Without prejudice question

[Retromau5]

Hello all. Before I was dismissed by my former employer we engaged in without prejudice conversations on two separate occasions. The first failed within half an hour as I found the terms to be unfavourable. The second offer of a without prejudice conversation came at the end of the disciplinary hearing when the person conducting the meeting asked " I've reached a decision, but before I deliver it, would you be prepared to enter into a without prejudice conversation?" which I agreed to. I rejected this offer after five weeks of negotiations as I felt the the terms of the contract was unbalanced. I was dismissed a few days later at a reconvened Disciplinary Hearing.

Now in their ET3 response they've chosen to refer to the five weeks negotiation time, but their discription of it is as follows:

'This was adjourned to allow Mr. XXXXXXXXX time to consider the points put forward by the Claimant and consider the appropriate disciplinary outcome. The Claimant attended the reconvened Disciplinary Hearing on 5 June 2023.'

I feel that this statement is deliberately misleading as the decision was already reached, but I'm unsure if I'm able to mention it as in doing so I would be potentially referring to the without prejudice conversation. So my question is, can (or should) I raise this as an issue? Or am I reading too much into it?

[ULA]

Having a without prejudice (WP) conversation means that the content of the discussion cannot be later relied on at an employment tribunal. My understanding is that you can state that these WP conversations took place but you cannot discuss the content of them.

Given that scope you may at least, possibly via your witness statement, at the correct chronology, explain the 5 week period as being one of WP discussions.

[Retromau5]

Thank you ULA for your response, my way of thinking was that I should be able to mention it as it simply isn't a factual statement, is only there to show their actions and puts me at a disadvantage. Discussing the content of the drafted paperwork isn't an issue as due to their actions, what they hoped to suppress actually came out and was seen to be unlawful by a regulatory body.

[ULA]

Not sure who the regulatory body was but in the context of an employment tribunal WP discussion cannot be introduced into the proceedings.