Tweet
I have been in dispute this year with my employer of over 30 years following two months of extraordinary workload (and following major surgery) which led to complete burnout and my resignation with no job to go to. The two directors recognised that I was perhaps not doing the right thing for me and offered a 6 week sabbatical instead of resignation which I accepted. This was to start mid 2 months later to coincide with the school holidays and the purpose was to give me time out and hopefully return in September refreshed. This seemed like a good solution. The owner of the business was only told 4 weeks later and I was informed immediately after he was told that he was very supportive of the situation and of the sabbatical. However, he obviously changed his mind because 9 days later I was given a letter advising they were accepting my resignation (this is 2 weeks after the finishing date that was stated in my resignation letter).
What followed was an extremely emotional time. There was a meeting to discuss the situation where it was acknowledged that perhaps there had been a mis-understanding and that I should go ahead with the sabbatical and let them know how I felt at the end, but at this point, all trust was gone as it was clear they wanted me out. This is a small company of only 12 people, no HR and no advice. I was very good friends with both directors and it never crossed my mind that this situation could happen. I now understand that I needed to retract my resignation in writing - something that I never considered and was not advised I should do (due to lack of HR and too much trust). Therefore legally I appear to have at best a 50/50 chance, despite a number of contradictions on their part through all the communications since. I find it just extraordinary after 30 years and it has taken its toll.
Having gone through ACAS, there is now a (relatively miserly) financial agreement on the table and terms being discussed for the COT3 agreement. I have taken advice from a friend regarding the wording but they are refusing to amend points such as:-
"This Agreement does not affect any rights the Claimant may have in relation to personal injury claims over which the Employment Tribunals would not have jurisdiction save that the Claimant warrants that, at the date of this agreement, she is not aware of any personal injury claim that she may have against the respondent, or any facts that might give rise to such a claim."
They claim this is standard wording for a settlement and protects the Claimant, and "We will not be removing this or we are not being transparent with the Claimant regarding her remaining rights after the agreement is signed". My friend disagrees that this is standard wording for COT3s, and I fail to see how it is protecting me? I requested this to be amended to finish after "personal injury claims". Are they being extremely unreasonable or should I just sign? My concern is that, having never suffered any form of mental health issues, I have been hugely betrayed by what I thought were good friends after over 30 years in employment, and I now find myself unemployed in my 50s, struggling to find a suitable position, and being a single mum, I need an income. I have no idea how this will affect me by next year if I fail to find a job. I am in unknown territory.
I also requested that "existence and" be removed from the following clause:-
"The Claimant and Respondent shall keep the existence and terms of this settlement confidential......" but this was also flatly rejected. "The entire purpose of without prejudice discussions is that such agreements are confidential. There is a list of who the Claimant can disclose the agreement to, and that will remain as originally drafted." (So just my 80 year old parents, ex-husband, and teenage daughter. Super.) Is it reasonable to ask for the existence part to be removed or am I fighting a losing battle?
"The Claimant will not do or say anything that is calculated or likely to lower the reputation of the Respondent, its officers or employees, any associated company of the Respondent or their officers or employees. The Respondent agrees to use reasonable endeavours to ensure that nothing is said by the Respondent, its officers or employees that would reasonably be expected to lower or damage the reputation of the Claimant." So I can't "Say or do anything" and the company with "ensure nothing is said" - not exactly the reciprocal agreement I had requested but is this standard?
Am I making too much of this and should I just agree to these terms and move on? (If I won the lottery tomorrow, I'd take my chance at a tribunal)
What followed was an extremely emotional time. There was a meeting to discuss the situation where it was acknowledged that perhaps there had been a mis-understanding and that I should go ahead with the sabbatical and let them know how I felt at the end, but at this point, all trust was gone as it was clear they wanted me out. This is a small company of only 12 people, no HR and no advice. I was very good friends with both directors and it never crossed my mind that this situation could happen. I now understand that I needed to retract my resignation in writing - something that I never considered and was not advised I should do (due to lack of HR and too much trust). Therefore legally I appear to have at best a 50/50 chance, despite a number of contradictions on their part through all the communications since. I find it just extraordinary after 30 years and it has taken its toll.
Having gone through ACAS, there is now a (relatively miserly) financial agreement on the table and terms being discussed for the COT3 agreement. I have taken advice from a friend regarding the wording but they are refusing to amend points such as:-
"This Agreement does not affect any rights the Claimant may have in relation to personal injury claims over which the Employment Tribunals would not have jurisdiction save that the Claimant warrants that, at the date of this agreement, she is not aware of any personal injury claim that she may have against the respondent, or any facts that might give rise to such a claim."
They claim this is standard wording for a settlement and protects the Claimant, and "We will not be removing this or we are not being transparent with the Claimant regarding her remaining rights after the agreement is signed". My friend disagrees that this is standard wording for COT3s, and I fail to see how it is protecting me? I requested this to be amended to finish after "personal injury claims". Are they being extremely unreasonable or should I just sign? My concern is that, having never suffered any form of mental health issues, I have been hugely betrayed by what I thought were good friends after over 30 years in employment, and I now find myself unemployed in my 50s, struggling to find a suitable position, and being a single mum, I need an income. I have no idea how this will affect me by next year if I fail to find a job. I am in unknown territory.
I also requested that "existence and" be removed from the following clause:-
"The Claimant and Respondent shall keep the existence and terms of this settlement confidential......" but this was also flatly rejected. "The entire purpose of without prejudice discussions is that such agreements are confidential. There is a list of who the Claimant can disclose the agreement to, and that will remain as originally drafted." (So just my 80 year old parents, ex-husband, and teenage daughter. Super.) Is it reasonable to ask for the existence part to be removed or am I fighting a losing battle?
"The Claimant will not do or say anything that is calculated or likely to lower the reputation of the Respondent, its officers or employees, any associated company of the Respondent or their officers or employees. The Respondent agrees to use reasonable endeavours to ensure that nothing is said by the Respondent, its officers or employees that would reasonably be expected to lower or damage the reputation of the Claimant." So I can't "Say or do anything" and the company with "ensure nothing is said" - not exactly the reciprocal agreement I had requested but is this standard?
Am I making too much of this and should I just agree to these terms and move on? (If I won the lottery tomorrow, I'd take my chance at a tribunal)
Comment