Recent Employment Law Changes

  • July 15, 2013
  • By Hunters Law

Protected Conversations, discrimination for political opinions and other things arising from the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 which received Royal Assent on 25th April 2013. A number of its provisions come into effect this summer.

Pre-Termination Protected Conversations

From 29th July 2013, evidence of pre-termination negotiations, i.e. any offer or discussion of settlement terms relating to the termination of employment, will be inadmissible in ordinary unfair dismissal proceedings, unless there has been improper behaviour on the part of the employer.

The introduction of “protected conversations” in unfair dismissal proceedings is intended to allow open and frank discussions about a termination settlement proposal between an employer and an employee without fear that such conversations will be relied upon or referred to in ordinary unfair dismissal proceedings.

The new rule only applies to ordinary unfair dismissal proceedings and any evidence relating to pre-termination negotiations will be admissible in all other types of proceedings, for example claims of discrimination, automatically unfair dismissal and/or breach of contract.

Evidence of pre-termination negotiations that would otherwise be inadmissible will become admissible where the employer has acted improperly.  The government has confirmed that ACAS will provide guidance on what constitutes improper behaviour.

Dismissal for, or relating to, an Employee’s political opinions or affiliation

As of 25th June 2013, the qualifying period of employment has been removed where the reason or principal reason for an employee’s dismissal is, or relates to, their political opinions or affiliation.

This statutory change follows the case of Mr Redfearn.  Mr Redfearn was a bus driver in the UK who was dismissed after he became elected a local councillor for the British National Party.  Mr Redfearn could not bring a claim in the Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal because he had not been continuously employed for the requisite qualifying period, currently two years.  Mr Redfearn attempted to claim discrimination on the grounds of race, religion or belief failed.  His claim failed.

The European Court of Human Rights held that UK law was in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights because it did not specifically protect employees dismissed on the grounds of their political belief or affiliation; Article 11 of the Human Rights Convention provides a universal right of freedom of assembly, irrespective of whether those views offend, shock or disturb.

Following Mr Redfearn’s appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, the Employment Rights Act 1996 has been amended to remove the requirement that an employee be employed for a minimum period before he is able to bring a claim for unfair dismissal where the reason or principal reason for his dismissal is, or relates to, his political opinions or affiliations.

Compromise Agreements to be re-named

From 29th July 2013 onwards, Compromise Agreements will be renamed Settlement Agreements in all relevant pieces of employment legislation.

If you would like any further information about the changes that have been or are about to be introduced by the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, or if you would like any other employment law advice, please do not hesitate to contact a member of our Employment Team.

Related News

Feb 19, 2021
Stephen Morrall comments on Uber losing a landmark Supreme Court battle in the Evening Standard and the Financial Times
Feb 12, 2021
Richard Baxter and Hannah Solel examine data protection post-Brexit in Information Security Buzz
Feb 05, 2021
Budget 2021 – Still time to prepare for any changes to Business Asset Disposal Relief
Jan 13, 2021
Stephen Morrall and Hannah Solel discuss the gig economy in 2021 in Employee Benefits
Jan 11, 2021
Richard Baxter and Hannah Solel provide a legal update on data protection in 2021
Jan 06, 2021
Stephen Morrall comments on unfair dismissal in Real Business
Dec 14, 2020
Hunters strengthens its Business team with new arrival
Jun 25, 2020
Stephen Morrall and Philippa Kum discuss witnessing a deed remotely
Jun 01, 2020
Amanda Lathia examines the legal challenges of returning to work during the post-COVID-19 lockdown in WealthBriefing
May 15, 2020
Amanda Lathia comments on returning to work during the pandemic

© Hunters Law LLP 2021 | Privacy NoticeLegal & Regulatory | Cookies Policy | Complaints Procedure.

Hunters Law LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (number 657218)

WARNING: Website falsely claiming to be Hunters Law

4 March 2021

The website '' is operating, falsely claiming to be Hunters Law. This website has been created to mirror the genuine site, although contact details including telephone number and email addresses have been changed, and the SRA verification badge does not work.

We have also been made aware of a series of faxes circulating, purporting to come from ‘barrister’ Dominik Opalinski, advising of an unclaimed inheritance of $16.95M, which feature the same website address. Dominik is a genuine partner of the firm, but is not a barrister.

We have reported this to the SRA, and contacted the website domain hosts to request its urgent removal. If you receive correspondence of a similar nature to that described, please contact us directly by reliable and established means.