Former Employer is demanding I sign a confidentiality deed

[MOIC]

@Recruitment&HR has already commented on that in his first post in this thread.

This wider point of this thread is about confidential clauses within a contract and should have a balanced view from both an employee’s and employer’s perspective.

You are arguing for the employee. @Recruitment&HR is arguing for the employer.

You are both right in defending your particular stance.

Ultimately, if and when a breach of confidentiality case is brought before a court, the judge will look at all correspondence related to the matter and may decide that the ex employer gave warning which the ex employee ignored and that may work against him, depending on dates of other evidence supplied.

As in most cases where litigation takes place, the outcome is never black or white and circumstances can influence a judge’s decision.

We are all agreed that morally and from a personal standpoint the letter is going over and beyond what is required and that the ex employee is under no legal requirement to either sign or even acknowledge the letter.

A judge may take a different view depending on what other evidence is presented in the case.

For readers of this thread, whether in the coming days, weeks or months, where they may have similar situations which they can relate to, on both sides of the argument, it’s important to have a balanced view representing both sides.

This thread seems like a ‘Brexit’ situation, where there is only one view on each side and the other side cannot see the merits of the opposing side, for whatever reason.

Perhaps the word ‘Brexit’ will be in the Oxford Dictionary in future years to describe such a scenario.

 

[CVRO]

As has been mentioned before, if the OP breaks the confidentiality clause and the former employer pursues it and can prove there has been a breach, the OP is in trouble whether or not he signs the new document.
However, there may be a slight advantage in signing it if it reduces the chance of the former employer pursuing the OP in court as those cases can be troublesome until the OP can get it thown out of court.
Of course, that slight advantage would only be worth anything if the language in the document were accurate and reflected exactly what happened.
To reduce the risk of a claim that the document changes the original contract in any way, language would need to be added to make it clear that nothing in this new document changes the original contract and in case of any discrepancy, the original contract prevails.
I'd also ask to have the new document reviewed by a lawyer of my choosing with the cost fully reimborsed by the former employer.
If the former employer did not agree to the conditions, I'd not sign anything.

 

[MOIC]

Nobody would sign the letter and 99% would not even acknowledge it.

A judge, should a claim go to court, may have other ideas. They do not think like a layman nor should they.

 

[CVRO]

My point was to highlight that, given the claim that the former employer is trigger happy when it comes to pursuing people in court, there may be an advantage in signing the letter, provided it is on the OP's terms, just to avoid the hassle of defending a claim.

Editted to correct an obvious typo.

 

[MOIC]

I agree with you, that's why it's not a cut and dry case and perhaps a legal opinion should be sort.

 

[Newchodge]

My point was to highlight that, given the claim that the former employer is trigger happy when it comes to pursuing people in court, there may be an advantage in signing the letter, provided it is on the OP's terms, just to avoid the hassle of defending a claim.

Editted to correct an obvious typo.

There are a limited number of scenarios.
The OP breaches confidentiality. The ex employer takes no action. Signing legal deed irrelevant.
The OP breaches confidentiality. The ex employer takes action. The judge will award damages based on the losses suffered by the claimant. Signing the lrgal deed does not affect those losses. Signing legal deed irrelevant.
The OP does not breach confidentiality. The ex employer takes no action. Signing legal deed irrelevant.
The OP does not breach confidentiality. The ex employer takes action, loses, and the judge awards costs to the OP. Signing legal deed irrelevant (as it does not affect level of costs).

If the ex employer is a trigger happy moron, signing or not signing the legal deed may affect his response. That is unknowable, but on balance signing is not likely to improve the OP's current position.

 

[MOIC]

If I was the OP, I would get legal opinion, based on ALL the facts that need to be presented, then decide what to do.

A defendant (i.e. the OP) will always state in an open forum his side of events whilst (perhaps) omitting relevant details which could be viewed from another angle.

As you say, this forum is full of layman, so a legal matter should be presented in full with a legal person to get the correct advice.

 

[Mr D]

Whether there is a disadvantage or not, please explain why the employee should do it, other than because his ex employer has asked him to in a threatening solicitor's letter? The thread is about the OP asking whether he was legally required to respond and whether he should. Everyone else thinks he should not. You don't see why he should not. But you cannot explain why he should.

Simply a letter from the employer reminding the ex employee of the confidentiality and whatever other ongoing agreements would have done the job. Without the aggro.

 

[MOIC]

Simply a letter from the employer reminding the ex employee of the confidentiality and whatever other ongoing agreements would have done the job. Without the aggro.

Perhaps in layman's terms, yes.

From a legal stand point there may be another reason which the solicitors have advised the employer . . . . . . .and charge their fees to boot!

Most posters are coming from a layman perspective, where in fact it is probably a legal point of view that needs to be addressed.

At least there is a common view, from the perspective of a layman that the letter should not be signed.

If he follows this advice and gets taken to court . . . . . .and loses . . . . . .then what would have been the best advice to give?

A legal situation needs legal guidance, not a layman's moral reasons not to acknowledge a solicitor's letter.

 

[obscure]

Once again - what is the (perceived) disadvantage to the employee? You still have not clarified what you mean by that.

You already clarified that earlier in the thread.

The employee signed a contract agreeing not to disclose. Breach of that agreement would result in a potential punishment of X.
Singing the undertaking provides zero benefit to the employee but increases the severity of any penalty for the same disclose. That is a clear disadvantage.

 

[obscure]

The OP breaches confidentiality. The ex employer takes action. The judge will award damages based on the losses suffered by the claimant. Signing the lrgal deed does not affect those losses. Signing legal deed irrelevant.

This scenario is incorrect. As was pointed out earlier in the thread the penalty for breaching a deed of undertaking is more severe than the penalty for breaching a contract... so signing it is not irrelevant as it would result in them suffering a more severe punishment for the same disclosure.

 

[Recruitment&HR]

Sure, that's how it's being presented by the employment guy who is, don't forget, working for the employer.

I'm suspicious about this. Any breach of the clause would be a matter of fact and the remedy is compensation for damage incurred. That damage is not made worse by not signing a deed that he has no obligation to sign.

On the other hand, if he DOES sign and then breaches, he's broken two agreements.

Easy there, my client base is pretty much evenly split between employers and employees. In fact I do a large amount of pro-bono work for employees.

 

[Recruitment&HR]

He does not have to sign it. (I certainly wouldn't)

Further, I would also not disclose any confidential information that would breach any employment contracts I had and understand that there is a consequence after leaving my employment.

Whilst it's not a 'friendly' or indeed a welcome letter, the solicitors are working on behalf of the employer and it's not uncommon to issue such letters.

I do agree with the comments not to sign the letter, but as I stated above, as long as the ex employee has no thoughts whatsoever (whether advertently or inadvertently), in the future to disclose any information, by not responding to the letter may act against him should he be taken to court in an IP case.

Solicitors are solicitors (and I dislike most as does any other person), but they are there to do a job and in this instance are looking to protect their client's interest.

Sometimes it's better to to ensure that a confidentiality agreement is fully understood by both parties (it's not always fully understood by many people), rather then there being a breach and litigation follows, which does not help either party. . . . . .except for the solicitors.

Bullying? I don't think so.

Reminding someone of their obligations? That about sums it up for me.

Perhaps in some cases an ex employee may think twice before giving out confidential information if they feel the ex employer will not take any further action. This letter will be a reminder that they will, which I presume was the reason the letter was sent out.

Any letter coming from a solicitor can be (as well as feel) intimidation, as long as they stick to the correct side of the law.

I agree the perspective of most posters are coming from the side of the ex employee, but what if you was in the shoes of the ex employer and had potential losses from an ex employee disclosing confidential information which caused harm on your company?

It may well be that the amount of loss (if and when proven) could not be paid by the ex employee.

This may well be the case in this instance.

We simply do not have all the facts and if we did, could cause some to think differently.

There are always 2 sides to every case. Most 'defendants' on a forum only share their side.

At least this thread makes for interesting reading from the perspective of both the employer and employee.

