1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

Covert recordings: “For the times they are a-changing”

Almost everyone carries around with them a recording device nowadays, in the form of a smartphone or wearable technology.  Where does this leave HR managers and employers in dealing with employees who ask (or don’t ask as the case may be!) to record meetings?

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has recently handed down its judgment in the case of Phoenix House v. Stockman.

Ms Stockman (a finance employee) had secretly recorded a meeting with HR during which she was told that she would be disciplined for having earlier interrupted a meeting about allegations she had made against her line manager. Ultimately Ms Stockman was dismissed as a result of an irretrievable breakdown in relationships.  The secret recording only came to light during her subsequent tribunal claim.

Without going into the details of the other findings of the Employment Tribunal (ET), it was found that Ms Stockman did not make the covert recording to try to entrap the company managers, but only because she felt flustered at the time. The impact of this finding was that she was still found to have been unfairly dismissed, but the ET reduced the compensatory award by 10%.

Phoenix House appealed against the ET’s approach to the covert recording of the meeting.  Its position was that, had it known about the recording, it would have dismissed Ms Stockman for gross misconduct and that she should not be entitled to any compensation on that basis.

Ultimately the EAT agreed with the ET, finding that Ms Stockman had not recorded the meeting with the intention of snaring her employer or obtaining confidential information (she had recorded a single meeting concerned about her own position) and that the tribunal had made a legitimate assessment of these facts and reduced the compensation accordingly.

The EAT made some interesting comments around covert recordings more generally.

The accessibility of a recording device being the first observation: “Times have changed … it is now not uncommon to find that an employee has recorded a meeting without saying so.” The EAT said that the reason for the recording must always be considered – this reason will not always be sinister or to gain a dishonest advantage, but will be relevant and, occasionally, justifiable. Importantly, the EAT rejected the employer’s argument that covertly recording a meeting will necessarily undermine the trust and confidence between employer and employee.

The culpability of the employee must also be considered – the EAT suggested inexperience could lead to an employee recording a discussion completely innocently? What about the content of the recording? If a note of the meeting would be shared in any event, then perhaps there isn’t (or shouldn’t be) a problem. This is contrasted with a meeting during which confidential information or information about others is disclosed.

The EAT’s concluding remarks pointed out that rarely does “covert recording” appear on a list of instances of gross misconduct in a disciplinary procedure and that this might also be pertinent. Indeed, there was no mention in the disciplinary procedure used by Phoenix House of such misconduct (even by the time the case was being heard by the ET, as pointed out by the EAT).

Going forward the EAT suggested, practically speaking, that it would be good employment practice for an employee or employer to say if there is any intention to record a meeting, save in the most pressing of circumstances – and it will generally amount to misconduct not to do so.

Covert recordings: “For the times they are a-changing”

Update – Employer NICs on Termination Awards

On 25 April 2019, the National Insurance Contributions Bill was introduced to Parliament. The Bill deals with the national insurance contributions (NICs) treatment of termination payments made by employers to employees in connection with the termination of employment.
Read more »
Update – Employer NICs on Termination Awards

Disciplinary investigations: Common sense and even-handedness should prevail

In the recent Employment Tribunal (ET) case of Ball v. First Essex Bus Limited, the claimant, a 60-year-old bus driver who suffers from diabetes, has been successful in his unfair dismissal claim. He persuaded an ET that his dismissal for being under the influence of cocaine whilst on duty was both substantively and procedurally unfair. The claimant had failed a random drug test.
Read more »
Disciplinary investigations: Common sense and even-handedness should prevail

Taxation of termination payments: employer NIC charges further delayed to April 2020

In the 2016 Budget, the government announced that termination payments over £30,000 would be subject to employer Class1A national insurance contributions (NICs) from April 2018. Termination payments over the tax-exempt threshold of £30,000 are currently only subject to income tax. In the 2017 Budget, the government announced that this change would be delayed for a year and take effect from April 2019.

However, in the Autumn 2018 Budget earlier this week, the government announced that this change will be further delayed. Subject to any further postponements, employer NICs on termination payments over the £30,000 threshold will now become payable in April 2020.

Whilst most termination payments fall below £30,000, for employers this announcement will come as a welcome, albeit temporary, reprieve from additional costs in those cases where the tax-exempt threshold is exceeded.

Taxation of termination payments: employer NIC charges further delayed to April 2020

Does an employee waive an employer’s repudiatory breach by resigning on notice and continuing to work?

What happens if the employee asserts that he or she has been constructively dismissed but resigns on notice and continues to work? The High Court in Brown and others v Neon Management Services Ltd and another [2018] EWHC 2137 held that working a lengthy period of notice after resigning in response to a repudiatory breach can amount to a waiver of the breach and affirmation of the contract, such that the employee will not be released from his or her restrictive covenants.
Read more »
Does an employee waive an employer’s repudiatory breach by resigning on notice and continuing to work?

Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth [2018]

A recent case has considered the issue of what amounts to a protected disclosure. In Kilraine v. London Borough of Wandsworth [2018], the Court of Appeal guided Employment Tribunals in such cases to focus on determining whether there was a "protected disclosure" and whether the disclosed information, showed or tended to show that one or more of the six specified types of malpractice had taken place or was likely to take place – for example a breach of a legal obligation.
Read more »
Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth [2018]

Summary dismissal and misconduct

The recent case of Mbubaegbu v Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust provides an interesting insight into the circumstances in which employers can summarily dismiss an employee for misconduct.
Read more »
Summary dismissal and misconduct

Notice of termination: are you sure your employee has been dismissed?

It is a common misconception amongst employers that notice of dismissal (or in cases where no notice is given, dismissal itself) will take effect on the date the employer writes to the employee to give them notice or inform them of the decision to dismiss. A long line of case law from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has established that this is not the case. Where, as is often the case, there is no contractual provision dealing with communication of notice, notice (or dismissal) will take effect on the date on which this is communicated to the employee. This means that, where an employer writes to an employee to give notice or inform them of their dismissal, it is only once the employee has personally taken delivery of the letter that the notice (or dismissal) will be deemed to have been received.
Read more »
Notice of termination: are you sure your employee has been dismissed?

Summary Dismissal – Calculating the Effective Date of Termination

In the recent case of Cosmeceuticals Ltd v. Parkin it was held that the effective date of termination (EDT) is not moved if notice is subsequently given following an earlier summary dismissal.
Read more »
Summary Dismissal – Calculating the Effective Date of Termination

Watch out for ‘post employment notice pay’

At the moment contractual payments in lieu of notice are subject to tax and NIC deductions. In the absence of a contractual right to make a payment in lieu of notice, such a payment is generally regarded as damages for breach of contract, and can be paid without deduction of tax up to the £30,000 threshold.
Read more »
Watch out for ‘post employment notice pay’