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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll