Protected Conversation Ruling Partially Upholds Employee Appeal
An Employment Appeal Tribunal partially sided with an employee, finding that a "protected conversation" was not fully protected across all claims.
• public
Protected Conversation Ruling Partially Upholds Employee Appeal
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has partially upheld an appeal brought by Mr. L. Tarbuc against a decision concerning a "protected conversation" held with his former employer, Martello Piling Ltd. The initial Employment Tribunal had ruled that a conversation on 23 April 2024 was a protected negotiation under Section 111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, making its content inadmissible in unfair dismissal proceedings.
However, the EAT found that the Employment Tribunal erred in law by applying Section 111A protection across all of Mr. Tarbuc's claims. Specifically, the tribunal determined that the protection does not extend to claims for unlawful deduction from wages or less favourable treatment as a part-time worker. This means evidence from the protected conversation should be admissible for these claims, creating a complex evidentiary challenge for the upcoming final hearing.
Furthermore, the EAT ruled that the original tribunal failed to adequately consider the cumulative effect of the employer's conduct. This includes aspects such as Mr. Tarbuc being "ambushed" by the meeting without prior notice and without the opportunity to bring a companion. The tribunal's assessment of "improper conduct" was therefore deemed insufficient, necessitating a re-evaluation.
While the EAT did not find that Mr. Tarbuc had pleaded a claim for automatic unfair dismissal under Section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and therefore that ground of appeal failed, the successes on other grounds mean the case will be remitted to a different judge for further consideration. The tribunal's original conclusion that the employer's conduct was not improper was overturned due to a failure to consider all relevant circumstances and provide adequate reasoning.
Read the entire judgment here: L Tarbuc v Martello Piling Ltd EAT 58
