Help with ET settlement agreement please

[footiefan]

I hope someone can help me.

I am about to settle an ET claim before the hearing, but I am concerned about some of the wording of the agreement. I understand that it is standard for the settlement to be full and final of the current claim, and any future claims, which I don't have a problem with, but I have requested that the wording reflects that it is full and final to both parties, and the respondents' legal adviser is refusing, basically because if I break any of the terms of the agreement, they won't be able to take any necessary action against me. My OH is of the opinion that isn't true, as the agreement will be a different issue, and wonders if they have 'something else up their sleeve'. Can anyone advise please?

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Help with ET settlement agreement please

Hi and welcome

It all depends on what the terms of the agreement are and whether you feel you will be able to stick to them more than anything else.

Remember you are the claimant in this case, if anyone was going to take further action that would be YOU not them.

Settlements usually consist of a certain amount of money and an agreed reference in return for not taking any further action, not posting anything negative about them, etc. along those lines. Is there anything else on there that you're not happy to agree to? Otherwise the whole thing should be fairly standard. Is ACAS involved?

[footiefan]

Re: Help with ET settlement agreement please

Good morning flamingparrot and thank you for answering my question. As far as I can tell, the agreement is pretty standard, which of course is very much biased to protecting the respondent, and no protection of me. Hence the sticking point. I want the agreement to be the end of the issue, on both sides, and they're refusing. I simply don't trust them. Their behaviour throughout has been appalling and unlawful. If they want me to 'go away', hence the agreement, I want to make sure there's nothing they can concoct to try and get the money back.

Forgot to say, yes, this is through ACAS, who are very keen to get it settled, regardless of the wording.

[mystery1]

Re: Help with ET settlement agreement please

If you get what you want as regards finality it won't matter if you break the agreement as they'll be able to sue no matter what's in the broken agreement. If one party breaches the agreement then the shackles are off.

M1

[footiefan]

Re: Help with ET settlement agreement please

Thank you Mystery1. I have no intention of breaking the agreement, my concern is what they may invent in an effort to retaliate. They will not agree to it being full and final #on both sides', as this would stop them from taking action in the event of my breach. To be honest, I don't think that is true! Surely, any breach of the agreement, on either side, is a separate issue. There is wording that says enforcement of the agreement by the claimant is exempt, so surely, this could apply to the respondent too, and thereofore, full and final to both parties shouldn't be an issue?

[mystery1]

Re: Help with ET settlement agreement please

" They will not agree to it being full and final #on both sides', as this would stop them from taking action in the event of my breach. To be honest, I don't think that is true!"

It's not correct, obviously.

"enforcement of the agreement by the claimant is exempt" exempt from what ? If you are the claimant and it means that enforcement of the agreement is exempt from the no further claims clause ?

M1

[footiefan]

Re: Help with ET settlement agreement please

I can't remember the exact wording, but essentially, the full and final including current and future claims from a whole host of legislation, and the end of the clause there is wording that effectively says that enforcement of the agreement by me is exempt, so if they breach the agreement, then I can still sue.

[mystery1]

Re: Help with ET settlement agreement please

Well if anyone breaches the other party can sue. It'd be a pretty messed up world if someone stiffed you and you couldn't.

M1

[stevemLS]

Re: Help with ET settlement agreement please

I think they are talking about full and final of claims arising out of the employment rather than breach of the settlement agreement.

The latter can't possibly be the case.

Whilst I can see why the OP wants that to be mutual, it is very rare as far as I know for a former employer to attempt to bring a claim against an ex-employee, which can only be founded on breach of contract, as opposed to claims brought by the ex-employee who can take action against their former employer on any number of grounds.

I have only dealt with a handful of these agreements, but I have never seen a full and final clause which is expressed to be mutual.

In my experience, the employer is just glad to see the back of the employee tbh.

Without knowing the circumstances, I can't see that it is possible to be any more precise.

[footiefan]

Re: Help with ET settlement agreement please

Thank you to everyone who has responded. I have finally agreed the wording, and can now sit back a little bit.

I'm sure the employer is glad to see the back of me, if the hearing had gone ahead, I believe it would have been very damaging; perjury and perverting the course of justice would have been just two of the issues highlighted, along with breaches of several pieces of employment legislation.

There is a part of me that would have loved for the hearing to go ahead, but I need a reference, and that isn't something that would be awarded. Mind you, it's now the most expensive reference I've ever known. :-D

[stevemLS]

Re: Help with ET settlement agreement please

Revenge is rarely a good motivation for litigation.

[footiefan]

Re: Help with ET settlement agreement please

Absolutely Stevem, but my reasons wouldn't be revenge, just s belief that legislation is there to protect employees, and those that breach the law should suffer the consequences.

My OH's opinions are rubbing off on me, and sadly, as the 'penalties' against large multi million £ companies are relatively small, there's little disincentive for employers to abide by the rules.