Our latest insight looks at a recent Employment Appeal Tribunal decision about the limits of the protection for employees on maternity leave who are at risk of redundancy.
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Sarah Britton
You might also like...
- ACAS
- Atypical workers
- Carer's leave
- Collective consultation
- Contractors
- Discrimination
- Employment contracts
- Employment policies
- Employment Rights Act 2025
- Employment status
- Equal pay
- Equality Act
- Ethnicity pay gap reporting
- Family friendly rights
- Flexible working
- Gender pay gap reporting
- Grievance and disciplinary
- Industrial action
- Legislation
- Legislative changes
- Maternity leave
- Menopause
- Redundancy and business reorganisation
- Sick pay
- Termination
- TUPE/outsourcing
- Unfair dismissal
- Whistleblowing
- Zero-hours contracts
Employment Rights Bill at-a-glance
By
Laura Morrison and Lisa Watson
How can employers support working carers during Carers Week and beyond?
EAT finds you cannot cherry pick from without prejudice conversations
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), in the recent case of Graham v. Agilitas IT Solutions Ltd. (Agilitas), ruled that an employer cannot rely on parts of a without prejudice conversation held in accordance with s.111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) and/or the "common law" without prejudice rule, whilst at the same time seeking to use the without prejudice rule as a shield in reference to that same conversation. S.111A of the ERA permits discussions between an employer and an employee with a view to terminating employment on agreed terms to remain confidential and inadmissible in proceedings before a tribunal for unfair dismissal.
