Ms T Salkeld v Creditsafe Business Solutions Ltd — 2020

Employment Judge S Davies, sitting alone, heard a preliminary reserved judgment on whether evidence of discussions on 18, 19, 21 and 25 February 2019 was admissible under section 111A ERA 1996. The claimant had pleaded constructive unfair dismissal, unauthorised deductions from wages and breach of contract, but this decision addressed only the admissibility question for the unfair dismissal proceedings. The judge preferred the claimant’s evidence over Ms Thomas’s where they conflicted and gave limited weight to Ms Thomas’s file note.

On 18 February 2019 the tribunal found that the claimant had not been told in advance that the meeting in Calon was a pre-termination negotiation, had not agreed to such a discussion, and was taken through criticism of her performance before being told her employment was ending and being offered a settlement agreement. The judge held that this amounted to improper behaviour and undue pressure within section 111A(4), so the whole of the 18 February discussion was admissible in evidence.

The tribunal treated the later discussions as linked to the first meeting. On 19 February there was only a brief reference to settlement and discussion about another role; on 21 February the focus was an alternative CRM role; and on 25 February the CRM role was withdrawn and the claimant was presented with resignation or settlement options with a same-day deadline. The judge relied on the ACAS guidance that employees should usually be given a reasonable period to consider a settlement proposal, noted that only seven days had elapsed and that no formal written settlement terms had been provided, and held that all of the 25 February discussion was also admissible.