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?

I'm guessing the other party isn't going anywhere because of xyz, even though you've got a witness to the SA but you don't want to involve the police. In an ideal world what would a desired outcome look like to you? Could you have stayed and forgotten about it? Usually one party has to leave - usually the woman in my experience. It can turn pretty nasty in a work environment because our principles and sense of right and wrong become problematic - that's how I experienced it.

Hi OP, sorry to hear of your difficult situation. Are you a member of a Union? Perhaps you could get some advice there or become a member?

Stable. Door. Horse. Bolted.

I’m struggling with understanding how SA has occurred in a workplace. Do you mean sexual harassment, OP?

I am fairly sure that women can tell the difference between assault and harassment. Sexual assault in the workplace / in work is far from uncommon. You have heard of Donald Trump and Mohammed Al Fayad? They are the tip of an iceburg. If you are struggling to understand that it happens, and happens frequently, you are lucky to have led such a charmed life.

It’s not about the money now but when it’s all done and time has passed, it will be. I guarantee you will wish you went for maximum amount.

Google some of the more recent news stories around this. Don't question Op's use of language.

Yes, protected conversations are what they say in the tin ... protected!

I read SA as sexual abuse

If the OP meant sexual assault then that makes more sense.

(I’ve been in HR for 20+ years and sadly had to deal with sexual harassment cases on many many occasions.)

I think that is splitting hairs. Both can occur in the workplace and there is no room for either. Something very serious happened to the OP, and it should not have. End of story. That is all that makes sense.

If the op was sexually assaulted, and in front of a witness as she says, in the workplace she needs to report to the police, not wanting to and just trying to make it difficult for them to get rid of her and wanting a protracted fight, isn’t the answer.

And then her witness is threatened with being fired if they testify, so they refuse to attend court or lie on the witness stand, her assailant is acquitted, and all the stress of the police report, having to hand her phone over etc, is for nothing.

OP needs to get the highest settlement possible and leave.

What? Where did you read they’d fire the witness if they gave evidence? This isn’t a movie.

Seriously? Employers routinely sanction employees who testify against them. If the employer gave a damn about what had happened, then they would have already dismissed the offending employee, and the OP wouldn't be in this place anyway. People quickly develop the "saw nothing, heard nothing, saying nothing" syndrome when faced with such choices - in and out of the workplace.

Employer would have needed to undertake an investigation and establish on the balance of probability (ie 51% likely) that it happened.

Police investigation is separate and requires evidence that could be considered beyond reasonable doubt (ie 90+% likely) to secure a prosecution.

But they aren’t testifying against the employer, this is sexual assault, so it would be testifying against the perpetrator. I think you’ve misread.

I think that part of the system is that they are supposed to check whether there are any other positions within the company that would be suitable for you so they should have done this, at least.
My DH was made redundant (on the phone, which was apparently not allowed) and he was able to prove that they had made no effort to find him another job in the organisation. They lied by saying he was unwilling to work overseas - he actually already had a ticket to fly abroad the following day - and various other aspects.

He found a good lawyer and eventually got an excellent payout.
However if they have already offered you more than either standard or their contracted redundancy then using a lawyer may not gain you anything. I can't understand why you want to fight in your position.

Since people keep referring to "without prejudice", can I just be clear that this is the wrong term when referring to a discussion about a settlement agreement (which is the current term - as a previous poster notes, these used to be called compromise agreements). OP's employer was wrong to refer to it as a "without prejudice" conversation, but that doesn't alter the legal position. This is a "protected conversation".

Any offer made or discussions held with a view to entering into a settlement agreement is automatically protected. The employer does not have to tell the employee it is a protected conversation, nor do they need the employee's agreement for it to be protected. Even if they just give you a letter saying they want you to leave and enclosing the draft settlement agreement, that is a protected conversation.

Unlike "without prejudice", there is no requirement for there to be an existing dispute. The conversation, offer or whatever is automatically inadmissible in any proceedings before an employment tribunal (Employment Rights Act 1996 Section 111A).

It is a shame that whoever OP spoke to on her insurance legal helpline didn't appear to understand this. But, of course, that would be a call centre operative, not someone with legal training.

No I haven't misread - the employer has taken no action - unless you count trying to pay off the victim. Anyone who sides with her is quite likley to be facing their own hasty exit. How would it look - if this went to court - if it comes out that the employer took no action? Harrods made sure that everyone who spoke out "disappeared" from their employment, until the dam broke and their inaction was made public when hasty back-pedalling was required to to reputational damage. What makes you think other employers are any different?

@ThatIsNotMyNameSoWhyAreYouCallingMeThat Employer would have needed to undertake an investigation and establish on the balance of probability (ie 51% likely) that it happened.
Police investigation is separate and requires evidence that could be considered beyond reasonable doubt (ie 90+% likely) to secure a prosecution.
I am aware of all that. So what? The employer didn't undertake an investigation, as many don't - they prefer to brush things under the rug and whistle aimlessly. And there will be no police investigation because the OP doesn't want to report.

Newsflash - most redundancies are predetermined. They may go through the motions, but they know who’s going before they start. I have never seen a consultation change the outcome. And if less than a certain number of employees are being made redundant they don’t even have to go through consultation.

You'd need to speak to an emloyment lawyer, OP, and consider if you can afford the fees (and stress) of going down the ET route. Employment law is still not weighted in favour of the employee, so honestly, if they're offering you enough of a higher figure as settlement, I'd take it

Disagree that employment law is not weighted in favour of the employee. The fact that around 70% of employers settle out of court and employees win 50% of the cases that get to tribunal suggests otherwise.

To be fair, a number of employers will settle even if the employee doesn't have much of a case - it's often the cheapest option. I've seen figures that suggest that only 14% of claims actually go to a tribunal. What is perhaps more telling is that people massively inflate in their heads what they think they will win. Average / median awards are very low.

And what if you do all this to piss off the employer and they win the potential tribunal case and are even more smug that you are left with nothing or less than the initial offer. You won’t have won in any sense then

There are no "fees".