Protected conversations are not a silver bullet
There is a persistent myth that simply calling a workplace conversation with an employee “protected” makes it legally untouchable. It doesn’t. The recent decision in Tarbuc v Metro Piling is a sharp reminder that employers who treat protected conversations as a shortcut often end up creating more risk, not less.
The concept of protected conversations
At first glance, this seems straightforward. Under the Employment Rights Act 1996, employers can hold off-the-record discussions about ending employment, safe in the knowledge that those conversations cannot later be used in an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. It sounds like a clean, commercially sensible tool. But the reality is more complicated and far easier to get wrong than many believe.
Being clear on when ‘protected’ applies
The facts in Tarbuc illustrate perfectly the problem of failing to apply the rules surrounding protected conversations correctly. Mr Tarbuc, an estimating engineer, was called into a meeting without warning and presented with a settlement proposal. He was told, in fairly stark terms, that if he declined the offer he would probably come last in any redundancy selection. His employer characterised the discussion as a protected pre-termination negotiation.
When Mr Tarbuc brought claims including unfair dismissal, part-time worker discrimination and unlawful deductions, the Employment Tribunal (ET) initially treated the conversation as inadmissible in relation to all of the claims.
That approach did not survive appeal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) focused on an important line that employers cross at their peril. Protection under section 111A is not universal. It applies only to ordinary unfair dismissal claims. The same conversation can still be relied on, in a way that doesn’t necessarily help the employer, in other types of claims running alongside it. In practical terms, that means a discussion an employer thought was ‘off the record’ may still be scrutinised in open court if discrimination or pay-related issues are in play. The EAT said the ET should have considered the conversation when assessing the part-time worker and unlawful deductions claims.
This idea of tribunals ‘compartmentalising’ evidence may feel counterintuitive outside legal circles, but it is entirely routine. For employers, it creates a clear risk: a poorly handled protected conversation might be invisible in one claim, yet central to another.
Was conduct ‘proper’?
The second lesson from Tarbuc cuts even deeper. Even within the confines of unfair dismissal, protection is conditional. It falls away where there has been “improper conduct”. The original tribunal focused narrowly on what was said during the meeting and the tone in which it was delivered. However, the EAT found that approach incomplete. It emphasised that improper conduct must be assessed holistically, and considering the full circumstances.
In Mr Tarbuc’s case, that meant grappling with the fact that he had effectively been ambushed. He had no prior notice of the meeting and no opportunity to bring a companion. Those surrounding circumstances were central to the question of whether the employer’s conduct stripped the conversation of its protected status. By failing to engage with them, the ET had asked the wrong question. The issue has now been sent back to a fresh ET for reconsideration.
The gap between practicality and the law
Taken together, these points expose the gap between how protected conversations are often used in practice and how the law treats them. Too often, they are deployed quickly, informally, and without sufficient thought, particularly where an employer wants to ‘test the waters’ on an exit. The label ‘protected’ can create a false sense of security, encouraging a level of directness or even pressure that would not be used in a formal process.
That is precisely where the danger lies. Protection does not extend to claims such as discrimination or unlawful deductions and it can be lost entirely if the employer’s conduct crosses the line. Crucially, that line is not limited to overt bullying or threats. It can include:
- the overall way the conversation is initiated and conducted
- the absence of warning
- the imbalance of information or
- the creation of undue pressure to accept an offer quickly.
As Tarbuc demonstrates, context matters just as much as content.
Key tips for employers
Check that protected conversations are being used correctly. For employers, the message is not that protected conversations should be avoided altogether. Used properly, they remain a valuable tool for resolving workplace issues discreetly and efficiently. However, they are not a substitute for fair processes and they are certainly not a legal shield that can be switched on at the employer’s convenience. The decision to initiate one should be deliberate, planned, and informed by the wider legal landscape of the situation.
What Tarbuc v Metro Piling ultimately shows is that protected conversations sit on a narrow and carefully defined footing. Step outside this, even inadvertently, and the consequences can be significant. Conversations intended to reduce risk can end up becoming key evidence against the employer, particularly where other claims are involved or where the process has been mishandled.
Consider whether the without prejudice rule might be used to better effect than the protected conversation rule. The key advantage is that, where without prejudice privilege applies properly, it can extend across a far broader range of claims, including discrimination and other statutory claims, rather than being confined to ordinary unfair dismissal. For that reason, it is often the more secure form of protection.
The difficulty, however, is that without prejudice privilege only arises where there is an existing dispute between the parties or litigation is genuinely contemplated. Employers cannot manufacture protection simply by marking a conversation ‘without prejudice’. In practice, that may mean first commencing a formal process such as disciplinary proceedings before moving into without prejudice discussions once a dispute has crystallised.
The safest approach is also the simplest. Treat any off-the-record conversation with the same care and structure as any other high-stakes employment step. That means thinking not just about what will be said but how, when, and in what context it will be said. It also means considering at the outset whether the protected conversation route is truly the right mechanism or whether a without prejudice discussion would provide a more secure footing in the circumstances.
In many cases, taking legal advice before the conversation happens, rather than after it has already created a problem, will make the difference between a protected and productive discussion and one that later becomes central evidence in litigation. In employment law, as Tarbuc neatly illustrates, it is not the label that determines the outcome, it is the reality of what actually took place.
How To Contact Us:
To contact a member of our team, you can fill in our online enquiry form, email info@fraserdawbarns.com, or call your nearest office below. If you’d like to speak to a member of our team at one of our offices across Norfolk and Cambridgeshire, visit our offices page.
Wisbech: 01945 461456
March: 01354 602880
King’s Lynn: 01553 666600
Ely: 01353 383483
Downham Market: 01366 383171
This article aims to supply general information, but it is not intended to constitute advice. Every effort is made to ensure that the law referred to is correct at the date of publication and to avoid any statement which may mislead. However, no duty of care is assumed to any person and no liability is accepted for any omission or inaccuracy. Always seek advice specific to your own circumstances. Fraser Dawbarns LLP is always happy to provide such advice.