Resigned "constructively" , but .....

sangie595

jobbingmusician wrote: »

And please note that the above post about professionalism was written by someone who had one of his posts in this very thread removed by the forum team for breaking forum rules

And also, in hindsight, probably our resident "sign up a new alter ego, post something then totally change the facts just to have a go at the regular posters". What is amusing, if it weren't for the offensive and time wasting efforts of our little troll, is that the "new facts" would further undermine a claim of constructive unfair dismissals and demonstrate that the OP, were they even remotely a real person, had other options than to resign.

I should have known when they claimed it cost £2k for a letter. But I wrongly assumed that they had found a solicitor who saw them coming, instead of not having a solicitor at all.

Hounded_out

Good balanced remarks Masomnia. You were only one of two members who gave a sensible and concise reply.

Still don't know how to add a quote, but the remarks I refer to were made in your last post. Mind you I still doubt the query raised was really that complicated, in particular for some of the self professed experts who appear to frequent this forum.

nicechap

No one called Mason has replied to this thread.

I do hope the OP's attention to detail is better when they launch their claim.

badmemory

Hounded_out wrote: »

Still don't know how to add a quote

At the bottom right of each post there are a series of "buttons" the first of which is spam and one of the others is quote. Just click on that & the quote appears at the beginning of your reply.

FBaby

You were only one of two members who gave a sensible and concise reply.

Unfortunately, like many first time posters, you seem to consider 'good' replies those that agree with you.

Personally, I'm very surprised how confident some people -who have no legal experience at all- seem to be when it comes to winning a case against their employer, when it is well documented that very few succeed. It is also amazing how so many people think that the legal system is about fairness, a concept that is completely subjective.

Your choice OP to refuse to listen to anyone not telling you what a great case you have and how you're going to win with flying colours and get compensation that will make it all worth it.

Hounded_out

Actually FBaby the facts were extracted from a real life case scenario. The query relates to a claim which did go to the ET and may in all likelihood have been determined in the claimant's favour, but was settled at the last minute. ACAS were involved and gave guidance.

As I said I was merely carrying out some research.

I was merely ascertaining who could offer legitimate and concise guidance.

Thus the "good" replies were merely the replies that were close to the replies that were in accordance with the law or orders made in hearings presided over by an employment judge. The case was eventually settled out of Tribunal at the last minute. Yes, the ET and both sides had the full facts, but come on the specific query that was raised was not that complex. A repudiated employment contract is just that - repudiated.

If the forum is to be credible it has to do more good than harm. Sadly, my research suggests otherwise.

LilElvis

Hounded_out wrote: »

Actually FBaby the facts were extracted from a real life case scenario. The query relates to a claim which did go to the ET and was determined in the claimant's favour. ACAS were involved and gave guidance.

As I said I was merely carrying out some research.

I was merely ascertaining who could offer legitimate and concise guidance.

Thus the "good" replies were merely the replies that were close to the replies that were in accordance with the law or judgement made by the employment judge. Yes, the ET had the full facts, but come on the query that was raised was not that complex. A repudiated employment contract is just that - repudiated.

If the forum is to be credible it has to do more good than harm. Sadly, my research suggests otherwise.

Research?

More like trolling.

Pathetic.

NeilCr

I'd be interested to see the background to the decision Hounded Out

Could you post the link please? I'd rather not wade through pages and pages trying to find it

Thanks

Hounded_out

The details of any settlement are confidential.

The query was, however, based on a real case scenario.

Sadly my research appears to conclude that the majority of the forum users who replied were somewhat wide of the mark. A repudiated employment contract is just that - repudiated.

Masomnia

Hounded_out wrote: »

The details of the settlement are confidential.

The query was based on a real case scenario.

Sadly my research appears to conclude that the majority of the forum users who replied were somewhat wide of the mark. A repudiated employment contract is just that - repudiated.

If it went to ET there will be a judgement.

To my mind it's pretty straightforward that if there are unwanted advances, a complaint is made and nothing done about it and following that the claimant is treated badly as a result of complaining then there is a breach of trust and confidence. It's proving it that is difficult.