Settlement negotiations could be disclosed within Tribunal proceedings as the legislation only outlined that it covered ordinary unfair dismissal and not the other claims brought by the claimant relating to detriment due to part-time status and unlawful deduction from wages.

The claimant had been employed by the respondent from 2018 until his dismissal in 2024. The respondent argued it was by reason of redundancy.  In April 2024, the Respondent’s Managing Director called the claimant into a meeting without notice and presented him with a settlement offer. The claimant alleged that he was threatened with redundancy if he decided not to take the offer. This was denied by the respondent. The issue arising was whether the meeting relating to the pre-termination negotiation should be included in the Tribunal action or whether it was inadmissible.

The Tribunal, at first instance, held that there was no such threat and there was no improper conduct in the pre-termination negotiations.  As a result, it was held that all references to the meeting should be redacted from the pleadings/bundles. As a result, it was held as a protected conversation within the 1996 Act.  The claimant appealed this to the EAT.

The EAT held that the inadmissibility of evidence under Section 111A of the 1996 Act related to proceedings under Section 111 (i.e. ordinary unfair dismissal).  However, when the claim related to automatically unfair dismissal, deduction from wages and detriment due to part-time worker status (as was the case here) then it did not apply. As a result, it was held that the Tribunal erred in failing to recognise the breadth of the claimant’s claim and that the legislation did not apply to those claims being brought by the claimant.  This was especially so on the basis that the claimant’s claim of less favourable treatment was related to the selection for redundancy.

On the point of the conduct of the meeting, it was also found by the EAT that the Tribunal had erred in assessing whether there was improper conduct.  There was insufficient weight given to the fact that the claimant had been ‘ambushed’ in that it was a meeting without notice and he was not able to bring a work colleague or companion.  In failing to address these matters, this meant that the reasons for the finding that there was no improper conduct was inadequate. As a result, the appeal was allowed and the documents relating to the meeting could be included for the unlawful deduction from wages claim and the part-time worker detriment claims.

This case demonstrates the fine line when it comes to the admissibility of pre-termination negotiations and whether such conversations will be protected.  The lack of process in relation to this with the meeting without notice was clearly outlined by the EAT as a clear factor to consider. Even aside from that they made it clear that the remit of the protected conversation within the legislation was confined to ordinarily unfair dismissal thus opening such correspondence up to other claims. As a result, it is important to seek legal advice in taking steps to have protected conversations relating to settlement negotiations.

You can read the case in full here.