header-logo header-logo

27 June 2013 / Julian Yew , Anna Henry
Issue: 7566 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

An alternative exit tool

Julian Yew & Anna Henry examine the pros & cons of the forthcoming “protected conversations” law

Contracts of employment may be lawfully terminated provided that employers go through the correct procedures under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) and follow any contractual procedures. Procedures can, however, be laborious, stressful and time-consuming for employers. Negotiated departures are thus frequently carried out by employers purportedly on a “without prejudice” basis.

The government recently announced that it plans to introduce “protected conversations” so that “a boss and an employee feel able to sit down together and have a frank conversation at either’s request”. Such “pre-termination negotiations” will not be admissible in an unfair dismissal claim unless there has been “improper behaviour” by the employer.

Without prejudice conversations

The “without prejudice” rule, which is a form of privilege, is that written or oral communications, which are made for the purpose of a genuine attempt to compromise a dispute between the parties, may generally not be admitted in evidence. In Cutts v Head [1984]

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll