In person For the v Respondent — 2019

The case was listed for a three-day merits hearing on a constructive unfair dismissal claim, but this hearing concerned a preliminary application about whether evidence relating to the 28 June 2017 meeting was admissible. The tribunal found that, after earlier grievances from Swansea staff and an investigation into the second grievances, the respondent told the claimant there was a disciplinary case to answer and then invited her into without prejudice discussions once the notetaker had left.

The tribunal held that the meeting fell within section 111A Employment Rights Act 1996 as pre-termination negotiations and that the discussions were also without prejudice because there was a dispute between the parties and a genuine attempt to settle it. It rejected the claimant’s arguments that she had been misled by the meeting being described as informal, that the outcome had been predetermined, or that she had been given an ultimatum. It found that the respondent had set out the position in neutral terms, identified dismissal only as a possible outcome of a disciplinary process, and gave the claimant additional time to consider the offer and take union advice.

The tribunal also rejected the contention that a comment attributed to Ms Forbes after the meeting amounted to improper behaviour. It concluded that the meeting and the discussions were not admissible evidence, confirmed that decision on reconsideration, and ordered that references to the offer and discussions be removed or redacted from the bundle. The merits hearing was to be relisted, so no final outcome on the constructive unfair dismissal claim was determined in this judgment.