In a recent case called Tarbuc v Metro Piling, Mr Tarbuc was employed as an Estimating Engineer.
His employer called him unexpectedly to a meeting, presented him with a settlement proposal, and told him he would likely come last in any redundancy process if he declined the offer. The Respondent characterised the meeting as a protected pre-termination negotiation under Section 111A Employment Rights Act 1996.
Mr Tarbuc claimed (a) ordinary unfair dismissal, (b) discrimination based on part-time worker status and (c) unlawful deductions from wages. The original tribunal found there was no improper conduct at the meeting. It held that the meeting was inadmissible in evidence across all claims.
However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the appeal on two grounds:
- Section 111A only gives protection from admissibility in ordinary unfair dismissal cases. The same evidence can be admissible in other claims running alongside ordinary unfair dismissal – a kind of analytical compartmentalisation that tribunals handle regularly. The conversation should have formed part of the evidence for the part-time workers and unlawful deductions claims.
- The original tribunal’s improper conduct analysis focused exclusively on what was said during the meeting and how it was said. It made no mention of Mr Tarbuc’s specific complaints that he had been ambushed without notice and denied the opportunity to bring a companion. The tribunal was required to consider the full circumstances in the round, not just the content of the conversation itself.
The issue of improper conduct was remitted to a differently constituted tribunal.