Settlement Agreement No Dispute
The terms of the transaction should be covered by a settlement agreement obliging the worker to have recourse to independent legal advice in relation to the conclusion of the settlement agreement. Indeed, a settlement agreement is the only effective way to settle legal labour rights, such as unjustified dismissals. Otherwise, you run the risk of making the settlement payments to the worker while asserting the worker`s claim before the Labour Court. It is important to keep in mind that “without prejudice” protection only applies if the communication is a genuine attempt to resolve an existing dispute, and this will not be the case in many transaction interviews, given that the dispute may not yet have arisen or has been raised by the worker. To address this gap, amendments were made in 2013 to the Human Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”) to allow for “protected discussions” during negotiations prior to termination. The changes introduced by the new Section 111A of the ERA 1996 mean that employers are now able to have off-the-record interviews with workers with a view to term ending their employment relationship, without fear that this will be announced before the Labour Court. 3. Scope of the transaction – Be aware of what is settled and think carefully about the claims covered by the transaction agreement. For example, if you want to ensure that you cover existing, unknown, and future claims, use wording such as “complete and final settlement of all claims that the parties have or may have against each other as a result of a given event.” If you just want to solve a tighter question, say so.
Thanks to years of activity in this area, we can reverse your transaction agreement, both within the expected deadlines and in the legal contribution of your employer. We use our experience to ensure that the final agreement you sign reflects the best possible outcome and settlement conditions for you. The new concept of “prior negotiations” was introduced because of problems with the “no prejudice” principle. The “without prejudice” principle provides that oral or written statements made in the context of a genuine attempt to resolve an existing dispute between the parties concerned are not admissible as evidence before a court. It is important to note that this principle only applies in the event of a dispute between the employer and the worker. The problem with the “no bias” principle in the employment context is that, for example, if an employer believes that there are problems with a worker`s performance, there may be no dispute between the employer and the worker and the worker may not even know that there are concerns about his or her performance. In such a situation, it was risky that prior to the introduction of Article 111A, employers had had exploratory talks with workers about a possible withdrawal, since such interviews could be allowed in subsequent legal proceedings, given that the “without prejudice” principle did not apply. . . .