Only one offered a settlement instead of redundancy - legal?

[Chillymoanday]

I've been approached with a settlement during the start of consultation but I am the only one who has been approached.

Its a decent figure, but for a few reasons, I'm not inclined to make this easy for them despite the settlement making it fairly clear to me that I'm the employee they want gone.

Can I use this later as proof the decision to make me redundant was already decided?

More to the point (if the OP is even still reading this) she has been extremely unwilling to discuss the reason she thinks all this (yes, some of us guessed but don't want or need the details) on an anonymous thread. She is unwilling to report that matter to the police, which is her right. Exactly how long does anyone think that a ruthless barrister in an employment tribunal is going to leave that alone???? Because if the employer knows, they will know. And the OP is out for revenge - they actually don't care about keeping their job, getting a payment or anything else. She's been more than clear about that.

Does anyone want to guess what the barristers line of questioning is going to be? Because I will tell you what it will be. It will be that the OP has brought a frivolous claim against the employer for a perceived injustice which has never been reported to the authorities and which is, let's face it, questionable on that basis. How long will the OP manage to keep their temper and their anger under control as the barrister pokes and prods until they resort to an angry outburst that will almost certainly underline the employers arguement that the claim is a revenge attack for something they did not do and is frivolous?

And whilst it doesn't happen very often, that will place the OP in dire danger of a claim for costs that could run into many £thousands. The OP may not care about money that the employer is offering. Do they care about the money and assets they already have?

OP do not keep going down this road. Get what settlement you can and walk away.

You can’t just make an outrageous suggestion out of the blue and expect it not to be admitted by court simply because you wrote ‘without predujice’ on it.

Unless the person who committed the SA is the only person who will be inconvenienced by you dragging this out, take as much money as you can and go. Donate the cash to Women's Aid or Rape Crisis if you don't want it for yourself.

Otherwise all that will happen is that some poor minion will be inconvenienced.

I fully understand not wanting to go to the police.

It does involve SA. I didn't want to say in case it altered any replies.

Of course it will alter replies! It's vital contextual information that explains both your motivation and your reluctance to make a police report.

Yes. Given there is police involvement, this case would seem to fit the requirements.

Revenge can only happen if the target cares about what you do to them. Companies don't have feelings to hurt, so you cannot get revenge against a company.

I'll say that again: companies don't have feelings to hurt, so you cannot get revenge against them.

Negotiate as much money as you can and go.

There's no police involvement because the OP doesn't want to report the crime against her, as is her right.

Op, without prejudice means neither party can use it for legal action or try to prove a case with it, any written documentation cannot be used, no tribunal or court will allow it. That’s what it means .

you must have accepted it was without prejudice, but done so without knowing what it meant?

there is no way you can use this, it is neither USABLE or admissible. Without prejudice means neither party can use it, and agree to that, before proceeding.

its clear your company have legal advice and know exactly what they are doing, you are not in that position.

There is no police involvement. I don’t understand why the op keeps writing about the police, there is no police.

well no. . Both parties need to agree without prejudice. If one says no, it doesn’t happen. If both agree, then it is not admissible. So the op must have agreed. She even says they refused to discuss unless she did. That was the point for her to say no.

ACAS advisors are frequently wrong yes. They often only have a very basic knowledge.

Go and brush up on (a) Without Prejudice and (b) section 111A Employment Rights Act 1996 and then think about whether you might better paying for some advice or just taking the settlement.

In trying to make life harder for your employer you will also only make it harder for yourself

Without prejudice can only apply to the settlement of a pre-existing dispute.
For that the existence of the dispute must be disclosed

So in this case, the offer of the settlement may well be admissible but not the terms.

"Of course it will alter replies! It's vital contextual information that explains both your motivation and your reluctance to make a police report"

It's not vital really. It wasn't relevant at all, I really did just want to know if them offering me a settlement, then I'm the one selected, could be used later on.

Seems potentially after speaking to the insurance legal helpline because of how the discussion was introduced. As I said earlier they said they can't tell me what the without prejudice discussion meant unless I agreed to having the discussion in the first place and they said it would be the only time they'd be able to discuss it with me so I felt a bit pressured. And I admit I was curious, i think a very small part of me thought they were going to tell me they were dealing with the other situation tbh ☹️

Advisor seemed to perk up a little when i said I had proof they acknowledged that I had no idea what it meant. So will see what happens next I've been sent a HUGE form to fill in I just hope I don't have to give any other details ☹️

So OP isn’t able to rely on that meeting for any further action re the redundancy process even if it was relevant?

Gosh, I really feel for you being in such a difficult situation and can understand why you want retribution and for the perpetrator to suffer.

However, I think I’d try to separate things out a bit.

