ml1dch Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 2 hours ago, peterms said: Labour have used NDAs for departing staff for many years. I thought their criticism was about the misuse of NDAs eg to cover up payoffs in cases of harassment and the like, not to protect information which is regarded as confidential, as a lot of HR info is, and for many firms, commercially sensitive information? "To protect information which is regarded as confidential" is pretty much exactly what the people who "misuse" NDAs say they are using them for. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 10, 2019 Moderator Share Posted July 10, 2019 33 minutes ago, bickster said: Jeremy Corbyn will commit the next Labour government to: Legislating to prevent making any contractual clauses (NDAs) which stop disclosure of future discrimination, harassment or victimisation.. This. Realistically political parties will always leak - and leaders or factions will always hate it. It makes them look bad, or not in control, or weak, or whatever. Is it appropriate for NDAs to be used to prevent people leaking against a leader or party or committee or whatever because they've got a complaint or dislike of policy or an individual or a set of behaviours? Clearly Catweazle said not. Then did exactly that. As we've seen, even with NDAs it doesn't actually stop it. It's blatantly not something someone who is ( or used to be) perceived as "a man of principle" and "different to the rest" should be connected with. let alone be the leader in charge of. It's typical Corbynite hypocritical shenanigans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted July 10, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted July 10, 2019 Labour's NDAs appear to relate to preventing the disclosure of cases employees worked on, not against anything they themselves were subject to. That doesn't seem that unusual to me. Again, anyone leaving a job that had access to sensitive information is going to be asked to sign a confidentiality clause of some sort. I signed one recently and I wasnt even important in my former workplace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted July 10, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted July 10, 2019 Ahead of the 'bombshell' Panorama episode, looks like Labour have gone on the offensive. There's been question marks over this for a while, not least that the guy behind it appears to despise the party, but yeah... Misrepresentation is asking for court orders. Still, they can simply apologise in a few months by which time it's done it's job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 10, 2019 Moderator Share Posted July 10, 2019 10 minutes ago, Chindie said: Labour's NDAs appear to relate to preventing the disclosure of cases employees worked on, not against anything they themselves were subject to. The lawyer letter says all confidential information you were privy to while working... - so internal e mails, discussion contents and arguments etc. would seem to be in scope. Plus the TV programme is said to cover not specific cases, but the general situation, which if you are right would not breach the NDA's so, I wonder if you might be mistaken, perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 10, 2019 Moderator Share Posted July 10, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted July 10, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted July 10, 2019 6 minutes ago, blandy said: The lawyer letter says all confidential information you were privy to while working... - so internal e mails, discussion contents and arguments etc. would seem to be in scope. Plus the TV programme is said to cover not specific cases, but the general situation, which if you are right would not breach the NDA's so, I wonder if you might be mistaken, perhaps? I wonder, perhaps, if an error on my part has made you misread me? The NDAs prevent the disclosure of any confidential information an employee was aware of. That's what I mean by working on, a poor choice of words. The Times article is framed to make it sound it like victims are gagged, which isn't the case, and unless I've misread something, this is what the party wants to bin off, not organisations seeking to hold former employee accountable for privileged or sensitive information. They want to prevent victims being gagged with a payoff after their boss copped a feel. Again, I don't think this type of NDA (for the avoidance of doubt, the employee confidentiality one, not the gagged victim type) is particularly unusual and besides, if they were aware of any illegality, they'd have an obligation to report it, in which case the agreement is moot. This isn't really unusual and isn't as hypocritical as it it's being framed. As usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 10, 2019 Moderator Share Posted July 10, 2019 31 minutes ago, Chindie said: I wonder, perhaps, if an error on my part has made you misread me? The NDAs prevent the disclosure of any confidential information an employee was aware of. That's what I mean by working on, a poor choice of words. The Times article is framed to make it sound it like victims are gagged, which isn't the case, and unless I've misread something, this is what the party wants to bin off, not organisations seeking to hold former employee accountable for privileged or sensitive information. They want to prevent victims being gagged with a payoff after their boss copped a feel. Again, I don't think this type of NDA (for the avoidance of doubt, the employee confidentiality one, not the gagged victim type) is particularly unusual and besides, if they were aware of any illegality, they'd have an obligation to report it, in which case the agreement is moot. This isn't really unusual and isn't as hypocritical as it it's being framed. As usual. Whichever, it’s just me and my binary nature, sorry, liking facts as opposed to opinion. It’s no slight on you. The NDA I posted just after is very wide ranging and more than just about (disciplinary) cases. It covers pretty much everything, much like, or the same as, the ones the wealthy sex pests seem to have used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 1 hour ago, bickster said: Sunday Times (rest paywalled sorry) From October 2018 The Horses Mouth Thanks. So the specific concern was about the Philip Green case, the proposed policy is about preventing NDAs being used to conceal wrongdoing and specifically discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and the letter quoted states Quote The claim made by the journalist you quote, that the NDA prevents disclosure of harassment, bullying and antisemitism, is directly and explicitly contradicted by the letter on which the story is based. I suggest that any claim of hypocrisy would depend on the statement made in the lawyers' letter, that disclosure of antisemitism is not covered by the NDA, being shown to be false. If the statement is true, then the journalist is making a false claim - which I must say is quite likely from a Murdoch paper, on a subject like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted July 10, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted July 10, 2019 1 minute ago, blandy said: Whichever, it’s just me and my binary nature, sorry, liking facts as opposed to opinion. It’s no slight on you. The NDA I posted just after is very wide ranging and more than just about (disciplinary) cases. It covers