" "

Gagging clauses are good

24 Oct 2018
by

A tidal wave of public opinion is threatening to derail confidentiality agreements between employees and employers that can be in the interests of both.

Prime Minister Theresa May told the House of Commons in October 2018 that the government would act on employers’ alleged abuse of confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements.

The moral panic is about well-heeled and powerful bosses using a wad of cash to bribe and bully cowering employees into keeping schtum about how bosses victimized and abused them.

This comes in the wake of a revelation that a court stopped The Daily Telegraph from publishing details about a leading businessman’s bad behavior. It also follows the #MeToo furor about the Hollywood film mogul, Harvey Weinstein, using legally-binding agreements to keep film actresses quiet about his alleged abuse of them.

But is it that simple?

Settlement agreements

In employment, non-disclosure agreements can be part of a settlement agreement between an employee and an employer that settles a dispute. They usually occur when the employee is leaving the employer’s organisation with a financial payout.

Part of the agreement will typically state that the former employee cannot reveal details of the dispute, details of the agreement and often even the very existence of the agreement. A breach of the agreement can lead to legal action.

Yet, moral critics of such settlements are not telling the whole story. In fact, there is nothing stopping someone who signed an agreement from telling the authorities about the former boss’ illegal activities.

Whistleblowing protection is incorporated into employment law and protects disclosure by employees if it is in the public interest, done in good faith and carried out in a reasonable way. This protection cannot be surrendered or removed by any non-disclosure agreement – employees can take the money and still blow the whistle.

Sections 43(b), 47(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 protects an employee who reveals a criminal offence that has taken place at work or that an employer has failed to comply with legal obligations. Section 43(J) bans any agreement from preventing legally-sanctioned whistleblowing.

A settlement agreement is a very useful tool for compensating an employee in return for burying allegations against an employer. The agreement will only be binding if the employee has received independent legal advice from solicitors, who will advise on the merits of the agreement set against litigating the allegations. This means that victim employees will save big time on legal costs whilst still receiving compensation.

A binding settlement agreement with a confidentiality clause will serve the public interest in that employment tribunal cases are settled between the parties rather than by the courts – thus saving the public purse.

Tagged

bullying employment law Metoo settlement agreements workplace harassment

Related News Stories

Executive faced a ruined career after botched sacking

Executive faced a ruined career after botched sacking

An advanced mental health practitioner was recently awarded over £60,000 after he was sacked without a fair process. An employment…

Read more
CBI scandal: what if your employee is accused of a serious crime?

CBI scandal: what if your employee is accused of a serious crime?

The CBI has been rocked by accusations of rape and sexual misconduct. With its reputation in tatters, members leaving by…

Read more
F-words at work – OK, but saying ‘baldie’ – not

F-words at work – OK, but saying ‘baldie’ – not

Swearing at work was ruled acceptable by one employment tribunal judge, while another gave out £71,000 in compensation when a…

Read more
Employer punished for unfair sex assault dismissal

Employer punished for unfair sex assault dismissal

Government agency bosses used a flawed procedure when firing a top foreign envoy for a sexual harassment accusation. The British…

Read more
Employers face legal traps over home working

Employers face legal traps over home working

Employers risk making poor and costly decisions in response to employees asking to work from their homes. Two cases have…

Read more
Employers are punished for sacking bad workers

Employers are punished for sacking bad workers

A judge slapped down an employer who failed to follow a fair procedure when sacking a nurse for being racist.…

Read more
Managers’ confused performance assessment leads to big payout

Managers’ confused performance assessment leads to big payout

A well-known clothes store's flawed promotion and assessment process landed them with a £96,208 judgement at an employment tribunal. Bristol…

Read more
Frustrated manager’s decision leads to unfair dismissal

Frustrated manager’s decision leads to unfair dismissal

An employer lost an unfair dismissal case after summarily sacking an employee rather than go through a fair procedure. London…

Read more
Protected conversations expedite dismissals

Protected conversations expedite dismissals

The government has increased the scope for employers to sack employees without the threat of court cases. The new law…

Read more
Tesco gets burned by its fire and rehire tactics

Tesco gets burned by its fire and rehire tactics

A high street giant’s attempt to cut their staff bill was slapped down recently due to employment law. The High…

Read more
Tribunal defends  cross-dressing engineer

Tribunal defends cross-dressing engineer

A landmark court ruling has boosted employment lawyers’ chances of protecting ‘sex change’ workers from harassment and unfair dismissal. Birmingham…

Read more
Government demands employees return to work  – but not just yet

Government demands employees return to work – but not just yet

Government have changed their advice on telling employees to return to the workplace due to a spike in virus infections.…

Read more
Job redundancy or unfair dismissal

Job redundancy or unfair dismissal

The looming end to the government’s job subsidies in November will lead to some cynical bosses using redundancy to victimise…

Read more
Sickness sacking is valid without medical expertise

Sickness sacking is valid without medical expertise

A rail company did not need extensive medical evidence to sack an employee for being too sick to work. Employment…

Read more
Court upholds sacking over a Christmas overtime row

Court upholds sacking over a Christmas overtime row

An employment tribunal in November 2016 decided that a company fairly dismissed a worker when her refusal to do overtime…

Read more
Good employer loses appeal in migrant right to work case

Good employer loses appeal in migrant right to work case

Foreign workers have a right to appeal if they face dismissal over doubts about their UK residency status, appeal judges…

Read more
Jaw-jaw before war-war

Jaw-jaw before war-war

New legislation compels people in a workplace dispute to talk before going into legal battle in a court. Whether they…

Read more

    Sharma Solicitors is Regulated by Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA Number: 403199)