COT3 breach of confidentiality

[FlamingParrot]

Re: COT3 breach of confidentiality

I have no wish to start a lengthy argument over this, so all I'm going to say is that, in my view, the whole point of a non-disclosure clause in any context, not just within the COT3, would be that NOTHING is disclosed, :tinysmile_kiss_t4: most certainly not on a public platform like FB, otherwise we have a silly situation such as when people say: "I can't tell you a single word about it but I can point." A positive outcome implies they won, and precisely because no details are being provided, this assumption is even more pervasive. IMHO if that sort of thing is allowed then it defeats its whole purpose.

As I'm not an employment lawyer, I don't know how feasible it would be for the OP to alter and/or enforce anything related to the COT3, :noidea: however, for future reference, and given that lots of people (including guests) read these forums, it would be a good idea to bring up this scenario at the time the documents are being drafted, and trying to be covered against something similar.

[stevemLS]

Re: COT3 breach of confidentiality

Or disclosed on Legal Beagles...........

[des8]

Re: COT3 breach of confidentiality

Surely just referring to the settlement (positive outcome) however obliquely breaches the terms of the confidentiality clause which requires even its existence to be kept confidential?

[FlamingParrot]

Re: COT3 breach of confidentiality

Or disclosed on Legal Beagles...........

No-one knows what this thread specifically refers to, who the parties were, etc. the OP is posting under an assumed name and there are very few details. People can guess but they can well guess wrongly, there are heaps of ET cases being settled via COT3s all the time. My agreement was from 2003 and only for five years so I could legally post up the full details of the case without breaching anything.

Surely just referring to the settlement (positive outcome) however obliquely breaches the terms of the confidentiality clause which requires even its existence to be kept confidential?

My point exactly!

[stevemLS]

Re: COT3 breach of confidentiality

Surely just referring to the settlement (positive outcome) however obliquely breaches the terms of the confidentiality clause which requires even its existence to be kept confidential?

It doesn't - a "favourable outcome" coulld mean anything (well, many things)

[teaboy2]

Re: COT3 breach of confidentiality

No-one knows what this thread specifically refers to, who the parties were, etc. the OP is posting under an assumed name and there are very few details. People can guess but they can well guess wrongly, there are heaps of ET cases being settled via COT3s all the time. My agreement was from 2003 and only for five years so I could legally post up the full details of the case without breaching anything.


My point exactly!

No one knows what his post referred to either, it doesn't mention about tribunal action, its just a glowing review for the solicitors and a recommendation of them to both employers and employees, he doesn't state anything about the actual case at all, other than it had a positive outcome, which doesn't necessarily mean he won - As i said earlier the statement of positive outcome could mean anything from losing but not having to pay out as much as feared to agreeing a settlement that is acceptable to all parties, therefore it is open to interpretation - You have your interpretation, but i doubt the law or tribunal would agree the employers in breach!

Also bear in mind the OP got no financial settlement, so may be looking for a gift horse (though am not saying that is the case off course)!

[happylife]

Re: COT3 breach of confidentiality

Hi Everyone

Thanks for all the replies. Much appreciated although I don't agree with some. .

Yes on the face of it. It doesn't look sarcastic or indeed a breach. And someone reading without knowing the history of my dismissal and the events may think he is simply recommending a solicitor.

The staff and clients I worked with know the whole story of the dismissal and the Character behind the post and his motives of that post.

If I had placed this similar wording post on his Facebook Business page. Simply saying I had a positive outcome. (Which I didn't , although looking another way I did), He would have removed the post and made a claim for breach. Guaranteed..

[happylife]

Re: COT3 breach of confidentiality

It doesn't - a "favourable outcome" coulld mean anything (well, many things)

Whether it's positive, Negative , favourable or not. It is referring to the existence of an agreement of such before it reached tribunal.

"
The Claimant and Respondent shall keep the existence and terms of this settlement (and the
circumstances leading up to termination) confidential "

[stevemLS]

Re: COT3 breach of confidentiality

"
Highly recommend "Joe Bloggs" Solicitors for all employment needs
Whether employer or employee
Very professional and leave no stone unturned in there approach!!
Needless to say it was a positive outcome. :tinysmile_grin_t:

I must be being dim, where, exactly does it refer to the agreement?