Not dissimilar to perhaps a David v Goliath scenario where we all want David to win.

Again, spot on.

 

[Recruitment&HR]

It is NOT common, it's unusual, unnecessary and deliberately opressive.

Moreover, with GDPR, the logic would be that an ex-employee should be asking the employee to sign a deed reminding the employer to protect HIS data.

This is absurd and should be resisted.

It is common, it is not unusual and it often is necessary. It can't by default be oppressive because it merely reaffirms a contract that was signed in the first place and a clause which remains in force post termination.

 

[cjd]

Easy there, my client base is pretty much evenly split between employers and employees. In fact I do a large amount of pro-bono work for employees.

Are you an employment lawyer?
Do you recommend your employees sign such a deed?

 

[Recruitment&HR]

Whether there is a disadvantage or not, please explain why the employee should do it, other than because his ex employer has asked him to in a threatening solicitor's letter? The thread is about the OP asking whether he was legally required to respond and whether he should. Everyone else thinks he should not. You don't see why he should not. But you cannot explain why he should.

I have stated repeatedly that legally the ex employee does not have to sign it. That answered the question.

I have also, as common during a discussion, explained why the employer wants it and why there is no issue or risk signing it.

Furthermore, I have explained that signing it does in fact provide the ex employee with a an advantage if the ex employer really is slightly bonkers and attempts to take legal action without proof.

The undertaking is equal to a court order, ordering the ex employee not to disclose any confidential information. Such an order is often issued regardless of evidence of any wrongdoing. Having signed the undertaking prior to any legal action means that, short of the employer providing good evidence, a judge would throw out the case immediately as there is nothing of substance to add by the court. This in turn saves time, money and avoids unnecessary stress.

NB - Who says the letter is threatening? None of us have seen it.

 

[Recruitment&HR]

This scenario is incorrect. As was pointed out earlier in the thread the penalty for breaching a deed of undertaking is more severe than the penalty for breaching a contract... so signing it is not irrelevant as it would result in them suffering a more severe punishment for the same disclosure.

See post #96 and the previous posts. There is an advantage to the employee unless they plan to disclose confidential information.

 

[Recruitment&HR]

Are you an employment lawyer?
Do you recommend your employees sign such a deed?

I would not give blanket advice to sign the undertaking without knowing the full picture. I can't give legal advice in a forum. I have simply explained why these undertakings are issued by employers.

There have been countless occasions where I have advised against signing and similarly there are cases where I have advised to sign. Likewise, there have been cases where an employer attempts to push the ex employee to sign because they realised there is no confidentiality clause in their badly drafted contract (often downloaded from rip off websites). In those cases I would send a very blunt letter advising the former employer that the only way of getting the employee to agree to a new restriction would be by way of a settlement agreement with appropriate payment.

 

[cjd]

It is common, it is not unusual and it often is necessary. It can't by default be oppressive because it merely reaffirms a contract that was signed in the first place and a clause which remains in force post termination.

It's a very long way from a normal situation - I've never seen it done before in even very difficult cases, presumably because a employee's lawyer would simply laugh at it - it's absurd.

In this particular case it's being used in a harassing and threatening manner and is obviously it's intent. You're simply naive if you think lawyers don't use legal instruments to oppress

The letter is quite threatening, particularly the last paragraph which expresses my employer regards this as a serious matter, and failure to respond within the time limit given will lead to further unspecified action.

He's being threatened with further action for not doing something he has no legal requirement to do.

 

[Recruitment&HR]

It's a very long way from a normal situation - I've never seen it done before in even very difficult cases, presumably because a employee's lawyer would simply laugh at it - it's absurd.

In this particular case it's being used in a harassing and threatening manner and is obviously it's intent. You're simply naive if you think lawyers don't use legal instruments to oppress



He's being threatened with further action for not doing something he has no legal requirement to do.

With all due respect; I do this for a living so I would hazard a guess that I deal with more cases where this applies than you would see and secondly, you are taking the OP’s post at face value. Legal language may seem threatening to many people but that doesn’t mean it is.

