Redundancy - but have a possibility of Leverage

[Tom19821]

Just made a new login for the purposes of this post. I've got a feeling I'm going to be put "at risk" next week, and because I'm the only person in my role it's a foregone conclusion I'll be out the door before long. I've been there just shy of a year so I shan't be getting a payout.

Now, I was looking for the redundancy procedures for the company, and while looking on the shared drive on our network which is open to access by everyone, I came across some HR stuff. By HR stuff, I mean payroll records, personnel files, and copies of compromise agreements with the detail all filled in, none of which should be accessible to me. It's all from 2006 and earlier, but even so, the level of detail makes it all pretty damn sensitive.

I know this is very naughty under the Data Protection Act, so this could well be something I could turn to my advantage if negotiations need a bit of a "gee-up" at a later stage. What would PH's actions be?

[southendpier]

Doubt you'll get a redundancy payout under 12 months

You have no leverage.

hope it goes well.

[mybrainhurts]

Leverage..? (spit)

I think you mean blackmail...

[Tom19821]

southendpier said:

Doubt you'll get a redundancy payout under 12 months

You have no leverage.

hope it goes well.

You don't get a redundancy payout for anything under 24 months service. The 12 month date is the one which is critical for going to an Employment Tribunal, which is a different matter entirely.

I'm hoping to find a way of coming to a compromise with my company to ensure we part on mutually beneficial terms is all. And I'm quite sure they would want to be aware of such a massive IT security breach.

[Tom19821]

mybrainhurts said:

Leverage..? (spit)

I think you mean blackmail...

I almost think it's the right usage here, rather than the stupid Americanism about debt ratios. It's the use of a "lever" to apply a "force".

[mybrainhurts]

Tom19821 said:

mybrainhurts said:

Leverage..? (spit)

I think you mean blackmail...

I almost think it's the right usage here, rather than the stupid Americanism about debt ratios. It's the use of a "lever" to apply a "force".

Yes...blackmail..

[Du1point8]

Tom19821 said:

southendpier said:

Doubt you'll get a redundancy payout under 12 months

You have no leverage.

hope it goes well.

You don't get a redundancy payout for anything under 24 months service. The 12 month date is the one which is critical for going to an Employment Tribunal, which is a different matter entirely.

I'm hoping to find a way of coming to a compromise with my company to ensure we part on mutually beneficial terms is all. And I'm quite sure they would want to be aware of such a massive IT security breach.

So you don't want to work again in that industry then for the sake of trying blackmail... possibly ever if next employer hears you blackmail for money

[Tom19821]

Du1point8 said:

Tom19821 said:

southendpier said:

Doubt you'll get a redundancy payout under 12 months

You have no leverage.

hope it goes well.

You don't get a redundancy payout for anything under 24 months service. The 12 month date is the one which is critical for going to an Employment Tribunal, which is a different matter entirely.

I'm hoping to find a way of coming to a compromise with my company to ensure we part on mutually beneficial terms is all. And I'm quite sure they would want to be aware of such a massive IT security breach.

So you don't want to work again in that industry then for the sake of trying blackmail... possibly ever if next employer hears you blackmail for money

Is it really that much different to the usual compromise agreement argument of "give me money so we don't go to an Employment Tribunal" though? I'm struggling to see whether there's a moral difference.

[Du1point8]

Tom19821 said:

Du1point8 said:

Tom19821 said:

southendpier said:

Doubt you'll get a redundancy payout under 12 months

You have no leverage.

hope it goes well.

You don't get a redundancy payout for anything under 24 months service. The 12 month date is the one which is critical for going to an Employment Tribunal, which is a different matter entirely.

I'm hoping to find a way of coming to a compromise with my company to ensure we part on mutually beneficial terms is all. And I'm quite sure they would want to be aware of such a massive IT security breach.

So you don't want to work again in that industry then for the sake of trying blackmail... possibly ever if next employer hears you blackmail for money

Is it really that much different to the usual compromise agreement argument of "give me money so we don't go to an Employment Tribunal" though? I'm struggling to see whether there's a moral difference.

Compromise agreement is done by the company for a redundancy and so that later on you can't claim any more so its legal contract that company decides is what you should be paid for being made redundant. It can be a weeks wages up to several years but all decided by the company and if you don't like it they can go and change the offer until both parties are happy.

Going in and stating give me XXXX amount and this doesnt get released to the wider world is blackmail no matter which way you justify it.

[Tom19821]

Du1point8 said:

Compromise agreement is done by the company for a redundancy and so that later on you can't claim any more so its legal contract that company decides is what you should be paid for being made redundant. It can be a weeks wages up to several years but all decided by the company and if you don't like it they can go and change the offer until both parties are happy.

Going in and stating give me XXXX amount and this doesnt get released to the wider world is blackmail no matter which way you justify it.

Now I know that that is not the case. Compromise agreements can be used to handle any situation where the company involved wants to avoid the possibility of a court action, as per the Trade Union and Employment Rights Act 1993, Schedule 6. It doesn't even have to involve the ending of employment.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/19/schedu...

