Tweet
Looking for some pointers on when the Employment Tribunal would consider looking at without prejudice communication.
Basic situation is:
New boss made it clear there is no fit for me following restructuring - email evidence.
As a response to that I initiated settlement negotiations to exit the company.
Negotiations went on for two months - email evidence
Agreement was almost reached. HR stated as such in email.
Just as agreement is about to finally tweaked and prepared the HR person with whom I have been negotiating passes me onto someone else in HR who denies we are close to an agreement and invites me to a formal consultation meeting.
In addition there are the following factors:
1. 3 months ago other members of my department are transferred to a new Line Manager and consultations begin. I am told by my line manager that he is leaving and that I will also be reporting to the new Line Manager along with my colleagues. The new Line Manager refuses to engage with me and reiterates via HR that there is no role for me in new restructured department.
2. Old line manager has been fully appreciative of my work and may even support me in any action against the company as he also considers I have been treated unfairly.
3. Day after old line manager leaves, I am invited to this formal meeting with notification of possible redundancy as if they were simply waiting for my Line Manager to leave.
4. I am not advised I can take any representation to meeting (has not taken place yet).
5. Company is seeking external recruitment for the equivalent of my role in the new department (based on the fact that it needs to be based in a different country and I don't speak that language) That is very arguable, given it is a country in which most people at the level I will be dealing with speak English.
Clearly much of the evidence of the above is contained in the without prejudice emails. I have read about the doctrine of unambiguous impropriety and it seems quite a high threshold to reach - such as when there is bullying or threatening communication. I have no doubt there has been impropriety by effectively putting me in organisational no man's land by having no line manager, by denying the extent of the negotiations by denying I am a suitable fit for the new role etc - but is that sufficient for the tribunals to allow the without prejudice communications to form evidence??
Basic situation is:
New boss made it clear there is no fit for me following restructuring - email evidence.
As a response to that I initiated settlement negotiations to exit the company.
Negotiations went on for two months - email evidence
Agreement was almost reached. HR stated as such in email.
Just as agreement is about to finally tweaked and prepared the HR person with whom I have been negotiating passes me onto someone else in HR who denies we are close to an agreement and invites me to a formal consultation meeting.
In addition there are the following factors:
1. 3 months ago other members of my department are transferred to a new Line Manager and consultations begin. I am told by my line manager that he is leaving and that I will also be reporting to the new Line Manager along with my colleagues. The new Line Manager refuses to engage with me and reiterates via HR that there is no role for me in new restructured department.
2. Old line manager has been fully appreciative of my work and may even support me in any action against the company as he also considers I have been treated unfairly.
3. Day after old line manager leaves, I am invited to this formal meeting with notification of possible redundancy as if they were simply waiting for my Line Manager to leave.
4. I am not advised I can take any representation to meeting (has not taken place yet).
5. Company is seeking external recruitment for the equivalent of my role in the new department (based on the fact that it needs to be based in a different country and I don't speak that language) That is very arguable, given it is a country in which most people at the level I will be dealing with speak English.
Clearly much of the evidence of the above is contained in the without prejudice emails. I have read about the doctrine of unambiguous impropriety and it seems quite a high threshold to reach - such as when there is bullying or threatening communication. I have no doubt there has been impropriety by effectively putting me in organisational no man's land by having no line manager, by denying the extent of the negotiations by denying I am a suitable fit for the new role etc - but is that sufficient for the tribunals to allow the without prejudice communications to form evidence??
Comment