Down Arrow

08 November 2019
You will recently have seen in the news that the CEO of McDonald's has been dismissed after news of his relationship with an employee came to light. The well-known restaurant chain confirmed he had been dismissed for violating company policy. Although there are no general legal rules preventing or governing relationships at work, the collision between the private and public spheres can be problematic from a management perspective and presents various legal and practical concerns for employers. It is now common for employers to want to regulate personal relationships in the workplace. Without any relevant policy in place to…

24 October 2019
There are times when a without prejudice or protected conversation, (like the ones we have with employees when presenting a settlement agreement), can be raised in court, and can be used against you. If anything said or done is improper or connected with improper behaviour, evidence of pre-termination negotiations can be raised at court if the tribunal considers just to do so. So what amounts to improper behaviour? The Acas Code on Settlement Agreements provides examples of improper behaviour although the list is not exhaustive: All forms of harassment, bullying and intimidation, including through the use of offensive words or aggressive behaviour. Physical assault or the threat…

23 September 2019
In a nutshell, the with prejudice (WP) rule will generally prevent statements made in a genuine attempt to settle an existing dispute, from being put before the court as evidence of admissions against the interest of the party that made them. The rationale is that settlement discussions will be facilitated if parties can speak freely (‘off the record’) and secure in the knowledge that what they have said may not be used against them should the settlement discussions fail. The WP rule only applies to negotiations which take place in a genuine attempt to settle an existing dispute. It…

19 September 2019
This may be problematic as the settlement agreement should reflect the reality of the situation. If the settlement agreement expresses an earlier termination date and the employer only pays tax and national insurance to that earlier date, you could potentially find yourself in trouble with HMRC. It could also be considered a fraud against the Revenue if part of the employee’s salary (due but unpaid) was paid to them as part of the ex gratia payment so as to avoid paying tax and national insurance under the £30,000 tax free exemption. We therefore advise against this approach.

11 September 2019
There are risks associated with this. An employee may have been unfairly dismissed if a suitable alternative role was available during the redundancy period and this was not offered to them at the time. Continuity of employment may also have been affected. Maintaining continuous employment is important as certain rights only apply once an employee has 2 years’ continuous service. Another issue is that an employer may have unnecessarily paid out a statutory or an enhanced redundancy payment and perhaps a payment in lieu of notice. If a suitable alternative role is identified during the redundancy period and the employee…

Get in touch

tel: 0207 374 6546 mob: 07809 694 400
Please let us know your name.
Please let us know your email address.
Please let us know your subject.
Please let us know your message.
Invalid captcha

excello law partners employment lawyers londonPartners Employment Lawyers is not a firm of solicitors. Members or Partners Employment Lawyers are consultants at Excello Law Limited and legal services are provided by Excello Law Limited which is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under SRA number 512898