[Du1point8]

Tom19821 said:

Du1point8 said:

Compromise agreement is done by the company for a redundancy and so that later on you can't claim any more so its legal contract that company decides is what you should be paid for being made redundant. It can be a weeks wages up to several years but all decided by the company and if you don't like it they can go and change the offer until both parties are happy.

Going in and stating give me XXXX amount and this doesnt get released to the wider world is blackmail no matter which way you justify it.

Now I know that that is not the case. Compromise agreements can be used to handle any situation where the company involved wants to avoid the possibility of a court action, as per the Trade Union and Employment Rights Act 1993, Schedule 6. It doesn't even have to involve the ending of employment.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/19/schedu...

think you might want to read this:

http://www.compromiseagreements.co.uk/whatis.htm

[Mr XXXX]

I think it is pretty poor form on your behalf OP.

If you're unfortunately going to be made redundant it is far more respectful and prideful to just accept that these things do happen and leave with your head held up high.

As one door shuts, another one opens.

Your attempts to blackmail your current employer will not end well, especially for what could be a simple mistake by another member of staff, you genuinely feel this is sufficient for you to receive a pay off to keep quiet?

[Tom19821]

Du1point8 said:

think you might want to read this:

http://www.compromiseagreements.co.uk/whatis.htm

Why would I want to do that? I've read the actual law rather than something written by a bad lawyer's web monkey, as posted above.

All a compromise agreement does at the most basic level is stop an employee from claiming in a court in regards to the issue the agreement applies to. That's often a dismissal, but can also be discrimination, or any other workplace problem you can think of.

They usually have a financial element involved in them, in that the company gives the employee money in order to promise not to take the company to court for the complaint. And that's where my moral dilemma is - what's the difference between an Employment Tribunal and the Information Commissioner's Office?

[Tom19821]

Mr XXXX said:

I think it is pretty poor form on your behalf OP.

If you're unfortunately going to be made redundant it is far more respectful and prideful to just accept that these things do happen and leave with your head held up high.

As one door shuts, another one opens.

Your attempts to blackmail your current employer will not end well, especially for what could be a simple mistake by another member of staff, you genuinely feel this is sufficient for you to receive a pay off to keep quiet?

I wouldn't blackmail, because that's illegal and carries a heavy prison sentence. However, I wanted to canvass the opinion of PH as to whether there was any point even mentioning this point to them. I have a great many other things which are utterly morally unambiguous to bring to the table before this, sadly.

[BarnatosGhost]

You're being a fool - drop it.

If you knew the HR manager left her office open at lunch would you be in there photocopying things? No? Whats the difference?

[edc]

Compromise Agreement is typically used to 'resolve' an employment dispute and typically again a dismissal. This could be a redundancy, a constructive dismissal or a dismissal due to alleged discrimination amongst other things. Your situation sounds as though you are trying to force together two different and non-related strands which just so happen during your employment.

[Rollcage]

This won't go well.

It won't go well on PH, and if you were to take that approach with your employers then I'm sure it wouldn't go well either.

[Soovy]

Tom19821 said:

Just made a new login for the purposes of this post. I've got a feeling I'm going to be put "at risk" next week, and because I'm the only person in my role it's a foregone conclusion I'll be out the door before long. I've been there just shy of a year so I shan't be getting a payout.

Now, I was looking for the redundancy procedures for the company, and while looking on the shared drive on our network which is open to access by everyone, I came across some HR stuff. By HR stuff, I mean payroll records, personnel files, and copies of compromise agreements with the detail all filled in, none of which should be accessible to me. It's all from 2006 and earlier, but even so, the level of detail makes it all pretty damn sensitive.

I know this is very naughty under the Data Protection Act, so this could well be something I could turn to my advantage if negotiations need a bit of a "gee-up" at a later stage. What would PH's actions be?

1. This is blackmail. Don't do it. If you, you're an idiot and you will end up in trouble with the law.

2. All you will do if they get the slightest inkling you have this is your game is give them a reason to dismiss you for gross misconduct, meaning zero money, and no job ever again because they will say in your reference you got fired for stealing confidential information.

3. See 1

Edited by Soovy on Monday 9th January 11:46

[blindswelledrat]

Tom19821 said:

I wouldn't blackmail, because that's illegal and carries a heavy prison sentence. However, I wanted to canvass the opinion of PH as to whether there was any point even mentioning this point to them. I have a great many other things which are utterly morally unambiguous to bring to the table before this, sadly.

What you are suggesting is blackmail and nothing less.
TO morally compare it with agreements not to go to a tribunal is completely irrelevant. The latter is where you are agreeing to forfeit your legal rights in return for something.
YOu have found them doing something illegal and are offering to keep quiet in return for cash. Ludicrous that you consider it anything other than blackmail.

[CatJ]

I'm a bit speechless to be honest. It would be total madness as you have probably gathered from all the other replies.

If I were you I'd concentrate my efforts on finding other suitable employment.