Seriously consider the settlement option but go for as much money as possible (unless you have a massive trust fund and don’t need it). Try for at least a years salary. That’s what I settled for when I felt unjustly wronged.

Once that’s agreed and you’ve received your cash, report the assault to the Police. Check with a solicitor but I’m pretty certain that a non disclosure agreement is related to employment matters only and cannot stop you from reporting a crime.

No, indeed. It's a complex area.

But the parties must usually agree it's WP (though there is case law where one party has stayed it and it was held by the court as being WP). And the OP says she was asked and was not told what it was about until she agreed (I've had to ask people this before, it's awkward!). Usually a WP conversation is to discuss any upcoming litigation matters. But in employment there are special rules about protected conversations which are slightly different.

But even if the OP could refer to it in tribunal that doesn't mean she would definitely win.

The best litmus test is to use your home insurance legal cover. They only fight cases they can win. They'll soon drop you if your case isn't at least 75% sure of winning. And if you are 75% sure of winning the other side will offer to settle. And if you don't accept, the judge will send you away to agree a settlement. So your "day in court" is so unlikely to happen.

Btw, for other posters, unions don't allow people to join for £15 and immediately get free legal advice. You usually have to be a member for at least three months.

They surely would have made this offer as part of a "without prejudice" discussion. You'd have to wait at least a year to go to tribunal, involving loads of cost/time, bear that in mind. If its above redundancy payment I would either push for a bit more or accept it.
You actually do not know what others have been offered and if you've any sense you won't be telling anybody about your offer.

Your assertion is correct (usually) in a non employment setting. But in employment there are special rules around protected conversations.

https://www.hrsolutions-uk.com/insights/protected-conversation-without-prejudice-conversation/#:~:text=So%2C%20what%20is%20the%20difference,a%20'without%20prejudice'%20discussion.

Sigh. They might be a little more educated than the average ACAS advisor. Ignorance of the law is no defence! That's a basic principle. If you didn't know what "without prejudice" means - and you seem to be a rather smart person, so I don't really believe that - then it was up to you to find out or decline. Basically, I didn't know that it was illegal to kill someone, copy that film and sell it, etc, do not work. If you didn't know what they meant, you should have asked, clarified or refused. If they said it was the only time, you should have walked away.

BTW - and I will lay bets on this - you did not speak to an employment specialist. I am not legally qualified as such, but I know more than most legally qualified people because they specialise in other areas - probably haven't touched an employment law book since university! Whereas I have spent decades advising union members and acting in tribunal claims. It really is nasty out there. Nastier than you can ever be.

I’m not a lawyer but I’d take the money. The police already being involved just makes it plain as day they’re making you go, and to the point of offering a settlement to make you go quickly. You drag it out, it’ll end badly for you. Take the money.

The police aren't involved though.

You're probably right - but it's clear that you don't like them and they don't like you and it's in both your interests to part ways. A settlement is an appropriate amount of money to incentivise you to go. If what they are offering is not enough of an incentive then say so, and ask for more. What amount of money would you feel was an appropriate amount to make you go without a fuss? You can be 100% sure they will find a way to get you gone if you say no, and negotiating a settlement with them will result in the highest amount of money in your pocket. IF they do it another way and IF you can prove it was unfair dismissal then you may technically get a higher payout but will have spent 90% of it or more on the legal costs of getting there so will not benefit. If you would genuinely rather be poorer yourself just to make sure your erstwhile employer suffers more then they are probably right to want you gone. No employer is actually obliged to employ anyone if it isn't working for them. There are procedures to follow and sufficient notice and consultations must happen but if they want someone gone there is always a legal route somehow.

How do you know that noone else has been offered the settlement? The whole redundancy process should be private and confidential.
I have been through the process and it's not very nice at all. If you know they are trying to get ride of you then why are you trying to make it harder for them. Youve made it pretty clear that they want you gone, so prelonging the process is only hurting you. Financiallythe business would have done their calculations, so the only thing they are getting is your time and effort with the outcome still being the same.. you will no longerwork there hy a certain date. I appreciate that it's hard to take but surely just be grateful you are being offered some form of redundancy and that they aren't looking of breaches in your contract to get ride if you legally and at no cost.

Check the difference between redundancy terms and severance/settlement and ask for the best of the two

Three offers in everyone. Slightly different scenario, but rejected first and second offer, did go back saying why I should have more, gave a number and justified it. It depends what industry you work in, I knew some of the settlement amounts and the push back they had from previous ‘bad leavers’ and knew I could push it.

for all the legal positions, if possibly be thinking what’s right for you OP. If you hate the firm, what’s the best outcome for you? A long and protracted dispute which involves redundancy, constructive dismissal - or a settlement agreement which includes a positive reference and a better financial outcome. Youll need to think about your narrative to future employers too - I know the peaceful out feels much more straightforward from that perspective