header-logo header-logo

An alternative exit tool

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll