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.

Whistleblowing Nurse’s Dismissal ‘Grossly Unfair’, Tribunal Rules

There are few things more serious in an employment context than sacking a whistleblower for performing a valuable public service. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) made that point in the case of a highly regarded nurse who was treated grossly unfairly for doing what she considered to be her duty. The nurse had an unblemished employment record stretching to 38 years and had received commendations for her leadership skills, positivity and enthusiasm. On a number of occasions, she expressed…

Plagued by Former Employees Turned Competitors? See a Lawyer Today!

Many business owners lie awake at night worrying that senior employees may leave to set up rival operations, taking clients and confidential information with them. Such conduct is, however, highly likely to be unlawful and, as one case showed, specialist lawyers can very swiftly take steps to nip it in the bud. The case concerned a share purchase agreement (SPA), by which a consultancy group acquired the entire issued share capital of a rival company for over £6.4 million. As part of the deal,…

Work From Home Dispute Raises Key Issue for the Modern Workplace

As the employment landscape continues to shift in the post-pandemic era, employees and employers can find themselves at odds when it comes to expectations of flexible and remote working. The issue was brought to light at Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings centred on a woman’s request to work from home. The woman had been employed by a financial regulator since 2005. Her initial contract indicated that her normal place of work would be at a physical office location. This changed in early 2020…