me v jaguar

[teaboy2]

12/Grounds for discipline based only on me contacting senior management.

 

15/

 

So thay were going to dicipiline you if you contacted your senior manager to discuss your grievance? well they can not do that, as its a proper procedure govern by the employments rights act for you to contact your senior mangement about a grievance against your direct management.

[shifty50dog]

15/ When your off work your requested to go to the works surgery to talk to a work health advisor having no trust in that surgery i took my steward with me the company were not happy about this because i made sure that the nurse talking to me was only going to email my superintendant with information i said was ok.

 

16/On the same day you are made to attend a meeting with your superintendant and employment relations officer hr.Like i said e.r.o officer said you will take a capability examination with the works gp if you fail that examination the company will terminate your employment.I deemed this to be a threat i was of work with stress because of what had been going on i could do my job i was operating three machines on my own work wich used to be done by three people so i was more than capable of doing my job even my steward who was put on my job when i attended the surgery could not do my job i felt threatened so i said i would return to work there and then at that meeting but refused to take the capability examination with the works gp who was involved in the abuse of that medical document e.r.o insisted i take it with him allthough there are other doctors there.

 

17/I spoke to the e.r.o the next day on the phone from my home i said ive given you a date for me to return to work so theres no need for me to take to capability examination you know i can do that job im only off work because of the abuse of my medical data and medical restrictions by the supervision.He replied you will take that examination AND I DEMAND YOU SIGN OVER YOUR MEDICAL HISTORY FROM YOUR OWN GP.My steward was made aware of this through a work colleague who spoke to my steward on my behalf my steward confronted the e.r.o for the record hes a man and told him he had no rite to demand any employees medical data.Having consulted with my own gp she said this would involve me signing over everything about me to the company gp from the day i was born.Like i said the e.r.o denied saying he demanded i sign over my medical records my wife was listening to that call what more can i say.

[silverbird_9t9]

Shifty, I fear that by signing the CA you have effectively signed away all of your rights as far as complaints about the company, your industrial injury etc. Did you take the advice given by your solicitor or sign because you needed the money? In order for the agreement to be enforcable you must have had the benefit of advice from someone with the necessary qualifications and insurance. If they (your legal advisor) gave you poor advice, you could claim against them. However, if you refused to take their advice I don't think you would have any come back.

[teaboy2]

15/ When your off work your requested to go to the works surgery to talk to a work health advisor having no trust in that surgery i took my steward with me the company were not happy about this because i made sure that the nurse talking to me was only going to email my superintendant with information i said was ok.

 

16/On the same day you are made to attend a meeting with your superintendant and employment relations officer hr.Like i said e.r.o officer said you will take a capability examination with the works gp if you fail that examination the company will terminate your employment.I deemed this to be a threat i was of work with stress because of what had been going on i could do my job i was operating three machines on my own work wich used to be done by three people so i was more than capable of doing my job even my steward who was put on my job when i attended the surgery could not do my job i felt threatened so i said i would return to work there and then at that meeting but refused to take the capability examination with the works gp who was involved in the abuse of that medical document e.r.o insisted i take it with him allthough there are other doctors there.

 

17/I spoke to the e.r.o the next day on the phone from my home i said ive given you a date for me to return to work so theres no need for me to take to capability examination you know i can do that job im only off work because of the abuse of my medical data and medical restrictions by the supervision.He replied you will take that examination AND I DEMAND YOU SIGN OVER YOUR MEDICAL HISTORY FROM YOUR OWN GP.My steward was made aware of this through a work colleague who spoke to my steward on my behalf my steward confronted the e.r.o for the record hes a man and told him he had no rite to demand any employees medical data.Having consulted with my own gp she said this would involve me signing over everything about me to the company gp from the day i was born.Like i said the e.r.o denied saying he demanded i sign over my medical records my wife was listening to that call what more can i say.

 

OK Thats fine shifty50dog will wait till youve answered the rest of the questions

[shifty50dog]

I can only state that the compromise deal as far as i recollect only stated that the company was not addmitting guilt and there was no mention of medical data in that document only this compromise was final and that i agree to not taking action against the company and any individual employed by the company civil action or other and i could only discus this with my family it did not say my family were obliged to keep quite thoe it also said i could not make a claim if redundancys were later issued by the company wich they did afew weeks later.

 

Ive told solicitors about this they dont seem interested in the abuse of medical data im at the point where this month i will be going into arrears with my morgage struggling to pay my heating bill wich is a lot of money ive got no financial cushion because i was denied this by this company.

 

To put the pension thing in perspective because the company said you cant have your pension until you retire this is reduced when you contact the pension people yourself basicly you lose afew thousand because the company wont sanction it and it also reduces your monthly payments i hope thats made it more clear.

My daughter as contacted a national news paper about this they said we will contact you about this in the new year and they are very interested in the story.My daughter spoke to the managing directors P.A the P.A said were not bothered who you contact you can please yourself so you can see what kind of people ive been dealing with im ready to let rip.

[shifty50dog]

Ive Removed Section 2

[teaboy2]

I can only state that the compromise deal as far as i recollect only stated that the company was not addmitting guilt and there was no mention of medical data in that document only this compromise was final and that i agree to not taking action against the company and any individual employed by the company civil action or other and i could only discus this with my family it did not say my family were obliged to keep quite thoe it also said i could not make a claim if redundancys were later issued by the company wich they did afew weeks later.

 

Ive told solicitors about this they dont seem interested in the abuse of medical data im at the point where this month i will be going into arrears with my morgage struggling to pay my heating bill wich is a lot of money ive got no financial cushion because i was denied this by this company.

 

To put the pension thing in perspective because the company said you cant have your pension until you retire this is reduced when you contact the pension people yourself basicly you lose afew thousand because the company wont sanction it and it also reduces your monthly payments i hope thats made it more clear.

My daughter as contacted a national news paper about this they said we will contact you about this in the new year and they are very interested in the story.My daughter spoke to the managing directors P.A the P.A said were not bothered who you contact you can please yourself so you can see what kind of people ive been dealing with im ready to let rip.

 

Ok well dont do anything just let i am working on it along with honeybee whom ive been in touch with. One thing id like to ask though, was in the compromise agreement where it said the company does not admit any guilt and where you agreed not to take action against the company or employees civil or otherwise, if it was referring to or stated in regards to employment action or not?

 

In other words was the compromise agreement a direct and final response to your grievance about the medical records or that of how the company conducted themselves in the handling of your grievance only?

 

Either way we are looking into validity of the agreement given the circumstances you were in at the time it was signed and i have made some enquiries which i hope to have a response to in the next few days. i wont go into details as to what they are as yet or as to whom

Edited January 7, 2010 by teaboy2

[Uncertain]

As I understand it, most CAs do not try to preclude personal injury claims where you were not aware of the injury at the time of signing (would not be enforceable even if they did).

 

Also, I have been told by a solicitor that restricting any PI claim by the terms of a CA is very difficult to enforce.

 

Most have a clear obligation on BOTH parties to keep the matter confidential and not to make derogatory statements. Is your company in breach of this?

 

Also, does anybody know if true information can be derogatory (in the legal sense)? In other words does this restrict their right to speak the truth, however unpleasant?

[teaboy2]

As I understand it, most CAs do not try to preclude personal injury claims where you were not aware of the injury at the time of signing (would not be enforceable even if they did).

 

Also, I have been told by a solicitor that restricting any PI claim by the terms of a CA is very difficult to enforce.

 

Most have a clear obligation on BOTH parties to keep the matter confidential and not to make derogatory statements. Is your company in breach of this?

 

Also, does anybody know if true information can be derogatory (in the legal sense)? In other words does this restrict their right to speak the truth, however unpleasant?

 

Very good point their Uncertain.

 

I do not see how speacking the truth in regards to events leading upto the agreement being made can be seen as derogatory either, since the fact they (the company) decided to settle the matter by compromise agreement, would implie their was some truth and they choose not to defend in court as it was more likely they would not win, and no doubt their solicitor would have advised them as such.

 

And yes since the employees are also mentioned in the agreement then they too must be parties to the agreement and would have had to sign a copy of such agreement too in order them to be protected by the agreement and for the agreement to be enforcable when it comes to weather you can take action against to employees, i would assume. So question is did the employees mentioned in the agreement and as such becoming parties to the agreement actually sign it aswell? If not then i cant see how it can be enforced in respect of the protection of unsigned parties against legal action as they have not agreement to the agreement. otherwise whats to stop the employees gossiping about the agreement?

 

Or at least thats my thoughts on the points you have raised Uncertain.

Edited January 7, 2010 by teaboy2

[honeybee13]

Hi there shifty50.

 

Is there nothing in writing from the company or your supervisor/s and colleagues that you can post on your thread please?

 

I would think there's a limit to how much hearsay can be used as an argument and some hard facts would really help us.

 

Will post separately about the pension.

[honeybee13]

From shifty50dog 'To put the pension thing in perspective because the company said you cant have your pension until you retire this is reduced when you contact the pension people yourself basicly you lose afew thousand because the company wont sanction it and it also reduces your monthly payments i hope thats made it more clear.'

 

Not yet, I'm afraid.

 

Shifty, can you tell us what age you are, if you're prepared to. Also what is the 'Normal Retirement Age' for the company's scheme please?

 

I'll ask more later about what type of scheme it is, if you'll tell me.

 

My best.

[shifty50dog]

Honey bee13

my age now is 55.

Take into account i left the company in june 2008.

The compromise deal was signed by my solicitor in nov 2008.

 

My solicitors advised me to take the offer based that constructive dismissal should count within 3 months of resigning.The companys solicitor argued this point saying there was no case to answer and there offer was final as the company intended to contest and hire a barrister.I can only say i think it stated this offer involves your grievence in final but no mention of medical issues whatsoever.it did say i could not take civil action against any company employee and could only discus this with my family.

[shifty50dog]

Retirement age 65.

But knew pension regulations state if you take redundancy or leave the company you can get your pension at age 50 onwards.Pension scheme final salary the best you can get,

[JonCris]

Positive. Action can be raised in relation to human rights which are incorporated into Employment law, but not the human rights act itself.

 

It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a manner which is incompatible with a convention right. Section 6, Human Rights Act 1998. There is no mention in the Human Rights Act of it being unlawful for any other individual or private business acting in a manner which is incompatible with a convention right.

 

There is a lot of uncertainty in regard to what constitues a "public authority", specifically because a lot of government departments contract out work now. A "public authority" is defined as an authority which is exercising public function.

 

For clarification, two examples:

 

A private security firm would be exercising public functions in relation to the management of a contracted-out prison but would be acting privately when, guarding commercial premises, such as a supermarket.

 

Doctors in general practice would be public authorities in relation to their National Health Service functions, but not in relation to their private patients.

 

Links: Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42)

 

Human rights in the workplace : Directgov - Employment

 

EHRC - Questions about human rights

 

 

Just before the Xmas break, when no one was looking, this government enacted a law exempting ALL private companies from the FoI AND I understand the HRA

[ErikaPNP]

me and my wife are not working we survive on the £65 aweek all my savings have gone

 

Oh, no no no!! This is not right. £65.00 per week is well below the amount you need to live on if you are a couple and have no savings and no other source of income other than from benefit. If this is all the income you get from benefit something is far wrong. You may want to start new thread in the benefit section to deal with this seperately from your employment issue, or enter your details (you don't need to give your name, just financial details) here or here to get a rough calculation of what you should get.

[honeybee13]

Retirement age 65.

But knew pension regulations state if you take redundancy or leave the company you can get your pension at age 50 onwards.Pension scheme final salary the best you can get,

 

That's right, shifty, it will be a good scheme and from memory, you were in it for about 10 years?

 

In a final salary scheme, you usually need the company's or Trustees' agreement to retire early. This will depend on the scheme rules.

 

The current minimum early retirement age is 50, but on 6th April this year, the age will go up to 55 for virtually everyone.

 

If you have a scheme booklet, does it say anything about Early Retirement please? I've looked online to see if any details are available for your employer [no names, no pack drill], but can't find anything specific.

 

Please tell me more when you're ready.

[shifty50dog]

Hi Honeybee13

Yep the best scheme you could get.The pension issue is not a big deal ive got a lot of paper work regarding my complaint 2 days before i left i met with hr to discus settlement for my 10 years service they just said we dont do that and you can have your pension when you retire.I said that being my medical document had been copied and tampered with written on and i was leaving i thought you might end this she replied notes were written on the document but its all been delt with.

