These measures can lead to the worker`s departure (often after a long period of pressure) and to a proposed agreement (settlement agreement) that grants them what is called compensation and a long contract that waives his right to sue his employer. To be valid, the employee must bring the agreement to an independent advisor, often a lawyer, who should explain what the agreement means. The contract is not valid unless it has happened and, without exception, the employer offers to pay for legal assistance, because otherwise the agreement is not binding. Unscrupulous employers can make threats of participation against whistleblowers, including requests for documents that are passed on to third parties, and this tactic can be difficult to resist. As part of a normal unfair dismissal procedure, your employer has the immunity to disclose all conversations with you regarding the termination of your employment in exchange for liquidation compensation in court. However, in the case of informants, this additional protection for the employer comes out the window and the only way they can keep such discussions out of the judge`s ears (if the case is ever tried) is to say that they were unharmed. This could be resolved by additional wording in the advisor`s statement on the whistleblower, so that the advisor states that they have told the employee that he or she can still make disclosures in the public interest after the agreement is signed and that they can continue to provide information to family physicians, consultants and others subject to a confidentiality obligation. Following a disagreement or problem in the workplace, a solution for employers and employees who wish to end a employment relationship is to propose a transaction contract. In short, lawyers themselves need better training, and perhaps a certification procedure is more appropriate to show that lawyers are competent in this particular discipline than the current deregulation, which allows for the advice of such agreements by a growing circle of advisers. This could only be resolved through a more careful use of projects, less than what appears in the development of the agreements. It is partly the fault of the lawyers who design the agreements in the first place. For a reason that, to me, is still opaque after 25 years, some lawyers seem to view the establishment of comparative agreements as a chance to parody their mental faculties before the world by adding any restriction, relevant or not.
Whistleblowing is a way to ensure that your employer`s misconduct is over while you leave your job and hopefully you will get a settlement contract to flood you until you get a new job. In principle, an employer never has a guarantee that you will not declare them, even after signing a contract. You .B not allowed to recover compensation because you reported your fraud after receiving your compensation. Transaction agreements do not explicitly provide that you cannot report your employer to the authorities, but that would be practically the compromise you would make if you decided to accept a payment in exchange for a stop. This is a difficult point to understand and put into practice. For example, I regularly see a clause in transaction agreements that justifies the employee not to have committed serious misconduct (z.B.).