[happylife]

Re: COT3 breach of confidentiality

I must be being dim,

you said it not me :tinysmile_grin_t:

where, exactly does it refer to the agreement?

Because there was a positive outcome, and he says in on his Company Facebook page, there must have been an agreement before it got to tribunal.

It's not positive if nothing happens.

[stevemLS]

Re: COT3 breach of confidentiality

Afraid that just doesn't follow, it could have been withdrawn - there is no breach here.

[happylife]

Re: COT3 breach of confidentiality

I have no wish to start a lengthy argument over this, so all I'm going to say is that, in my view, the whole point of a non-disclosure clause in any context, not just within the COT3, would be that NOTHING is disclosed, :tinysmile_kiss_t4: most certainly not on a public platform like FB, otherwise we have a silly situation such as when people say: "I can't tell you a single word about it but I can point." A positive outcome implies they won, and precisely because no details are being provided, this assumption is even more pervasive. IMHO if that sort of thing is allowed then it defeats its whole purpose.

As I'm not an employment lawyer, I don't know how feasible it would be for the OP to alter and/or enforce anything related to the COT3, :noidea: however, for future reference, and given that lots of people (including guests) read these forums, it would be a good idea to bring up this scenario at the time the documents are being drafted, and trying to be covered against something similar.

Couldn't agree more !!!

[teaboy2]

Re: COT3 breach of confidentiality

you said it not me :tinysmile_grin_t:



Because there was a positive outcome, and he says in on his Company Facebook page, there must have been an agreement before it got to tribunal.

It's not positive if nothing happens.

So thats a statement of fact, the point is hes not disclosed the confidential terms in the agreement has he, therefore there is no breach of confidentiality.

Hes free to discuss the fact hes been taken to tribunal, hes just not free to discuss the details or who the other party is.

As for work colleagues and his clients knowing, well how do you know his clients know, how do you know it was him and not your ex-colleagues, who are not tied to confidentiality aspects of the case? You don't and even if you did, its likely just hear say and not documented evidence!

Also the small matter of the post on facebook being made the date before the agreement was signed (if i recall correctly your previous posts).

If you wee to pursue this, then don't be surprised to get a bill for his legal costs, as am in full agreement with [MENTION=48758]stevemLS[/MENTION] here. And as for your comment "you said it not me", whilst you put a smiley on the end, it doesn't change the fact you likely meant it purely because Stevemls disagrees with you. Would you say the same to your solicitor if he/she disagreed with you too!

You seem to be searching for a way to get pay back against your ex-employer and jumping at the slightest light of a possible claim, when really you have no claim, and as you were advised by your own solicitor to withdraw your original claim, then i can only assume your original claim was without merit anyway!

[happylife]

Re: COT3 breach of confidentiality

And as for your comment "you said it not me", whilst you put a smiley on the end, it doesn't change the fact you likely meant it purely because Stevemls disagrees with you.

Stevemls made a lighthearted comment that he must be dim. (Which everyone knows Stevemls is not dim and provides extremely intelligent , helpful posts to all on here. I make a light hearted reply with smiley face and you blow it out of proportion.

Would you say the same to your solicitor if he/she disagreed with you too!

absolutely not which is why I withdrew the claim.

You seem to be searching for a way to get pay back against your ex-employer and jumping at the slightest light of a possible claim, when really you have no claim, and as you were advised by your own solicitor to withdraw your original claim, then i can only assume your original claim was without merit anyway!

Your assumptions are incorrect

[Amethyst]

Re: COT3 breach of confidentiality

Don't worry, I'm always using the wrong smilies xxx Think you wanted rather than .... not worth falling out over xxx

Claims are discontinued for any number of reasons, doesn't necessarily mean the case wasn't strong, often just means parties managed to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

The comment on FB may have been a bit faecetious, and probably annoys heck out of you, it would me.... but it doesn't breach any agreement made.

Anyone that matters knows the facts.

I'd leave it and start looking forwards.