header-logo header-logo

16 December 2011 / Tom Walker
Issue: 7494 / Categories: Opinion , Tribunals , Disciplinary&grievance procedures , Employment
printer mail-detail

Between you & me...

Tom Walker shares a cautionary tale or two about “protected conversations”

The prime minister introduced “protected conversations” last month as a mechanism to allow “frank conversations with employees” without the prospect of being taken to tribunal. Conversations could be initiated by either the employer or the employee. Business Secretary Vince Cable subsequently explained that such conversations would allow “employers to raise issues such as poor performance or retirement plans in an open way, free from the worry it would be used as evidence”.

Frank feedback

Of course, employers can already give full and frank feedback on an employee’s performance and should not feel threatened by a constructive dismissal claim when doing so. The clear implication of these “protected conversations”, particularly given the reference to retirement, is that they will go further then a mere discussion on performance. They will raise the possibility of parting company. As such, they may well be intended as a shortcut to the arguably cumbersome process of performance warnings and assessment periods under the ACAS code.

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

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Restructuring and insolvency practice strengthened by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

North West residential development team welcomes partner and associate

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Family law boutique expands London team with legal director hire

NEWS
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
A landmark ruling has delivered the first judicial application of the UK’s anti-SLAPP regime and provided fresh guidance on abusive litigation
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
Non-court dispute resolution is no longer an alternative in family law—it is rapidly becoming the norm
back-to-top-scroll