That won't make much difference from the ICO POV. They will probably regard the use of the data in this way as being part of the legitimate business interests of the company, so they can do it without requiring the explicit permission of the data subject Provided that the data subject has the necessary access (SAR) and the right to change incorrect data then that is as far as the ICO is likely to get involved. If the data was only an opinion, rather than accepted fact, it would be interesting to see whether the courts would enforce an S10 notice.

I don't think the ICO will object. If they follow the position they take on Credit agencies they will consider doing this as being pursuing the legitimate business interests of the shops.

I know it sounds harsh, but I don't think you should be trying to give them such advice as part of an official communication from you. Were you to make a mistake you could accidentally make the company liable. The best thing you could do would be to point them towards some official site that gives details of the support available.

He can do if it is stated in the contract. In the absence of a contract, or any other terms and conditions, I don't know how it would work but it may be regarded that that is standard practice in this industry so he would be okay on that one. Note also that there are very specific regulations surrounding the protection of workers who raise concerns about Health and Safety Issues.

Unbelievable. You don't have a legal to paid holiday to see a doctor. I don't think they can stop you from going but they can insist that you take annual leave or unpaid leave. In this circumstance the manager is being totally unreasonable - your fiance should keep the appointment. If the manager wanted to make an issue of that he would have to start disciplinary action and there is no way to make that stick. If he wants to cover himself he should call the HR department and get their advice.

In most cases it would be easy for an employer to come up with a good business case why salaries should be kept secret. In my industry it is not unusual to have to pay "over the odds" to bring in a specific skill you need, yet you cannot afford to bring everyone's pay in line. I don't see why the employer is not entitled to say that discussing salaries is gross misconduct. I don't see that they ET would necessarily disagree. Okay so dismissal for such an offence would be harsh, but a disciplinary hearing could be in order. Let's at least agree that there is plenty of evidence on this forum of people being dismissed for much less serious actions. However for it to be so it would have to be deliberate, so if you find out accidentally what someone else was earning then you would be safe. Nonetheless what really matters in this situation is not the legal position but the perception of the firm. It is all very well winning a case for unfair dismissal in the ET, but it is much better not to get dismissed in the first place. If the company does regard it as a serious matter, you would risk damaging your career by letting them know that you have found out.

I have worked for a number of companies that have explicitly said that discussing salary or bonus was gross misconduct. I have also been in the position of managing people who earned more than I did for various reasons. That also is not uncommon and there is nothing unlawful about it. It does make a good bargaining point when asking for a pay rise but there is no innate right to earn more than people more junior to yourself. It is only an issue if the reason you earn less is a discriminatory one.

How do you get the "three months work" bit? Surely the claim is purely for any damages they suffer, so roughly speaking the cost - over and above what they would have paid the OP - of finding someone to do the work for the remaining 3 months. If it is easy to find such resource then the damages would be minimal - on the other hand if they had to go to a much more expensive source for the same skills (as it is short notice) then it could be considerable.

The civil service always used to be "final salary" schemes, which actually are extremely good value for the employees. From what you say you can expect to receive a pension of about 3-5% of your final salary (index linked). Although you will have the right to transfer the money to a different scheme it is highly unlikely that you will be better off by doing so.

I don't think that the manager's comments to you count as a formal offer of the role, so there is nothing wrong with her deciding to advertise internally. I think you really should apply for the post - the fact that the manager had previously asked you to do it means that she can't be totally against you getting it. If you apply and don't get the post for reasons that you regard as being unfair then you can always appeal, or raise a grievance. If you don't even apply there is nothing you can do.

I am a little surprised by the solicitor's advice. As you have followed the appeal process you can apply to the ET now for unfair dismissal. The grievance process does not normally apply to dismissal, but to other actions by your manager - e.g. treating you unfairly. While I am not a expert I don't see that you have any claim other than for unfair dismissal and so I am not sure that a formal grievance is necessary. I suppose the solicitor may be thinking of a "injury to feelings" element in the unfair dismissal claim, but even there I am not sure that a grievance is necessary. That said raising a grievance can do no harm. Have you spoken to ACAS yet? They can sometimes give good advice. Citizens advice bureaux can also help sometimes but the quality of the advice from them is variable. The direct approach to seek a compromise agreement would be to write directly to the council. The letter should be headed "Without Prejudice". In it you should say simply that you have taken legal advice and believe that you have a strong case for unfair dismissal. Say that in order to avoid the costs and delays associated with an ET claim you would like to discuss coming to a "compromise agreement". I don't see that such a letter can do any harm and it may well be that the council would be prepared to agree simply to avoid the hassle of an ET claim.

If they acted in good faith and did not mislead you then I really don't see that you have any claim against them at all, or if you did one of only minimal value.

Having signed a compromise agreement makes things harder but does not necessarily close all avenues. I believe the wording of the document itself becomes important. My understanding is that a compromise agreement can resolve all contractual claims and statutory claims provided that they are detailed in the agreement (e.g. the sections of the statutes under which a claim may be brought are listed). Without that there have been cases where people have been permitted to bring a claim even after a compromise agreement has been signed. However the question in this case is not so much whether there are other claims, but whether they have any monetary value. If he settled for a fair amount for the dismissal under all circumstances then even if there were other points that might have been raised then that would not affect the value of the claim. It is only if an whole aspect of the claim was missed (e.g. pre-termination detriment, injury to feelings and so on) that there is additional value in the claim

While you can bring up the point of Minimum Wage at this point I am not sure what it would achieve. If your objective is for your son to keep his job then I don't think mentioning the wage issue would help. If anything it might cause him to be thought a trouble maker and make him less likely to keep his job - it certainly can't help. Whatever happens you can bring up the wage issue later. Even then if keeping the job is important then it should be done sensitively.

You can always represent yourself, the tribunals are used to people not having legal representation and they do their best to help. This case is comparatively straightforward so you should be able to do it yourself, and it seems likely that if you start proceedings the council will compromise anyway - they aren't going to want to go to the trouble and expense of contesting a £1500 tribunal claim.