Workplace Disputes and ‘Without Prejudice’ Discussions – Guideline Ruling

Litigation should always be a last resort and, as an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling made plain, it is very much in the public interest to encourage employers to embark on confidential, without prejudice discussions with a view to achieving a non-confrontational resolution of workplace…

Sep 27, 2023

Scott graham oqmzwnd3thu unsplash 1024x683

Litigation should always be a last resort and, as an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling made plain, it is very much in the public interest to encourage employers to embark on confidential, without prejudice discussions with a view to achieving a non-confrontational resolution of workplace disputes.

The case concerned a local authority employee who suffered from mental ill health and had been off work for some time. After he complained of alleged discrimination, a senior manager invited him to a meeting. No resolution was, however, achieved and he subsequently resigned and launched ET proceedings, claiming disability discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal.

The employer, who denied his claims, argued that all reference to the meeting and any documents relating to it should be excluded from the hearing of the case. Such evidence was, it contended, inadmissible in that the meeting was plainly held on a confidential, without prejudice basis. The invitation was marked as such and the man had clearly indicated that he was content with that position.

For his part, the man argued that the without prejudice rule should be disapplied due to impropriety on the employer’s part. He alleged, amongst other things, that unfair advantage was taken of his mental ill health, that an attempt was made to browbeat him into resigning and that he was presented with an ultimatum that he would be dismissed if he did not accept an exit package which he considered inadequate.

Ruling on the matter, the ET emphasised the public interest in ensuring that all sides in a dispute are afforded an opportunity to enter into free and frank discussions with a view to settlement and without running the risk that anything they say may subsequently be used against them in litigation.

In upholding the employer’s arguments, the ET found that there was absolutely no impropriety on the part of its representatives at the meeting. The man’s attendance was voluntary and it was made abundantly clear to him that the meeting would be conducted on a without prejudice basis. There was nothing untoward about the discussion and an entirely reasonable view was taken that a without prejudice meeting, face to face, might help to defuse the dispute and achieve an amicable resolution.

Proving a Link Between Unfair Treatment and Discrimination Can Be Tough

It may be relatively straightforward to prove you have suffered unfair treatment at work, but establishing that such treatment results from discrimination can pose a far greater challenge. This was certainly so in an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case concerning a forklift truck driver. The man launched proceedings following two fractious confrontations between him and colleagues in the car park of the premises where he worked for a logistics company. He alleged that he was falsely and…

In Employment Law Terms, Asperger’s Syndrome Can Be a Disability

A great many employers would agree that thinking differently is a positive advantage to those with Asperger’s syndrome and that they have much of value to contribute to the workplace. However, as one case showed, the condition may nevertheless be classified as a disability in employment law terms. After a man with a longstanding diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome lodged an Employment Tribunal (ET) complaint against his telecommunications company employer, the question of whether he was disabled,…

EAT Reinstates Claims Struck Out for Failure to Comply With Order

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld an appeal against the striking out of a man’s claims after he failed to comply with a case management order, finding that the Employment Tribunal (ET) had failed to consider whether a fair trial was still possible and that an unless order should have been made instead. The man had brought a number of claims including disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment and victimisation. The ET considered that it was not…