Im finding this hard to move on i want these people sacked ive just been reading there statements wich took me 16 months to get there lies are so disgusting i revenge the only to do that is to humiliate them and degrade them like they did to me.

[honeybee13]

Hi shifty. It's not necessarily right that you can't draw your pension early. Reaching State retirement age of 65 and taking an early pension from a final salary scheme aren't the same thing. Not every HR person understands pensions.

 

That's why I was asking you what the early pension rules are for your scheme, if you're able to tell. Send me a PM if you prefer.

[teaboy2]

Honey bee13

my age now is 55.

Take into account i left the company in june 2008.

The compromise deal was signed by my solicitor in nov 2008.

 

My solicitors advised me to take the offer based that constructive dismissal should count within 3 months of resigning.The companys solicitor argued this point saying there was no case to answer and there offer was final as the company intended to contest and hire a barrister.I can only say i think it stated this offer involves your grievence in final but no mention of medical issues whatsoever.it did say i could not take civil action against any company employee and could only discus this with my family.

 

I feel you may have been misadvised in regards as to the point in which the 3 month limit starts from.

 

Basically if your greivance was still being dealt with between you and the company after you had resigned then the date in which the company gives its final dicision is the date in which the 3 months start.

 

I.e you resigned in june 2008 but the the final response of your grievance was in november 2008 making the date in which the of the start of the 3 month limit being the date in which the Compromise agreement was Offered. So you actually had till december 2008 to put your claim in at tribunal. You still could have put claim in at tribunal for constructive dismissal after the 3 months too, as tribunal do allow late claims to be heard but may take the delay of your claim as a sign that you had agreed to something with the employer, such as changes to contract in the case of a breach of contract by the employer.

 

Now given this misrepresentation from your solicitor theres a good chance you have a case to have the compromise agreement set side and made invalid. And then go after the employer and if you choose, a claim against your solicitor for misadvising you. As i can not see how the grievance procedure was exshausted prior to the compromise agreement being offered as full and final response.

[shifty50dog]

Hi Teaboy

I think my solicitor was taking the date of when i first complained to the company wich was in january 2007 there procedures took till august 2007 i left in june 2008 but i was never happy with the final epc meeting they made me wait for that meeting from may 2007 till august 2007.I really dont see how i could challenge the people involved if i did not get there statements till august 2009 after i had left maybe this is where you might be getting confused with what ive stated so far.If so i apologise.

[shifty50dog]

meant to say august 2008 sorry

[teaboy2]

Right so when they gave you their response in august 2007 did you appeal the decision as you did state you wrote to the Chairman (or was it cheif executive?)? Because what am saying is,

 

1) you must have issued an grievance with them between or just shortly before leaving or shortly after leaving in order to have had an offer of the compromise agreement as a full and final settlement. So what was it that lead to them offering you a compromies, did you complian about the way they had treated you? as such that can been seen as a seperate grievance from the first one!

 

Or,

 

2) an on going grievance procedure/investigation between you and the company from may 2007 where the decision in august 2007 was not full and final by means of appeal and as such the grievance was still active and being discussed continuosly between you and the company to the point the compromise was issued.

 

As they wont have offered you a full and final unless their was still an on going grievance! If you see what i mean?

 

Basically if the grievance had been exhausted back in august 2007 then there would not have been a compromise agreement offered as they will only offer such an agreement as the result of an grievance you have with them that they have failed to resolve and stood a good chance of losing at tribunal. If they as you say said its to late to take tribunal action, then why would they need to offer you a compromise agreement knowing you could not take them to tribunal? Or where you in a position where you could afford to issue court proceedings against them as in paying solicitor fees of possibly thousands of pounds possibly ten's of thousands of pounds, as i doubt you were given what you said about being in need of money at the time you agreed to the compromise. i also doubt youd have been entitled to legal aid as a claiment in court aswell. so they also knew that any civil action would be out of the question. which brings me back to question, why offer a compromise agreement when they claimed you could not take them to tribunal? Simple answer is.. Because really you still could and they knew it. But it appears you solicitor didnt.

 

Either that or i am missing something big here

 

Hope you see what am getting here?

