EMPLOYMENT LAW 3408

EMPLOYMENT LAW 3408

Employment LAW 3408

Answer 1:

Case Facts:

As we analyse the case of Tom he has been an effective agent for the past five years for the company of GHI cables and he has earned valuable funds for the company thorough his sales strategy, however, his professional stats are not very clean as many customers have complaint against him that he applies excessive pressure upon them to purchase their products. Except these issues a customer has complaint against him that he has stolen some cash from her desk when he visited her place for documentation purpose. However, as tom was deciding to switch from his existing job to a new company. Joanne his manager was requested to send a reference about tom to the new company. The reference from Joanne is written below:

“Tom has been employed by us a salesman for five years. There have unfortunately been complaints from the public about his sales methods. We also have reason to think that he stole money from properties that he visited.”

Joanne had not taken any action against Tom as an employee for the above mentioned complaints or against the allegation of theft but because of her reference against Tom, he was not able to get the new job. As Tom viewed the reference he was astonished to know that his manager had sent such a negative3 feedback. As the case is not a simple one because the complaints against Tom are true to an extent because various customers have complaint against him but at the same time Joanne or the company did not took any action against him were acts of selfishness and the reference can be considered as a conspiracy to hold tom to the company. The advice will be defined after referring few cases similar in this scenario.

Reference case: Employer's Liability for future Earnings following Bad Reference

In the reference case, the previous employer who submitted a discriminatory reference to the prospectus employer is held responsible to pay the employee compensation for the losses of future in terms of earnings. A prospective employer withdrew a vocation offer after the prospectus employee's previous employer, a law firm, gave her a terrible reference, stating she was 'inflexible in her conclusions' and had'poor relationship' with the company's accomplices. She had awhile ago carried a sex segregation assert against the firm.

The plaintiff guaranteed against both her previous employer and the prospective new employer. The Employment Tribunal discovered both had unlawfully victimised her. The prospective employer settled. The issue soon after the Tribunal was if the previous employer was obligated to pay their previous employee recompense for misfortune of future income. The firm contended that, since the prospective employer had acted unlawfully, the firm was not subject to recompense her for future misfortune of profit, just harm to sentiments.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) opposes this idea. It stated that the movements of the prospective employer were foreseeable results going out from the articulations the previous employer had made in the reference, in ...