step

1 Comment

    • Volt Information Sciences: An Overlooked Small-Cap [view article]
      THE SHAME OF STEPHANIE ELLIOT & VOLT EUROPE

      Judgement has recently been delivered on an on-going case between Gatton Volt Consulting Group Ltd, known as Volt Europe, the UK subsidary of American giant, Volt Information Sciences Inc and Alpha-Tek Associates.



      Alpha-Tek helped Gatton find a contract resource for its end client. Contracts between companies contained clauses preventing either company cutting each other of the supply chain.



      However, Gatton reneged on this agreement and cut Alpha-Tek out of the chain. Gatton went further. They refused to pay for services provided during the last month of supply. They later paid the sum due to a third party and had the audacity to claim Apha-Tek did not engage in the supply. A pure lie.



      Some years later Alpha-Tek sued Gatton and Gatton engaged in a concocted defence stating that Alpha-Tek was in breach of contract and did not supply the resource. Luckily Alpha-Tek was discovered a recorded conversation between parties proving their case and weeks before trial Gatton conceded Alpha-Tek was likely to be able to prove their case and settled. In essence, Gatton had filed a false defence.



      A second action was then filed for breach of the non-solicitation clause. Then Gatton engaged in a defence that beggared belief. They claimed once again Alpha-Tek had not supplied the resource (after earlier conceding they had and settled the claim) and thus went on to sign false statements of truth, all under the helm of its current managing director, Stephanie Elliott. In addition, they claimed no non-solicitation clause existed, and also the non-solicitation clause was actually a penalty clause and thus not enforceable.



      Following a six day trial the judge rejected Gatton’s argument and awarded judgement to Alpha-Tek. No apology or payment for the full judgement from Gatton was forthcoming. Instead of drawing a line under the saga, and ending animosity, they decided to appeal on the basis that the judge erred because the non-solicitation clause, which Gatton freely agreed to, was a penalty clause and non-enforceable.



      One must look at the morality and ethics of Gatton Volt under the direction of Stephanie Elliot, which had never apologised or shown any remorse for its actions. Gatton are a recruitment agency. They supply permanent and contract resources to clients. They specify 12-month non-solicitation clauses to protect their interest and prevent contractors “going direct”.



      Yet, when Gatton freely agree to 12-month clauses, they don’t think they should be applied to themselves simply because they regard it as a clause as penalty. Is this the standard of conduct one should expect from a multi-million dollar American organisation? Is this the ethical behaviour Volt expect from its subsidaries?



      Gatton is an organisation that freely and willingly signed statements of truth that are clearly known to be false. They refused to pay an organisation for services rendered, created documents to falsely state supply was via another organisation and when they breach agreements, they attempt to worm out of them stating an agreement is a penalty. Have they any shame?



      Recruitment organisations often have a shady, greedy and dishonest image. These events do nothing to dispel such an image. The action of Stephanie Elliot and Volt Europe, who is a member of ATSCO, brings the profession into disrepute and is nothing short of a disgrace. It seems the American parent company sits back allowing such disgraceful behaviour, which portrays it in bad light and may destroy its reputation.
      Apr 11 06:19 PM
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»

Trading Center