Claimant v Norfolk Countryside Care Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
This preliminary hearing determined only the admissibility of evidence relating to a meeting on 24 November 2022. The tribunal ruled that the conversation at that meeting was admissible and not protected by without prejudice privilege or section 111A ERA 1996. The substantive unfair dismissal claim remains to be determined at final hearing.
Pleaded in the alternative to actual dismissal. No determination on the merits was made at this preliminary hearing, which concerned only the admissibility of evidence from the 24 November 2022 meeting.
The claimant claims automatically unfair dismissal on the basis of making a protected disclosure. This preliminary hearing determined only evidential admissibility issues; the substantive automatic unfair dismissal claim was not determined.
The claimant alleges he suffered detriment for making a protected disclosure. This preliminary hearing did not determine the merits of the detriment claim, only whether evidence of a meeting on 24 November 2022 could be relied upon.
The claimant claims unauthorised deduction from wages (arrears of pay). This preliminary hearing addressed only evidential admissibility issues; no determination was made on the wages claim itself.
Facts
The claimant worked as a fencer for the respondent from February 2018. In November 2022, he raised grievances about the second respondent's behaviour. He was invited to a grievance meeting on 24 November 2022 conducted by an external HR consultant, Mary McGivern. At the meeting, instead of discussing his grievances, the claimant was told his employment was being terminated and was presented with a draft settlement agreement. The respondent sought to rely on 'without prejudice' privilege and section 111A ERA 1996 to exclude evidence of what was said at the meeting.
Decision
The tribunal ruled that the conversation at the 24 November 2022 meeting was admissible and not protected by privilege. The tribunal found that the purpose of the meeting was to terminate employment, not to negotiate settlement, and that the claimant was misled about the meeting's purpose and not given genuine opportunity to negotiate. The respondent's conduct amounted to 'improper behaviour' within the meaning of section 111A(4) ERA 1996.
Practical note
Without prejudice privilege and section 111A protection do not apply where an employer presents termination as a fait accompli rather than engaging in genuine settlement negotiations, particularly where the employee is misled about the meeting's purpose.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3302775/2023
- Decision date
- 19 January 2024
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- fencer
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor