't see why it is necessary to say 'resignation' or 'mutual agreement' or anything like that. It is not necessary for the reference to state the reason why your employment came to an end - this is not necessary for checks and best explained at interview.

I don't think it is particularly suspicious these days. These days most large companies and nearly all professional firms have a policy of only giving standard form references for all employees. I don't think it looks too unusual even among SMEs.

Because this is EDUCATION and the rules are different! This is not a large company. It is not an SME. It is a school and it is a regulated profession.


And because even if it wasn't a school, there is no evidence to suggest that "most" companies of any size give only standard references.

anamenottaken

Another_not_new_user wrote: »

Because this is EDUCATION and the rules are different! This is not a large company. It is not an SME. It is a school and it is a regulated profession.


And because even if it wasn't a school, there is no evidence to suggest that "most" companies of any size give only standard references.

Unfortunately the OP didn't mention the Education setting when starting this thread, did they? Without trawling through their other threads (or remembering them) or spotting it in one or two later posts in this thread, I can see that steampowered would not have known the special context.

Another_not_new_user

anamenottaken wrote: »

Unfortunately the OP didn't mention the Education setting when starting this thread, did they? Without trawling through their other threads (or remembering them) or spotting it in one or two later posts in this thread, I can see that steampowered would not have known the special context.

Accepted - although I had mentioned it before and the OP had two threads going simultaneously a couple of days ago. Which I agree isn't a help.


This is education, OP is a teacher.