header-logo header-logo

Between you & me...

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

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll