Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Boss calling solicitor over contract

Options
1235»

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    Glass fused light wrote: »
    Ask HR what's is the attrition in the company (total leaver (death, retirement, new jobs, sackes, no-shows ) and what's the rate for your industry as a whole, and if they are above or below the metric.

    Ask HR what the % overall employee costs is allocated to recruiters fees in a given budget cycle.

    Ask if their department headcount is a fixed ratio to total staffing or is the volume of work taken into account.

    Ask how the current departmental head count would be justified if the company has a cost saving drive by reducing company head count as a whole.



    No employer with any cop-on is going to elaborate on the no, any further questions about why would be met with a no comment reply.

    If the future employee has been upfront about the explaination for the no in the interview well and good, they have keyed HR with an expectation of a neutral or even a negative reply. Its when they have expanded on how great they were at the job and how happy their manager was with them, that the doubt creeps in.

    You said the no comes at the end of the interview, right. Until then it’s been fine and dandy. And apparently the hr dept won’t ask anymore questions.

    The referee can’t always be trusted. On that case I’d ask for employee reviews - which can be requested now.


  • Options
    #123
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    IITYWYBMAD wrote: »
    None of what you have said precludes an ex-employer from suing a new employer/old employee. What you said was "The new employer is not a party to the original contract, they cannot be sued.". That is factually incorrect. Being a party to an original of any contract is immaterial. Employers can and do insist on non compete clauses (for example) between the employee and employer.

    There's numerous examples of litigation on NCC's, where the outcomes have been varied. There are multiple examples of restrictive covenants that are written into employment contracts that help protect the employer. Given that we have no knowledge of the details of the employment contract in this instance, your broad statement is inaccurate and dangerous advice.

    You are moving the goalposts with regards to non compete contracts. We were talking about a standard contract where the new employee hasn’t seen out his notice and is employed by another company, who may or may not have known anything about that contract.

    NCCs are something else entirely and often see people on gardening leave for months.


  • Options
    #124
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,507 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    You said the no comes at the end of the interview, right. Until then it’s been fine and dandy. And apparently the hr dept won’t ask anymore questions.

    The referee can’t always be trusted. On that case I’d ask for employee reviews - which can be requested now.

    With respect, you keep disagreeing with people that have direct evidence this happens - or have even done it themselves. Repeating "i don't believe you" doesn't really add to the conversation, it happens, i've done it, as have others.


  • Options
    #125
    Glass fused light
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Glass fused light


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    You said the no comes at the end of the interview, right. Until then it’s been fine and dandy. And apparently the hr dept won’t ask anymore questions.

    The referee can’t always be trusted. On that case I’d ask for employee reviews - which can be requested now.

    The person looking for a new job is in an interview, if they set themselves up for failure by not giving a preemptive explanation of why they would not be reemployed, well thats on them. If the new employer is getting two conflicting stories, they can roll the dice.

    Example of positive approach "we agreed that while I was a good employee I was not a good team fit because .... but I will fit this team because....."


    The person's soon to be ex-employer or ex-employer is not in an interview they are taking time out of their day and diverting they attention from their work duties to have a polite conversation with a stranger. In my prior example the person confirmed they were the interviewee's direct manager and answered every question with an "I can't comment on that" after a couple more of standard question HR copped on and asked the re-employment and got a "no". Any questions after the no would have resulted in a "I can't comment on that".

    As for employee reviews, the employee can request them under data protection, and if correctly requested the ex-employer can sent them to the employee, 40 days later. Your request can be politely ignored.


    PS how sunk is that recruitment cost?


  • Options
    #126
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    With respect, you keep disagreeing with people that have direct evidence this happens - or have even done it themselves. Repeating "i don't believe you" doesn't really add to the conversation, it happens, i've done it, as have others.

    First of all you are mr annoymous on the internet. Your experience is valueless.

    I’m not doubting that a few small minded small businessmen might take a “no” for granted to the question “would you hire this person again.”

    Proper HR departments don’t do that. I’ve actually asked today. The “no”’might be because the employer is a bigot and the employee gay or whatever, because of personal issues with the employee, because the last employee demanded her rights on maternity, or because the referee was annoyed at the way the employee left.

    HR can’t just take no for an answer.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    Glass fused light wrote: »
    The person looking for a new job is in an interview, if they set themselves up for failure by not giving a preemptive explanation of why they would not be reemployed, well thats on them. If the new employer is getting two conflicting stories, they can roll the dice.

    Example of positive approach "we agreed that while I was a good employee I was not a good team fit because .... but I will fit this team because....."

    We are talking about a case where the employee is a good worker but had a falling out when leaving the job. Happens. So that conversation wouldn’t happen.

    The person's soon to be ex-employer or ex-employer is not in an interview they are taking time out of their day and diverting they attention from their work duties to have a polite conversation with a stranger. In my prior example the person confirmed they were the interviewee's direct manager and answered every question with an "I can't comment on that" after a couple more of standard question HR copped on and asked the re-employment and got a "no". Any questions after the no would have resulted in a "I can't comment on that".

    That’s not much due diligence I have to say.
    As for employee reviews, the employee can request them under data protection, and if correctly requested the ex-employer can sent them to the employee, 40 days later. Your request can be politely ignored.

    I’m pretty sure it can’t be ignored from May 25th.
    PS how sunk is that recruitment cost?

    Er, pretty sunk.


  • Options
    #128
    testicles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,198 ✭✭✭testicles


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #129
    wonski
    Registered Users Posts: 13,685 ✭✭✭✭wonski


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    We are talking about a case where the employee is a good worker but had a falling out when leaving the job. Happens. So that conversation wouldn’t happen.




    That’s not much due diligence I have to say.



    I’m pretty sure it can’t be ignored from May 25th.



    Er, pretty sunk.

    I think he meant your request can be ignored from employer ;) Not your own request relating to you.


  • Options
    #130
    wonski
    Registered Users Posts: 13,685 ✭✭✭✭wonski


    testicles wrote: »
    Fairness is completely irrelevant. If there's no contact in place, then 1 week is statutory and therefore satisfactory.

    There was contract in place.


  • Options
    #131
    Glass fused light
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Glass fused light


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    Glass fused light wrote: »
    The person looking for a new job is in an interview, if they set themselves up for failure by not giving a preemptive explanation of why they would not be reemployed, well thats on them. If the new employer is getting two conflicting stories, they can roll the dice.

    Example of positive approach "we agreed that while I was a good employee I was not a good team fit because .... but I will fit this team because....."

    We are talking about a case where the employee is a good worker but had a falling out when leaving the job. Happens. So that conversation wouldn’t happen.  

    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

    Proper HR departments don’t do that. I’ve actually asked today. The “no”’might be because the employer is a bigot and the employee gay or whatever, because of personal issues with the employee, because the last employee demanded her rights on maternity, or because the referee was annoyed at the way the employee left. 

    HR can’t just take no for an answer.

    Right so ..

    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    First of all you are mr annoymous on the internet. Your experience is valueless. 

    I’m not doubting that a few small minded small businessmen might take a “no” for granted to the question “would you hire this person again.”

    The boss in the OP was a businesswoman, would being a woman change anything?
    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    Glass fused light wrote: »
    The person's soon to be ex-employer or ex-employer is not in an interview they are taking time out of their day and diverting they attention from their work duties to have a polite conversation with a stranger.  In my prior example the person confirmed they were the interviewee's direct manager and answered every question with an "I can't comment on that" after a couple more of standard question HR copped on and asked the re-employment and got a "no". Any questions after the no would have resulted in a "I can't comment on that".

    That’s not much due diligence I have to say. 
    Can you also say :
    what due diligence you are referring to and 
    who is carrying it out and 
    With whom are they carrying it out and
    On whose behalf are they carrying it out.
    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    Glass fused light wrote: »
    As for employee reviews, the employee can request them under data protection, and if correctly requested the ex-employer can sent them to the employee, 40 days later.  Your request can be politely ignored.
    I’m pretty sure it can’t be ignored from May 25th.
     Do explain why your pretty sure it can’t be ignored from May 25th.
    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    Glass fused light wrote: »
    PS how sunk is that recruitment cost?
    Er, pretty sunk.


    Did you also ask HR what's is the attrition in the company (total leaver (death, retirement, new jobs, sackes, no-shows )  and what's the rate for your industry as a whole, and if they are above or below the metric?

    Did you also ask HR what the % overall employee costs is allocated to recruiters fees in a given budget cycle?

    Did you also ask  if their department headcount is a fixed ratio to total staffing or is the volume of work taken into account?

    Did you also ask how the current departmental head count would be justified if the company has a cost saving drive by reducing company head count as a whole?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    IITYWYBMAD
    Registered Users Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭IITYWYBMAD


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    You are moving the goalposts with regards to non compete contracts. We were talking about a standard contract where the new employee hasn’t seen out his notice and is employed by another company, who may or may not have known anything about that contract.

    NCCs are something else entirely and often see people on gardening leave for months.

    I'm not moving any goalposts, and I'm not speaking about any contract. An assertion was made that as an employer was not a "party" to a contract, they therefore could not be sued. I'm stating that that is untrue and bad advice.


  • Options
    #133
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,507 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    Proper HR departments don’t do that. I’ve actually asked today. The “no”’might be because the employer is a bigot and the employee gay or whatever, because of personal issues with the employee, because the last employee demanded her rights on maternity, or because the referee was annoyed at the way the employee left.

    HR can’t just take no for an answer.

    First of all you are mr annoymous on the internet. Your experience is valueless.

    See what I did there? Ignore what other posters are saying if you want, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen, nor does it mean your HR person didn't lie to you :)


Advertisement