Archive for the ‘Compromise Agreements’ Category
By Sarah - Friday, May 28th, 2010
Network Rail’s HR Director, Peter Bennett has come under renewed pressure to resign over allegations of repeated sexual discrimination against staff. The Transport Salaried Staff Association (TSSA) has repeated its call for him to be suspended after his conduct was raised in the House of Commons back in March.
The allegation is that Network Rail has paid out between £450,000 and £850,000 in compromise agreement settlements to three senior employees. Allegedly, he sacked two female employees who were undergoing fertility treatment, asked another to remove her blouse so he could see her tan lines and called another a f**king black b**ch. The HR Director has signed 155 compromise agreements over the past three years so one a week. A labour backbencher questioned Lord Adonis, the Transport Minster about the use of public funds to pay off employees. Sounds like we should be selling Network Rail our compromise agreement wizard to generate all those agreements cost effectively!
Network Rail says it has carried out an investigation and can find no evidence of wrongdoing by Peter Benett. It will not be taking disciplinary action against Bennett and labels the actions of TSSA as a nasty personal campaign against Bennett.
Posted in Compromise Agreements | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Liam - Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009
For employees to sign away their rights to sue their employer for breach of their statutory employment rights validly, the requirements for Compromise Agreements in s.203 Employment Rights Act 1996 must be complied with in full. The requirements are strict and detailed.
The EAT have considered who decides if a Compromise Agreement is valid and has decided that Employment Tribunals do have jurisdiction to determine whether Compromise Agreements are valid. They may be invalid, for example, because the requirements of s.203 have not been complied with or because the employee has been induced to enter the agreement following a misrepresentation on the part of his/her employer.
Posted in Compromise Agreements | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Liam - Wednesday, July 1st, 2009
Last year, PJH Law launched its new Compromise Agreement Wizard Service as reported here and here.
The Compromise Agreement Wizard allows employers to draft Compromise Agreements without any legal drafting skills. Each Agreement is created by answering a series of questions which adapt every use depending on answers to earlier questions and allow a bespoke Compromise Agreement to be created which arrives in your e-mail inbox.
Yesterday a client used the Wizard and we received this comment:
“May I take this opportunity to thank you for your kind, fast and excellent service offered to our company this afternoon. Within 1 hour we managed to obtain a Compromise Agreement using your online ‘Wizard’.
Furthermore, your assistance thereafter was so prompt and helpful.
You offer a unique service that is not often available and we although not for this matter, we hope to contact you in the future for any other matters we may have.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Christou
Managing Director
Elegant Property Solutions Ltd”
If you would like to use the Compromise Agreement Wizard, click here. The cost per use has just reduced to £50 plus VAT per use, a saving of £100 plus VAT per agreement and volume usage discounts are available - call us for more information.
Posted in Categories, Compromise Agreements, PJH Law News | 1 comment »
Similar Posts:
By Nicky - Thursday, September 18th, 2008
Penalty clauses are sometimes used by employers in an attempt to retain an employee for a certain period of time following a financial payout, usually in the case of bonuses. However, the question arises as to how enforceable are these clauses in reality?
The case of CMC v Zhang 2006 EWCA Civ 408 it was held that a clause in a compromise agreement was a penalty clause introduced as a deterrent intended to induce the employee not to breach any terms of the agreement. Breach of the terms would result in the monies being repayable. The House of Lords decided that this clause was not enforceable and that the sum of money must be an estimate of the damage, not extravagant and unconscionable compared to the actual loss following the breach. For more details click here.
Therefore, if an employer is intending to rely on a penalty clause then they would be wise to ensure that it is reasonable, narrow in scope and reflects a real estimate of the actual loss. Otherwise, if challenged, be prepared to lose!!!
Posted in Breach of Contract, Compromise Agreements | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Wednesday, September 17th, 2008
One subject that comes up for discussion is whether an offer of a compromise agreement should be made on an open (ie admissible) basis, or on a without prejudice basis (ie non admissible).
My view is that giving an employee an opportunity to leave on an agreed basis was not something an employer needs to hide from a Tribunal’s view. If an employer is going through a disciplinary process and the evidence is such that the employee is guilty of gross misconduct, I can’t see too much wrong in offering an employee on an open basis a compromise agreement with say a pilon in. Likewise in a redundancy situation where selection looks unanswerable, then an open offer of a compromise agreement is nothing a Tribunal would consider unusual.
In my experience the fact that an employer has offered a compromise agreement is well within a Tribunal’s experience and will not, usually, count against an employer.
The fact that an employee has left two employers under a compromise agreement and is bringing a race claim against a third might possibly count against this employee.
Posted in Compromise Agreements | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Monday, July 7th, 2008
HR Readers - this may be of interest! The Government are consulting about whether to include CIPD professionals within the definition of “relevant advisor.” If this gets the go ahead, CIPD members could advise on compromise agreements, thereby earning some extra pocket money!
The one down side of the proposal is that about 5% of proposed compromise agreements do not get signed and end up at ET. If a CIPD member is advising then unless they were authorised claims practitioners they could not act in the claim, meaning a dis-continuity of service to the client.
Anyway I can’t see Solicitors wanting CIPD members parking their tanks on their lawn, can you? And can you imagine someone just handed a compromise agreement by HR, thinking I know I must go and see a CIPD member to negotiate this, as they will be able to see my side rather than HRs. Mmmmm. Don’t think so.
Consultation here
Posted in Compromise Agreements | 1 comment »
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Friday, January 5th, 2007
One size fits all, one size fits all - as the Crystal Palace fans used to sing about defender Fitz Hall, now at Bolton. Well in the world of compromise agreements, one size does not necessarily fitz hall fit all . The case reported here is a timely reminder that compromise agreements need to be bespoke rather than off the peg. In particular in the recitals of the Agreement you need to ensure that it reads that it is confirmed that the conditions regulating this Agreement in section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 are satisfied, as well as any other claims under other jurisdictions. Bt compromised potential claims for Unfair Dismissal and Race Discrimination in the main body of the Agreement but the recitals only confirmed that the conditions under the Employment Rights Act were met. The recitals did not confirm that the conditions under the Race Relations Act were met. This meant that the employee could proceed with her Race claim, even though she had signed a compromise agreement settling it.Doh!
Posted in Compromise Agreements | No comments »
Similar Posts:
