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

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