 

[cjd]

I would not give blanket advice to sign the undertaking without knowing the full picture. I can't give legal advice in a forum. I have simply explained why these undertakings are issued by employers.

Can I take it from that non-answer of my question 'are you a lawyer?' that you are not a lawyer? Typically recruitment agents and HR people are not. (But of course they have access to lawyers and some relevant training and experience.)

There have been countless occasions where I have advised against signing and similarly there are cases where I have advised to sign. Likewise, there have been cases where an employer attempts to push the ex employee to sign because they realised there is no confidentiality clause in their badly drafted contract (often downloaded from rip off websites). In those cases I would send a very blunt letter advising the former employer that the only way of getting the employee to agree to a new restriction would be by way of a settlement agreement with appropriate payment.

Thank you, that's a fair answer.

But what we're all struggling with here is finding any circumstances where an employee would benefit by signing such a deed. A simple reminder of the confidentiality terms of the contract is all that is necessary, anything more has the nature of a threat and is not in the employees interest.

 

[kulture]

With all due respect; I do this for a living so I would hazard a guess that I deal with more cases where this applies than you would see and secondly, you are taking the OP’s post at face value. Legal language may seem threatening to many people but that doesn’t mean it is.

Yes, lets take the OP's posts at face value. The OP said that the letter from the employee had FACTUAL inaccuracies. That it stated that he had already breached confidentiality. Legal documents are seen by some as intimidating. They may include bits where by signing you are admitting to breaking the confidentiality, which may be wrong.

NO ONE should sign ANY document that they do not FULLY understand and FULLY agree with.

Nothing else matters.

 

[Recruitment&HR]

Can I take it from that non-answer of my question 'are you a lawyer?' that you are not a lawyer? Typically recruitment agents and HR people are not. (But of course they have access to lawyers and some relevant training and experience.)



Thank you, that's a fair answer.

But what we're all struggling with here is finding any circumstances where an employee would benefit by signing such a deed. A simple reminder of the confidentiality terms of the contract is all that is necessary, anything more has the nature of a threat and is not in the employees interest.

You can take it as I am CiLex qualified which means I can give legal advice (an no, I won't give legal advice on a forum). The reason why I took this path is that you don't have to be a solicitor to represent at tribunal and I took the decision to move into employment law (from HR) quite late and whilst already running a HR consultancy and recruitment business.

I'e explained several times what the benefits to the employee are.

 

[Recruitment&HR]

Yes, lets take the OP's posts at face value. The OP said that the letter from the employee had FACTUAL inaccuracies. That it stated that he had already breached confidentiality. Legal documents are seen by some as intimidating. They may include bits where by signing you are admitting to breaking the confidentiality, which may be wrong.

NO ONE should sign ANY document that they do not FULLY understand and FULLY agree with.

Nothing else matters.

And how many employees do you think I get on an almost daily basis who make claims that are inaccurate. The fact remains that we don't know the circumstance and have not seen the letter. Nothing else matters.

I give you an example from last month.

IT employee noticed that ex-employee connected to Dropbox a few hours after they had left the office for the last time. Among the downloaded/synced files was the client list in Excel format which included personal details of client contacts, financial information as well as the expiration dates of retainer contracts.

IT disabled the user (arguably this should have happened the second they left the building) and the MD called, e-mailed and texted the ex employee. No response.

The employment contract did have a confidentiality clause as well as post employment restrictions.

The business is a data controller for client data under GDPR.

Now tell me what you would have done in this situation and once you have done that, I will tell you what actually happened.

 

[cjd]

Now that's a specific case where it's reasonable to suspect the employee of not only breaking a civil contract but possibly criminal law too. I can see a justification for asking for the data to be deleted and a legal promise to be made.

What to do if he refuses would be interesting - the company should probably report a loss of personal data to the ICO (and technically should anyway.)

 

[Mr D]

With all due respect; I do this for a living so I would hazard a guess that I deal with more cases where this applies than you would see and secondly, you are taking the OP’s post at face value. Legal language may seem threatening to many people but that doesn’t mean it is.

Considering there usually is not any other information, taking an OP's post at face value tends to happen.

They are usually best placed to present what the situation is.

 

[Recruitment&HR]

Now that's a specific case where it's reasonable to suspect the employee of not only breaking a civil contract but possibly criminal law too. I can see a justification for asking for the data to be deleted and a legal promise to be made.

What to do if he refuses would be interesting - the company should probably report a loss of personal data to the ICO (and technically should anyway.)

A situation like this is actually very common.

Either way - back to the case:

The same afternoon their solicitor couriered a letter to the ex employee stating that there a reasonable grounds to believe he is in possession of confidential data and asked for the following two undertakings to be given within 48 hours:

1. He is aware and will honour the confidentiality clause and post employment restriction clause of his employment contract.

2. He agrees to delete all confidential data irrevocably.

Heavy handed and most likely considered "threatening" by a lot of people.

Reason: You have 72 hours to report a data breach to the ICO.

What happened then... the ex employee called the MD the following morning and said he had not downloaded anything, he had been looking for jobs and been on the phone for two phone interviews (hence no answers to calls, texts and e-mails and by the time the letter was received it was out of hours).

The former employee said he would be happy to sign as he hasn't done anything wrong but would like to understand where he was meant to have downloaded anything.

IT e-mailed him, copying in the MD, stating the downloads were made on a MacBook Pro at XX:XX on DD/MM.

Dropbox was installed on his personal laptop (as per BYOD policy), he had not uninstalled it and IT had messed up by not disabling his account immediately. When he looked for jobs, Dropbox synced files that had been changed since the last sync, including the client list.

The MD accepted the explanation, apologised for IT not having disabled the account when they should have; the ex employee confirmed he is aware of both clauses in his contract and said he's happy to sign the undertaking.. the MD said no need.

Two reasonable people, a stupid situation that really was no one's fault, a "threatening letter" but everybody happy after talking.

Every business owner, which I believe most of us here are, should understand what happened and why the business acted in the way it did. The business simply protected itself against potential costs and repercussions of a data breach. It did everything it could to contain the potential data breach, as required by legislation. It acted quickly, again as required by legislation.

Happens up and down the country, every day.

I'm not saying the OP's employer is reasonable but likewise none of us can say that they aren't.

 

[simon field]

For goodness sake!!

I’m a total know-nothing but even I can see that by saying basically “if you don’t sign it there’ll be unspecified further action” - is just a chancer solicitor trying it on!

What further action could they possibly take, pray tell because we’re all listening....

 

[Recruitment&HR]

For goodness sake!!

I’m a total know-nothing but even I can see that by saying basically “if you don’t sign it there’ll be unspecified further action” - is just a chancer solicitor trying it on!

What further action could they possibly take, pray tell because we’re all listening....

Simple - refusal to sign an undertaking combined with some evidence (as per my post 107) suffices for a court to grant a hearing as to whether an injunction should be issued or not. Signing the undertaking removes that opportunity from the employer.

 

[The Byre]

The key words here being -

combined with some evidence

Courts are obliged to find on the facts and not on a silly collection of 'what-ifs'.

 

[cjd]

A situation like this is actually very common.

Either way - back to the case:

The same afternoon their solicitor couriered a letter to the ex employee stating that there a reasonable grounds to believe he is in possession of confidential data and asked for the following two undertakings to be given within 48 hours:

1. He is aware and will honour the confidentiality clause and post employment restriction clause of his employment contract.

2. He agrees to delete all confidential data irrevocably.

Heavy handed and most likely considered "threatening" by a lot of people.

Reason: You have 72 hours to report a data breach to the ICO.

What happened then... the ex employee called the MD the following morning and said he had not downloaded anything, he had been looking for jobs and been on the phone for two phone interviews (hence no answers to calls, texts and e-mails and by the time the letter was received it was out of hours).

The former employee said he would be happy to sign as he hasn't done anything wrong but would like to understand where he was meant to have downloaded anything.

IT e-mailed him, copying in the MD, stating the downloads were made on a MacBook Pro at XX:XX on DD/MM.