pretty much everything, much like, or the same as, the ones the wealthy sex pests seem to have used. I'm not posting opinions there I don't think. They're different things. The posted NDA is slightly harsher than I one signed, almost certainly because he's going to have been privy to things more extensive than just client and industry info. Sorry, this is seeing things that aren't there. Seems it's catching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 1 hour ago, ml1dch said: "To protect information which is regarded as confidential" is pretty much exactly what the people who "misuse" NDAs say they are using them for. Yes, which is why it makes sense to have someone other than the employer define what type of information should and should not be subject to protection. Medical conditions of employees would be an example of something I should think everyone could agree should be confidential, and a series of staff being paid hush money to cover up racial discrimination, not. Plenty of grey areas in between, and anyone with a vested interest will argue according to their interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 10, 2019 Moderator Share Posted July 10, 2019 Revealing someones medical conditions that you have been privvy to during work would be illegal anyway, there would be absolutely no need to have it covered by an NDA. It would be.a serious data breach, leaving the organisation and the individual liable to prosecution regardless of any NDA EDIT: Medical information is even defined in the GDPR as Special Category Data Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 Well, it appears that Jenny Formby's been taken with her pants down to say the least. Sending out emails saying "I've deleted all traces of this conversation" in regards to the Jackie Walker case when she tried to overrule or influence what the investigations team had found. Don't worry though, she's one of JC's friends so she'll keep being general secretary. Has her team gotten one case right since coming in? (Hatton, Williamson, Livingstone etc.) Wonder why Labour's numbers are through the floor... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 11, 2019 Moderator Share Posted July 11, 2019 16 hours ago, peterms said: The claim made by the journalist you quote, that the NDA prevents disclosure of harassment, bullying and antisemitism, is directly and explicitly contradicted by the letter on which the story is based Unfortunately for that argument, the NDA section 5.12 shows it to be wholly incorrect. Quote The employee undertakes that he will not after the date of this Agreement disclose, publish or reveal to any unauthorised person any incident, conversation or information concerning any officer, employee, member, supporter, fundraiser of or donor to the employer which has come to his knowledge during the continuance of his employment by the employer, or any incident, conversation or information relating to his employment.... ....The parties agree to keep the existence and terms of this agreement ...confidential... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted July 11, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted July 11, 2019 3 minutes ago, blandy said: Unfortunately for that argument, the NDA section 5.12 shows it to be wholly incorrect. It doesn't. The NDA becomes moot in the case of an outside investigation, which is what Carter **** say in their letter in essence when they say that it does not relate to the anti-Semitism investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 11, 2019 Moderator Share Posted July 11, 2019 6 minutes ago, Chindie said: It doesn't. The NDA becomes moot in the case of an outside investigation, which is what Carter **** say in their letter in essence when they say that it does not relate to the anti-Semitism investigation. For an outside investigation to take place as a result of whistleblowing the NDA must have been broken in the first instance unless the outside investigation has been triggered by an outside source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted July 11, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted July 11, 2019 46 minutes ago, bickster said: For an outside investigation to take place as a result of whistleblowing the NDA must have been broken in the first instance unless the outside investigation has been triggered by an outside source The investigation was caused by whistleblowing unless it wasn't. Right. After 3 years of allegations the EHRC launched an investigation. NDAs do not protect against illegality - you can't enforce a requirement to have someone ignore illegality. An NDA gets blown out of the water in that case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 11, 2019 Moderator Share Posted July 11, 2019 1 minute ago, Chindie said: After 3 years of allegations the EHRC launched an investigation. NDAs do not protect against illegality - you can't enforce a requirement to have someone ignore illegality. An NDA gets blown out of the water in that case. Yes, indeed. There is also no need to have an NDA to cover people making data breaches which has also been put forward as a reason for needing them. So remind us again why the Labour Party need NDAs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 11, 2019 Moderator Share Posted July 11, 2019 58 minutes ago, Chindie said: It doesn't. The NDA becomes moot in the case of an outside investigation, which is what Carter **** say in their letter in essence when they say that it does not relate to the anti-Semitism investigation. That's wrong. Let's take this sequentially. People work for Labour. People decide to leave Labour. Labour (and their Lawyers) draw up NDAs preventing the employees from talking to the media about (almost) any aspect of their time working for Labour. It's true that in the possible future event of a Police or other authority inquiry, the obligation to co-operate with such an inquiry would maybe override aspects of the NDA. But, at the time of issue there was no legal investigation or inquiry. The NDAs (as I've quoted) specifically forbid the employees from mentioning or discussing any aspect, which would including anti-semitism or sexism, or harrqassment or bullying or internal investigations into those, to the media or other parties. Telling the media about it breaches (the lawyers claim) the NDA. Telling the current investigation by the Racisim authority about it (the lawyers say) would not. so when you say it becomes moot - it doesn't. The intent to "gag" employees from talking to "unauthorised parties"is clear. It's not just general stuff, it's basically everything [any incident, conversation or information concerning any officer, employee, member, supporter, fundraiser of or donor to the employer which has come to his knowledge]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 11, 2019 Moderator Share Posted July 11, 2019 10 minutes ago, Chindie said: After 3 years of allegations the EHRC launched an investigation. NDAs do not protect against illegality - you can't enforce a requirement to have someone ignore illegality. An NDA gets blown out of the water in that case. That's right. Whistleblowing to the legal authorities in the event of illegality is outside scope. Whistleblowing to the media is not. That's what Labour and /or their lawyers at least are miffed about - "you told the BBC and now everyone knows". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts