Resigned "constructively" , but .....

NeilCr

Hounded_out wrote: »

The details of any settlement are confidential.

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

Well, indeed.

It is, however, interesting that you amended your post after I had asked the question to include the fact that there was a settlement

Fortunately, LilElvis had already copied the original

I'll leave others to make their minds up about why you altered it

nicechap

For those finding it difficult to follow I'd offer the following translation

confidential = made up to cause trouble

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 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.

Please note that this isn't what the OP originally posted.

I quoted before he/she edited the original, which was quite different:

" The query relates to a claim which did go to the ET and was determined in the claimant's favour"

So it was changed from being a case being won to being settled instead. Bit of a fundamental difference, but of course means that she now, of course, can't answer the (reasonable) request for details of the ruling as there wasn't one.

Also note the OP edited the post 20 minutes after a request for the details of the decision.

How convenient that the OP noted their minor error and therefore dodged being able to back up their claims with facts.

How very unprofessional. :T

Shame for the OP that I know how to use the quote button. :rotfl:

sangie595

Hounded_out wrote: »

The details of any settlement are confidential.

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

Of course it is. How convenient. And it is just as believable as your being a first time poster, isn't it? The very first sentence here was a lie, and you have done nothing different since. In fact your only purpose in being here is to rubbish the people, the advice and the board - and scare off people who actually really do need help by trying to make it appear that you are the expert and no advice given here is "good". It's funny, as I said - we have another "poster" on the site who also signs up new alter egos and does exactly the same thing. And reads remarkably like you too. And has history of doing this on other sites too. And remarkably, after an absence of a few weeks, was posting under one of their other user names the same day that you appeared as a "first time poster". They also have a scary habit of logging in with yet another alter ego and thanking themselves! But you wouldn't know anything about that, being a first time user.....

Hounded_out

Ok. So you are good at picking up on a correction which I made, because my original wording was wrong. See, I am willing to admit an oversight. The case is referenced below, but alas I did not attend - and yes the facts of each case are different, but like it or not, the vast majority of MSE's self professed employment experts got it wrong. I reiterate that the MSE employment forum may be doing more harm than good;

For a [fundamental] or [repudiatory breach] of contract to have taken place, the employee would have to establish that the employer was guilty of something, which goes to the [root of the contract]. The test case for this was Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp {1978} IRLR 27.

In laypersons terms, a [fundamental breach] of the employment contract allows the employee to repudiate the employment contract. The employee would resign with immediate effect, without working out their notice, due to the fact they "repudiate" the contract of employment. Therefore the employer will not be able to enforce the terms of the employee's contract of employment, or make the employee work their notice period, which they would otherwise be legally obliged to do. This is known as "constructive dismissal".

nicechap

yawn.

so going to ET to not going as it was settled confidentially to a random other case that did go.

Makes Sam M's thread's look considered.

LilElvis

Hounded_out wrote: »

Ok. So you are good at picking up on a correction which I made, because my original wording was wrong. See, I am willing to admit an oversight. The case is referenced below, but alas I did not attend - and yes the facts of each case are different, but like it or not, the vast majority of MSE's self professed employment experts got it wrong. I reiterate that the MSE employment forum may be doing more harm than good;

For a [fundamental] or [repudiatory breach] of contract to have taken place, the employee would have to establish that the employer was guilty of something, which goes to the [root of the contract]. The test case for this was Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp {1978} IRLR 27.

In laypersons terms, a [fundamental breach] of the employment contract allows the employee to repudiate the employment contract. The employee would resign with immediate effect, without working out their notice, due to the fact they "repudiate" the contract of employment. Therefore the employer will not be able to enforce the terms of the employee's contract of employment, or make the employee work their notice period, which they would otherwise be legally obliged to do. This is known as "constructive dismissal".

The "wording was wrong"? The whole meaning was wrong. Are you Dianne Abbott's speech writer perchance? :eek:

Nicki

I'm struggling to see how a confidential settlement is in any way relevant to judging the quality of advice given on the thread - most of which was in any event that the Employee would have been best advised to take legal advice before starting down the constructive dismissal route.

The employer could have settled for 50p, £500 or £5000. The settlement being confidential none of us are any the wiser on that. The settlement could even have been to allow the Employee to withdraw their claim on the eve of the tribunal without liability for the employers costs. Nothing you have posted proves that the employer paid a sum to the Employee which could come close to compensating them for the loss of their job and lack of good reference.

nicechap

Nicki wrote: »

I'm struggling to see how a confidential settlement is in any way relevant to judging the quality of advice given on the thread - most of which was in any event that the Employee would have been best advised to take legal advice before starting down the constructive dismissal route.

The employer could have settled for 50p, £500 or £5000. The settlement being confidential none of us are any the wiser on that. The settlement could even have been to allow the Employee to withdraw their claim on the eve of the tribunal without liability for the employers costs. Nothing you have posted proves that the employer paid a sum to the Employee which could come close to compensating them for the loss of their job and lack of good reference.

Stop using rational arguments - it'll only upset them.

Manxman_in_exile

Hounded_out wrote: »

Ok. So you are good at picking up on a correction which I made, because my original wording was wrong. See, I am willing to admit an oversight. The case is referenced below, but alas I did not attend - and yes the facts of each case are different, but like it or not, the vast majority of MSE's self professed employment experts got it wrong. I reiterate that the MSE employment forum may be doing more harm than good;

For a [fundamental] or [repudiatory breach] of contract to have taken place, the employee would have to establish that the employer was guilty of something, which goes to the [root of the contract]. The test case for this was Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp {1978} IRLR 27.

In laypersons terms, a [fundamental breach] of the employment contract allows the employee to repudiate the employment contract. The employee would resign with immediate effect, without working out their notice, due to the fact they "repudiate" the contract of employment. Therefore the employer will not be able to enforce the terms of the employee's contract of employment, or make the employee work their notice period, which they would otherwise be legally obliged to do. This is known as "constructive dismissal".

Are you sure that the case you cite is an authority for deciding that the situation you describe in your original post amounts to constructive dismissal? I can see no similarity on the facts whatsoever. That's why different sets of facts result in different decisions.


Where will your research be published? I'd really like to read it.