Dropbox was installed on his personal laptop (as per BYOD policy), he had not uninstalled it and IT had messed up by not disabling his account immediately. When he looked for jobs, Dropbox synced files that had been changed since the last sync, including the client list.

The MD accepted the explanation, apologised for IT not having disabled the account when they should have; the ex employee confirmed he is aware of both clauses in his contract and said he's happy to sign the undertaking.. the MD said no need.

Two reasonable people, a stupid situation that really was no one's fault, a "threatening letter" but everybody happy after talking.

Every business owner, which I believe most of us here are, should understand what happened and why the business acted in the way it did. The business simply protected itself against potential costs and repercussions of a data breach. It did everything it could to contain the potential data breach, as required by legislation. It acted quickly, again as required by legislation.

Happens up and down the country, every day.

I'm not saying the OP's employer is reasonable but likewise none of us can say that they aren't.

That's all perfectly sensible and a correct use of the deed - although even there it was not actually used. But it's certainly not a normal leaving situation and it's entirely different to the OP's case - as he states it.

On an entirely different track, not signing the deed might make a reference rather difficult, though as they seem to have fallen out it maybe is anyway.

 

[Recruitment&HR]

The key words here being -
Courts are obliged to find on the facts and not on a silly collection of 'what-ifs'.

Please re-read what I said. No undertaking + some evidence = hearing for injuction granted. The court will then look at the evidence and decide whether to grant an injunction.

At that point the former employee will have had to attend the hearing, most like have spent money on legal representation and will have stressed for weeks, potentially needlessly.

 

[Recruitment&HR]

That's all perfectly sensible and a correct use of the deed - although even there it was not actually used. But it's certainly not a normal leaving situation and it's entirely different to the OP's case - as he states it.

On an entirely different track, not signing the deed might make a reference rather difficult, though as they seem to have fallen out it maybe is anyway.

My point is that for one reason or another, it happens frequently that an employer suddenly believes an ex-employee has retained confidential information.

Re a reference - no. A reference must be given on neutral terms, taking the entire period of employment into consideration.... which is the reason why most employers now only give generic reference confirming dates of employment and position held.

 

[Newchodge]

Please re-read what I said. No undertaking + some evidence = hearing for injuction granted. The court will then look at the evidence and decide whether to grant an injunction.

At that point the former employee will have had to attend the hearing, most like have spent money on legal representation and will have stressed for weeks, potentially needlessly.

I hadn't realised that if there is evidence of a breach of confidentiality and an undertaking has been signed, the ex-employer could not then seek an injunction to prevent further breaches. Does it also mean they cannot seek damages? That seems a bit harsh on the ex-employer.

 

[Recruitment&HR]

I hadn't realised that if there is evidence of a breach of confidentiality and an undertaking has been signed, the ex-employer could not then seek an injunction to prevent further breaches. Does it also mean they cannot seek damages? That seems a bit harsh on the ex-employer.

They can seek damages of course. But injunction is only possible, if an undertaking has already been signed, if there is proof that even the undertaking was breached. The undertaking has (almost) equal status to a court order.

 

[kulture]

This is all getting needlessly complex, and anyone can bring in a straw man argument to prove their point in that case.

The simple facts remain that an employee should not sign a document which they do not understand or do not agree with, or which they think is getting them to admit to something that they did not do.

Clearly talking to each other can resolve misunderstandings and simple communication could save a lot of time. I am guessing that a Judge would be happy if such simple communication resolved the case.

Likewise if there has been a clear breach of data the Employer is obliged to make sure that it is contained etc. And again there could be a reason why it would be better for the employee to sign a document.

BUT we can all invent scenarios to back up either situation. In general however it is best to talk, gain an understanding and if necessary get legal advice. Such legal advice would know all the relevant facts and not be built on assumptions and meaningless other cases. Anything else is pointless speculation and indeed poor advice. In the situation claimed by the OP it would be poor advice to sign the document.

 

[MOIC]

The following is interesting reading and may shed some more light on this thread.

From the OP in 2015:

"Two years ago I worked on a project for a company to assist with the invention and development of a device which is now in full production and making a substantial profit for the business.
The device was patented with my name and another member of the team named as inventors.

My question is am I entitled to any revenue from the sale of the device and if so how do I approach the company to stake my claim?"

1. Could this be classed as a disgruntled employee?

2. If you were the employer, would you suspect that there may be a reason for the employee to exact revenge, if he didn't get his way?

I understand that some people will think/say that he should have been paid extra for his input in the patented product, but that's not the point of discussion.

To be clear, without knowing the specific details and NOT taking the OP at face value, as defendants never portray themselves as the guilty party, more facts about the circumstances need to be known, before comments defending each side's arguments can be questioned.

A court and judge will have all documents to base his judgement on.

We (perhaps) have a one sided view with omissions.

 

[Recruitment&HR]

The following is interesting reading and may shed some more light on this thread.

From the OP in 2015:

"Two years ago I worked on a project for a company to assist with the invention and development of a device which is now in full production and making a substantial profit for the business.
The device was patented with my name and another member of the team named as inventors.

My question is am I entitled to any revenue from the sale of the device and if so how do I approach the company to stake my claim?"

1. Could this be classed as a disgruntled employee?

2. If you were the employer, would you suspect that there may be a reason for the employee to exact revenge, if he didn't get his way?

I understand that some people will think/say that he should have been paid extra for his input in the patented product, but that's not the point of discussion.

To be clear, without knowing the specific details and NOT taking the OP at face value, as defendants never portray themselves as the guilty party, more facts about the circumstances need to be known, before comments defending each side's arguments can be questioned.

A court and judge will have all documents to base his judgement on.

We (perhaps) have a one sided view with omissions.

If this is related to the current situation you are very close to shedding some light on the matter.

Also, if this is the case, then the employer's contracts are extremely bad as nothing invented during working time should EVER be patented in the employee's name. Ever. There may of course be clause that provides the employer with power of attorney or similar in relation to patents registered in the employee's name during employment.

 

[Newchodge]

The following is interesting reading and may shed some more light on this thread.

From the OP in 2015:

"Two years ago I worked on a project for a company to assist with the invention and development of a device which is now in full production and making a substantial profit for the business.
The device was patented with my name and another member of the team named as inventors.

My question is am I entitled to any revenue from the sale of the device and if so how do I approach the company to stake my claim?"

1. Could this be classed as a disgruntled employee?

2. If you were the employer, would you suspect that there may be a reason for the employee to exact revenge, if he didn't get his way?

I understand that some people will think/say that he should have been paid extra for his input in the patented product, but that's not the point of discussion.

To be clear, without knowing the specific details and NOT taking the OP at face value, as defendants never portray themselves as the guilty party, more facts about the circumstances need to be known, before comments defending each side's arguments can be questioned.

A court and judge will have all documents to base his judgement on.

We (perhaps) have a one sided view with omissions.

Well that is completely brilliant. Base your advice on a 4 year old post about an unrelated matter. You don't even know if the OP is working for the same employer, 4 years on. Really helpful.

 

[The Byre]

The simple facts remain that an employee should not sign a document which they do not understand or do not agree with, or which they think is getting them to admit to something that they did not do.

This!

Unfortunately, there are all sorts of 'experts' that tell businesses how dangerous it is to not employ their expertise. H&S, HR and employment law, data protection, you name it and some quasi-expert comes shooting up from between the floorboards, telling you that if you don't use their services, you may end up having to hand over your first-born male child.

These people will throw up example after example of horror stories that involve businesses that have fallen foul of the law for this and that - they read that online somewhere! (Or as a dumb Texan neighbour of ours used to say "I know it's true 'cos I read me that in a book!")

If you want qualified legal advice on some subject, talk to either a solicitor or a barrister (or in Scotlandshire, a solicitor-advocate) that specialises in that subject. Give that person all the facts and documentation and be prepared to de-trouser about £240 an hour for their advice.

And even then, be prepared to temper that advice with common sense. That is, after all, what the courts do in the end. They look at the facts and come to a common sense conclusion.