Edited January 7, 2010 by teaboy2

[shifty50dog]

Grievance procedures were exausted in august 2007 as far as they were concerned. until i left and contacted a solicitor only then did they supply those statements.I went to cov law centre they started the process of constructive dismisal i got a court date aweek before the case my solicitor told me they would not go to court because they said my case was weak they also said i could go on my own i would have been a lamb to the slaughter against a barrister.

 

Took the money because i had no option could not raise funds for civil action.

 

contacted chief executive afew months later after the compromise to complain about the conduct and treatment i got from is hr staff and there threats.Like i said is response fair procedures were followed he wished me good look for the future ha ha .

 

the hr dept after the grievance was exhausted just left things as they were those liers in the same block i raised issues again when the supervisor and the superintendant were smirking at me i blew a fuse and raised the issue verbally this was not recorded by hr.

According to the companies solicitor the offer was made without predudice my financial loss was calculated by my solicitor to be

£15000 they offered £500 then £1000 then 1500 they then said to my solicitor thats are final offer without predudice or addmmision take it or leave it the balls in your court if not we will hire a barrister to contest this.

Ive no idea why they offered this my solicitor advised to accept or represent myself i was devastated what could i do now im under financial stress.

[teaboy2]

Grievance procedures were exausted in august 2007 as far as they were concerned. until i left and contacted a solicitor (and that in the eyes of a tribunal is when you issued a new grievance) only then did they supply those statements.I went to cov law centre they started the process of constructive dismisal i got a court date aweek before the case my solicitor told me they would not go to court because they said my case was weak they also said i could go on my own i would have been a lamb to the slaughter against a barrister.

 

Took the money because i had no option could not raise funds for civil action.

 

contacted chief executive afew months later after the compromise to complain about the conduct and treatment i got from is hr staff and there threats.Like i said is response fair procedures were followed he wished me good look for the future ha ha .

 

the hr dept after the grievance was exhausted just left things as they were those liers in the same block i raised issues again when the supervisor and the superintendant were smirking at me i blew a fuse and raised the issue verbally this was not recorded by hr.

According to the companies solicitor the offer was made without predudice my financial loss was calculated by my solicitor to be

£15000 they offered £500 then £1000 then 1500 they then said to my solicitor thats are final offer without predudice or addmmision take it or leave it the balls in your court if not we will hire a barrister to contest this.

Ive no idea why they offered this my solicitor advised to accept or represent myself i was devastated what could i do now im under financial stress.

 

Id like to know what reason they give you as to why believed you had a weak case, because if that was the case then theyd have laughed at you and not even bothered to offer you a compromise agreement if they really thought they would win.

 

Was the solicitors from a No Win No Fee firm?

[Uncertain]

Grievance procedures were exausted in august 2007 as far as they were concerned. until i left and contacted a solicitor only then did they supply those statements.I went to cov law centre they started the process of constructive dismisal i got a court date aweek before the case my solicitor told me they would not go to court because they said my case was weak they also said i could go on my own i would have been a lamb to the slaughter against a barrister.

 

Took the money because i had no option could not raise funds for civil action.

 

contacted chief executive afew months later after the compromise to complain about the conduct and treatment i got from is hr staff and there threats.Like i said is response fair procedures were followed he wished me good look for the future ha ha .

 

the hr dept after the grievance was exhausted just left things as they were those liers in the same block i raised issues again when the supervisor and the superintendant were smirking at me i blew a fuse and raised the issue verbally this was not recorded by hr.

According to the companies solicitor the offer was made without predudice my financial loss was calculated by my solicitor to be

£15000 they offered £500 then £1000 then 1500 they then said to my solicitor thats are final offer without predudice or addmmision take it or leave it the balls in your court if not we will hire a barrister to contest this.

Ive no idea why they offered this my solicitor advised to accept or represent myself i was devastated what could i do now im under financial stress.

 

I know this is probably not what you want to hear but I don't see how you have a case against your former employers.

 

Rightly or wrongly you signed a compromise agreement. Assuming your solicitor provided the required statement to go with the agreement then it is a binding agreement between you and your former employers. Assuming it follows the normal wording, it will exclude every possible claim it is possible to exclude within the law. It will almost certainly have a confidentiality clause in it so you must be careful not to break this or your employer could try to get the money back.

 

IF (repeat IF) you were badly advised then any possible claim is against your solicitor and not your former employer. The solicitor will have to have signed to say that his / her practice has insurance to protect you in this regard.