SSG Employment Tribunals: Resistance is Not Entirely Useless: Stand Up SPCK Up
(A slight apology to usual readers for the weekend bulge in SPCK articles; a lot has happened in the last few days.)
This is an account from someone who reached an out of court settlement before a previous Employment Tribunal.
There will be a case hearing on the 18th September to determine procedure for the 31 Employment Tribunals which are being pursued against the Society of Saint Stephen the Great (SSG) by USDAW, the Shopworkers’ Union.
We have heard that some people are being contacted with offers of Out of Court Settlements. Now, clearly it is a matter for each individual to make their own decision, and I don’t want to try and change that in any way. This account is from someone who pursued a claim against SSG. I hope it is useful.
“As one who has played this game and danced this waltz with the Brewers I can say that:
- They will make the payment in advance of the Tribunal if people agree to it.
- It is the only guaranteed way of getting something out of him, as Employment Tribunal payments can be notoriously difficult to get even if awarded: there is no mechanism to make them pay up - just taking them to court again!
- In the end I was advised that though at Tribunal I was likely to get more they weren’t sure when I would get it given their (then not as bad!) history of default, but that the choice was mine.
- I decided to take what was on the table which was what was owed me (we had a settlement agreement they had defaulted on!) and all I had originally wanted, after all at that time I thought that it hurt them more to cough up than not.
They will try for a non-Disclosure or Confidentiality Agreement. In my case I refused to entertain it unless he (J Mark Brewer) - would increase the settlement, as I did not consider what he was paying me entitled him to apply a gag as well; the amount was only that I was entitled to in my settlement package.
I had cited that I had lost all faith in the Brewers, and there was an element reported in my grievance of harassment, and a claim of physical intimidation by Philip Brewer, so it was a bit tricky for them to push for a Confidentiality Agreement.
He played the “Christian” card, but I stated categorically that I refused to be gagged in case I was needed to be a witness or provide supporting evidence for any one else who might find themselves in the same or similar situations.
The only thing I did agree to was to release all claims against Philip Brewer and the Society of Saint Stephen the Great arising from my time of employment with them, but I made them put in the same wording in regards to me! He quibbled initially, but then caved in.
So - yes - you can argue the toss and come out ahead - but it does take time to do that. To be honest you have to be willing to really play chicken with the them as he will push it and if you give in he’s got you!
At the end of the day you have to make the decision you think is best for you with the hope it won’t effect others down the line!”
My Thoughts
Mr Brewer is phoning around starting to offer people Out of Court settlements before the Employment Tribunal later this week.
Unnecessary confidentiality agreements can be used to keep you quiet in future when you probably don’t absolutely need to sign them for the best outcome now. The tactics used by SSG to control SPCK in this case have been classic “Divide and Rule”. Such tactics mean that people cannot draw strength from each other in the face of personal intimidation. An example is the insistence that email can only be used for “vertical” email communication with the bosses, not for “horizontal” communication with colleagues.
In my opinion, over aggressive Confidentiality Agreements fit the same mould.
Again, these are just my opinions - whether they are given any weight is for individuals to decide.
Categories: All WW, Campaigns, Dave Walker, Human Rights / Freedom, News - Current Affairs
A chap in Dundee’s ex MD tried to get a confidentiality agreement through ACAS negotiations to settle. But not only that they tried to get within the agreement a promise from him that his partner could not say anything either despite the fact the partners was not part of the tribunal claim and had never worked for the Company. ACAS were told to tell them no.So the employer then tried to get the agreement to state that if the chap’s partner ever said anything to anyone about the matter, the chap was to tell the Company! Needless to say he was not about to be that helpful and again it was put back rejected. In the end the employer took so long trying to build in a second “deal” with an unassociated person out of concern about how much they knew that ACAS had to go back to the employer and tell them what they were doing was wholly inapproprirate (waste of public funds too notably) as they were trying to get things even a tribunal could not award. The clauses came out. One bit was left. That the person could only tell his “partner” about the settlement amount! Err…..there is no legal definition about what a “partner is” so the chap, if he chose, was actually able to tell anyone he liked - golf partner, dance partner, painting and decorating partner! Of course, despite the shennanigans going on, what the employer did do effectively was drag things on so that the ex employee was taking advices from his legal support far longer than from the day he said he would settle!
Another company told an ex employee they had sacked the former “heid yin” so the employee couldn’t sue the company for his actions any longer. That they could keep the evidences but would have to go take the ex Director to Court themselves. The employee was also told that they would get a sum of money but that no-one but the Chairman and CEO would know how much. The employee knew this was not true and vicarious liability was involved (but others may have not known about responsibility). The employee also knew with a plc company all accounts have to be open and above board, so could not accept monies in this way. The employee openly exposed what was going on to the tribunal regarding the employers behaviour and what they had tried to manipulate. Next thing a solicitors letter came with a properly constructed offer but as it didn’t match what was offered as a deal with employee wrote back rejecting it and said they would deal with a COT3 (ACAS) possible settlement only. The employer also it was found had not in fact sacked the former Director. He had been removed under a “resign or be fired” for several reasons on a huge sweetner and was still drawing salary each month - until the Company went bust leaving behind creditors and shareholders without anywhere to go! The tribunal then proceeded undefended as the Administrator said they would not be defending the claim. Despite this the tribunal said they had to consider all the defences already put in up to the point of the Company going bust. The public were warned about the Companies situation of lack of funding and possible liquidation, but the tribunal failed to secure deposits in the event the employee won the case. The solicitor for the employee prior to it going into Administration, told the employee they were prevented from acting by their colleagues and was failing to comply with tribunal orders. The tribunal let this go onn despite the employee calling for action on this. Eventually the tribunal wrote to the solicitor acting and asked if he was acting, he came back and replied he had always been acting (not what told to employee and not what his actions were saying as failed to respond for some time before), so the tribunal believed this and did not act on non-compliances. The tribunal ignored all of the employers behaviour and treated the employee differently throughout. The employee won their tribunal but there were grave errors made in judgement. For one thing after putting in over 135 evidences of seeking work immediately since leaving the company, the tribunal reported the employee had not trid for work so reduced their claim on that basis!
When scrutinising both matters above, employers took similar steps to try to get out of their faulty behaviour, and make the employees’ appear to be the problems!
There is a lot more but perhaps you will read about it all in future!
@L Clark: Lorna
Thanks very much for your visit - I appreciate the comment.
Matt