What's the process for having a "Without Prejudice Conversation" with an employee

[SL1210]

I was asked during a regular catchup with my line manager for a "Without Prejudice Conversation", I declined not to have it at that point as I wasn't comfortable in proceeding as it came out of the blue. A date was set for this conversation to be had two days later which centred around the future strategy of the business and where my role would or wouldn't factor.


Following the initial meeting another date was set for a meeting a week later with a member of HR to be present, in this meeting the conversation focused on mapping out where my various work streams could potentially sit in the organisation following my departure.


I was provided with the opportunity to suggest a timeframe for this happening, it has been a week since this second meeting and to date I haven’t received anything in writing. My question is, has due process been followed here and if not what should I be considering?

Any advice or guidance with this matter would be greatly appreciated.

[ULA]

Can you confirm was this a without prejudice conversation or a protected conversation as the terminology can be mixed up adn they have different meanings. Is there an existing dispute between you and your employer?

[SL1210]

Can you confirm was this a without prejudice conversation or a protected conversation as the terminology can be mixed up adn they have different meanings. Is there an existing dispute between you and your employer?

Hi ULA,

Both meetings were termed as being "a without prejudice conversation" this the subject heading of both of the meeting invitations sent to me. I can confirm that there are no disputes between the organisation and myself either previously or currently.

[ULA]

Thank you for the clarification as I said this is important particularly as you say "there are no disputes between the organisation and myself either previously or currently."

Not to be too legal on this the "without prejudice principle" is a form of privilege reserved for a genuine attempt to settle an existing dispute so making offers or having conversations on this basis assert there is a dispute.

The difference between a protected conversation and without prejudice, is that there is no need for there to be a pre-existing dispute

Given it appears from your post they are looking to discuss with you an offer of termination, so long as the reason is not unlawful, then it should be a protected conversation they are having with you.

[SL1210]

Thank you for the clarification as I said this is important particularly as you say "there are no disputes between the organisation and myself either previously or currently."

Not to be too legal on this the "without prejudice principle" is a form of privilege reserved for a genuine attempt to settle an existing dispute so making offers or having conversations on this basis assert there is a dispute.

The difference between a protected conversation and without prejudice, is that there is no need for there to be a pre-existing dispute

Given it appears from your post they are looking to discuss with you an offer of termination, so long as the reason is not unlawful, then it should be a protected conversation they are having with you.

Yesterday I had a catchup with the CEO as part of our regular weekly one-to-one later followed by another catchup with the HR director, to understand what it was that I would be seeking as an an ex gratia payment and what my red lines would be.

This all just seems like due process isn't being followed, is it typical for the employee to propose what they'd want by way of a settlement, or is it common for the employer to put forward a proposal to commence negotiations?

Thanks in advance.