header-logo header-logo

16 December 2011 / Tom Walker
Issue: 7494 / Categories: Opinion , Tribunals , Disciplinary&grievance procedures , Employment
printer mail-detail

Between you & me...

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 so, to what extent will protected conversations add to

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll