Employer's guide to protected conversations

In the latest episode of our podcast, Andy Whiteaker and Helen Goss will discuss protected conversations from the employer's point of view. They address common misconceptions about protected conversations. Many employers mistakenly label discussions as "without prejudice," potentially leading to constructive dismissal claims if not handled correctly. By examining the practical application of protected conversations under section 111a of the Employment Rights Act, the podcast provides best practices for employers to follow. 

Additionally, as the holiday season approaches, the stakes get higher with recent sexual harassment legislation reshaping the dynamics of workplace festivities. Join us as we explore the nuances of conducting protected conversations while ensuring a misconduct-free festive season. As employers prepare for the holiday season, the guidance provided in this episode will be instrumental in managing legal pitfalls and celebrating responsibly. 

Episode Links

• Visit our website
• Contact us
• Our Employment services
• Our HR training

Chapters

• 0:00 Christmas party etiquette
• 8:36 Protected conversations in employment law

Transcript

Andrew Whiteaker: 0:04 

Hello and welcome to the Employment Law Pod from Boyes Turner. My name's Andy Whiteaker, I am a Partner in the Employment team and, as ever, I am joined today by my colleague and fellow Partner in the team, Helen Goss. 

Helen Goss: 0:15 

Hello everybody. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 0:16 

And on the Employment Law Pod, we like to talk about things that have piqued our interest recently, whether they have been cases that we've seen reported pieces of legislation making their way through Parliament, or just things from our own casebook which we think might be interesting to talk about. And so, having said all of that, Helen, what are we going to be talking about today? 

Helen Goss: 0:38 

Well, Andy, what we are going to be talking about is the protected conversation. Now, some people might think that's a slightly boring subject, but I have to tell you it really is not, when you think of the scenarios in which a protected conversation is useful. So we're going to look at what is a protected conversation. When is it used? Why is it useful? Because I think that's absolutely pivotal. What can go wrong? And then, what is the difference between a protected conversation and a without prejudice conversation? Because there are slightly nuanced differences, but they are different. And then, at the end, because it's heading towards the Christmas season and the season where people have a few drinky poos and perhaps behave inappropriately we've got a few thoughts about how to manage the Christmas party. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 1:30 

Yeah, absolutely. And those thoughts or the responsibilities and obligations that we might have have been heightened further as a result of the sexual harassment legislation Exactly. So there's a greater focus on that, perhaps this year. 

Helen Goss: 1:43 

Exactly so, Andy. What is a protected conversation? 

Andrew Whiteaker: 1:48 

Well, I should say first of all, that this is not a protected conversation, Helen. The purposes of protected conversations is to try and keep things away from outside scrutiny and clearly, what we're going to be speaking about today is going to be listened to by our millions of subscribers to this podcast and therefore it is going to be broadcast more widely. But, fundamentally, protected conversations are a mechanism that's available to employers to try and provide a format where conversations can take place between an employer and their employees which might therefore not be able to be used in evidence at an employment tribunal at a later date. 

Helen Goss: 2:27 

Yeah, just to interrupt, apologies. I looked up the AI definition of a protected conversation. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 2:35 

Excellent. We love that. 

Helen Goss: 2:37 

So a legal mechanism that allows employees and employers to discuss the possibility of ending their employment relationship in a confidential way. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 2:46 

Well, we can just end the podcast now, haven't we? AI has told us, so that's it, isn't? 

Helen Goss: 2:50 

it. It's quite a good, very general definition. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 2:54 

It's maybe even better than the one that I gave, but there is a bit more to it than that, so it is worth delving into it in a bit more detail. And I think, to start with, I'm going to jump in my time machine and go back to 2010. And I'm going to talk a little bit about the coalition government. And this is a time where no one had heard of COVID. Brexit wasn't even a word. Donald Trump was still just presenting the Apprentice. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 3:20 

A long time ago, if you can imagine such a time. But when the new coalition government came into power, one of the changes that they proposed to make and indeed did make to employment legislation was to recognise there was a bit of a gap in the market about the ability for an employer and an employee to have a conversation about how things are going in the workplace with a view to potentially agreeing some sort of agreed separation. And the reason that that gap existed was because, although there was what's known as the common law principle of having a without prejudice conversation, there are actually quite nuanced barriers or limitations as to when you can actually use a without prejudice conversation and although it's a phrase that's bandied around very freely by all and sundry. 

Helen Goss: 4:14 

Freely and frequently. Yes about. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 4:16 

Well, this is going to be without prejudice. Actually, strictly speaking, what represents a without prejudice conversation is quite limited and the government at the time recognized that. That potentially bound the hands of employers and prevented them from having crucial conversations with employees about potential severance. That may be to the advantage of both the employer and, frankly, the employee as well, because the employee might in certain circumstances, be looking for an out but isn't quite sure how to raise it and doesn't quite know how to commence that discussion. So it's worth maybe just talking about without prejudice for a moment, to just talk about why that is limited. 

Helen Goss: 4:57 

I was going to say what is the difference, because I think a huge majority of people will just think that they're the same and in in some respects there are a lot of similarities, aren't there? 

Andrew Whiteaker: 5:09 

There are, in that the the outcome of either a protected conversation or a without prejudice conversation is to all intents and purposes, the same, in that the contents of that discussion or that conversation can't be then relied upon at a later date in legal proceedings. But how they come about is different, and so the without prejudice principle is a common law principle, so essentially that means it's something that's derived during the overtime through case law and it's been established what this actually means, and what we've ended up with is this this principle that applies when there is an existing dispute between parties. 

Helen Goss: 5:52 

And that’s the point isn't it. That there has to be an existing workplace dispute. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 5:57 

Yes, so there has to be a dispute that exists between the parties, and then the conversations or the correspondence that may be exchanged between those parties in an attempt to resolve that dispute can have the without prejudice label attached to them, and therefore that affords them with the protection and it gives the individuals involved the cover to potentially make admissions to concede on certain points. Um, but would that not, if the agreement is then finally not reached, doing so in a safe space, if you like, knowing that the other side can't then said well, in our discussions a few months ago, they told me that they thought x, y and z, or they promised to give me such and such a court can, can't hear that, okay, so that sounds like a great option for employers and employees. We can use that, can't we? Well, yes, we can when there is an existing dispute in place. But what happens if there is no existing dispute in place? So what if, for example, you as an employer are not particularly happy with an individual's performance? 

Helen Goss: 7:09 

let's say and that's a very common situation where you would use a protected conversation. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 7:14 

Absolutely, and yes, we know that responsible employers should be looking at effective and assistive performance management processes. But sometimes an employer might just take the view that I'm not sure there's much that we can do with this individual. I just don't think they're going to get to where we want them to be and actually we don't think that they're really enjoying it either. Now, at that time and this is just an example of one of those circumstances that might arise there's no dispute in existence between the parties. No one might develop in due course. 

Helen Goss: 7:47 

Yes, but at the point that you raise the issue, there isn't a dispute, is there? 

Andrew Whiteaker: 7:51 

that's right. So if, uh, in those circumstances, the employer were to go and speak to the employee and say, oh, without prejudice, I'd like to give you some money to go away, please, well, strictly speaking, that without prejudice label probably wouldn't apply, because there is no actual dispute and indeed there have been cases that have been pursued that have sort of established this as a principle, that if an employer were to do that and just barrel into a room with an employee and say, without prejudice, we'd really like you to go, would you mind taking this money to clear off please? The individual is then able to rely upon that conversation because it's not genuinely without prejudice, and potentially then resign and bring a constructive dismissal claim, for example. 

Helen Goss: 8:38 

Yes, but do you not think that in the real world that most people label their conversations about this sort of thing without prejudice in any case and it rarely gets to court that there's an argument about what is or is not without prejudice? 

Andrew Whiteaker: 8:54 

That is true, and I think that also goes a little bit to the problem with employment litigation more generally, in that it's expensive, it takes a long time, it's often deeply unsatisfactory for everyone that's involved and to be avoided so. So there's probably occasions where the label is used inappropriately and incorrectly, but because the parties ultimately don't have the appetite to have a fight over this it works it works and it doesn't become an issue. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 9:23 

But technically speaking, yes, the conversation that took place there would not be without prejudice, as the law would recognise it and in theory, an individual could say well, you've breached the implied term of trust and confidence in my in my contract. Uh, what could? How could there be any greater breach in my trust and confidence in you than you calling me into a room out of the blue and telling me you'd like me to go? That's a very obvious breach, isn't it? I resign. I can bring a constructive, unfair dismissal claim against you. 

Helen Goss: 9:53 

Yeah, yeah, I mean before we had protected conversations. We often used to refer, do you remember, to car park conversations. Yes, and particularly where there were very senior individuals that the business wanted to go, they would have a car park conversation and very often it did actually involve them having a walk outside the office with this individual to have the car park conversation. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 10:23 

Yeah, absolutely, absolutely so and the sums of money that are available in the employment tribunal, the value of individuals, remuneration packages, all of these things sometimes have an impact upon the way an employer might choose to approach those conversations and how brutal they might choose to be, and we might touch on that a little bit later. But when the protected conversation comes in is to afford the employer the ability I say the employer strictly speaking, both the employer and the employee can commence a protected conversation, but more often than not it is the employer but it affords the employer the opportunity absent the existence of a current dispute to have that open conversation with the. Well, I say open open in one sense but in the other sense very much restricted conversation with an individual to discuss terms of settlement. So this derives from section 111a of the employment rights act. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 11:22 

I promise you that's the last piece of legislation I'm going to directly refer to. 

Helen Goss: 11:26 

But that's the difference, isn't it? So, without prejudice, conversation is through the common law and development of case law, whereas this is a statutory right. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 11:34 

Yeah, absolutely so. This is, as I said, introduced by the coalition government back in the 2010s and it establishes specifically what this right is, when it exists, and there's also a code of conduct as well that sits alongside it that gives us advice and structure as to how we might have this conversation and when we might use this conversation. 

Helen Goss: 11:55 

So what about the exceptions then? When is it not going to work? 

Andrew Whiteaker: 11:59 

Well. So I often get asked by clients okay, so can I have a protected conversation? Is this an appropriate time to do that? And often it's where there is maybe a performance issue or maybe there's some conduct matters that have been identified and a disciplinary process hasn't yet started. So there's no dispute at that time. But they can see the direction that this is heading in and so they say, well, actually we'd like to have a conversation. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 12:26 

I think performance is the most common one, I think, where someone is, their performance is just not that great or maybe attitude which is that is that performance or is that conduct? 

Andrew Whiteaker: 12:36 

it's a sort of hybrid and the employer can see stretching in front of them three to six months of performance management processes which are not going to be pleasant for either the employer or the employee and really not in anyone's interest, and probably just having a clean break at that time is the best option, and so it tends to be in those sort of circumstances that it applies. And so, um clients would say to me what, what have we got to do to have a protected conversation? And, strictly speaking, what you have to do to have a protected conversation is to have a conversation. 

Helen Goss: 13:11 

I like how you simplify things. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 13:13 

Well, you know I do try, but what I mean by that is that what the legislation doesn't say is that you don't have to walk into a room with a sign saying protected conversation, nor even do you have to say during the conversation that you have that this is a protected conversation. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 13:32 

Now, as a general rule, I would advise my clients to do so and flag up that that's the intention, and that the intention, therefore, is that the relevant rights and obligations that flow from the legislation around protected conversations apply to this discussion, and I would also, if we're setting out an offer, advise clients to send a letter to the employee after the discussion, making it clear that the intention of the offer was that it was going to be governed by the protected conversation rules. So I would, as good practice, I would advise you to do that, but, strictly speaking, you don't have to signpost it, because the law simply requires that there has been a conversation between the parties in an attempt to agree severance, and if that has happened, then you can almost retrospectively apply a protected conversation status to it. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 14:23 

Okay, right so we know that much. But there are also circumstances where you can't use the protected conversation route or you can use it you can use it, but you do it at your peril, yes, and so to sort of run through those and to eventually answer the question you asked me a few minutes ago um, the first one would be that this applies. A protected conversation regime applies to unfair dismissal claims, but it does not apply to automatic unfair dismissal so what would that be? 

Andrew Whiteaker: 14:56 

whistle, whistleblowing, um, if you dismiss someone because they're um, they've fallen pregnant or they're going to go on maternity leave. So one of those quite limited but nonetheless serious set of circumstances where an employer is proposing to dismiss an individual and absence the protected conversation regime. If you dismiss the employee for that reason, it would be an automatically unfair dismissal. So if that is what you are proposing to do or if that's the background to the conversation, You're on sticky ground. 

Helen Goss: 15:28 

Yeah, Well you're on sticky ground anyway. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 15:31 

Yes, but the employee could subsequently argue well, the protective conversation regime does not apply here, because what you are proposing to do would be an automatic unfair dismissal and therefore it doesn't apply. So that's the first one. The second one is that, because it applies to unfair dismissal claims only, it doesn't apply to discrimination claims, so it can't be used as a shield against discriminatory conduct, so an employer can't decide, for example, that they have discovered an individual's sexuality or political beliefs, or whatever it might be, or disability and decided right. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 16:06 

Well, we don't want that sort of person in this organisation. So therefore we're going to have a conversation with them about terminating their employment. Now you would imagine the employer is not going to say well, I've just found out about x, y and z and therefore I'd like you to leave. So it's not. It wouldn't necessarily be as blunt as that, but the employee can always argue what's the true cause of us having this conversation? It's because of this, that and the other, and therefore the protected conversation rules don't apply. So because of that, there's always a frisson of danger in having a protected conversation with an employee. Because we all have characteristics, don't we? We all have an age, a gender, sexuality a religion or lack thereof. So anyone can say well, you are only doing this to me because yes and then whatever that because might be. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 16:56 

So yeah, it's often a bit of a stretch for someone to try and argue that's the cause of it, and there would you know be issues around demonstrating that. 

Helen Goss: 17:05 

Actually, just in relation to that, Andy that my advice always, whether it's a protected conversation, whether it's a without prejudice conversation is to make sure that there are, if you're the employer, that there are two of you in the room having that conversation, because I do always think that there's a worry that there might have been either a misunderstanding whether that's a genuine misunderstanding or a deliberate misunderstanding as to what was said, how it was said, etc. So, someone who is taking quite detailed notes, I think is absolutely essential. Don't go to these meetings on your own if you're an employer, and I think the other thing that you should always think is that the individual may be recording covertly the conversation. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 17:58 

Yeah, absolutely, and I would heartily agree with the. You know, have someone else there with you, partly to take a note, partly to back up what you're saying, and also frankly, if you're trying to ask questions and listen to responses. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 18:09 

It's quite difficult to take a note as well, because you're thinking about what you're writing rather than what you're actually saying or being asked. So I definitely agree with that. But just to finish off the exemptions or the exceptions, rather I should say um also um. You can't act in an improper fashion during the conversations or in in that process, so that might include, for example, acting in a harassing or bullying way. It can also be around putting undue pressure on individuals. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 18:40 

So that can either be saying, well, here's the offer, you need to tell me by the close of play, or you need to tell me by tomorrow whether you're going to accept it or not. That might be perceived as being undue pressure or alternatively, it could be around um the circumstances or the the outcome. Should the individual not accept? 

Helen Goss: 18:58 

you mean like the ultimatum? Yes, the ultimatum, exactly. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 19:01 

So it's not uncommon, in the sort of letters that you might send out after this conversation or after this conversation taking place, to say well, look, there are issues that we need to address via performance management. You know, one alternative, rather than going through that process, is to do this. If you don't fancy that, you know, and you don't want to take us up on the offer, that's absolutely fine, we'll go through the process. We've made no pre-decision whatsoever. You know we'll see where it takes us. You know we'll follow that road and we'll get to wherever that leads to us. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 19:30 

So you know, letters will commonly say that because you're making the point that when this is not an ultimatum, you know there is this route or that route and we don't know where that route's going to end. But this is an alternative to that. If an, if an employer were to say we'll take this or else you're out, mate, then that would potentially be perceived as you know bullying, bullying and harassing and putting that undue pressure on yeah. 

Helen Goss: 19:56 

Can I just ask you what would you put as the heading? So after the meeting you might put your notes together and you might send the notes or you might do an email to the individual confirming what was discussed. What would you put as the heading to that conversation, or those notes? 

Andrew Whiteaker: 20:08 

See, I don't know if you've just asked me this to make me say Section 111A, protected conversation again after I'd specifically promised that I wasn't going to mention the law again. 

Helen Goss: 20:16 

It's the same piece of law. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 20:18 

But yeah, no, that's probably what I would head it. I would probably head it Section 111A protected conversation, just to be clear, and that signposts exactly what we believe it to be. And then when the individual then takes that away to go and speak to a lawyer potentially because it will normally be wrapped up by way of a settlement agreement, or it often will be then the lawyer will understand exactly what the employer's position is on that approach they're taking. The final point I just want to make, about timing as well, is I'm often asked well, how long should we give them? Yes, therefore, there is an ACAS code, as I mentioned before, that talks about 10 days. It's a long time, isn't? 

Helen Goss: 20:53 

It seems like a long time. Are we talking 10 working days, 10 calendar days? 

Andrew Whiteaker: 20:58 

What I generally say to my clients. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 20:59 

if you give someone a week or over a week, then that's not bad 10 days is a long time it's a big push for someone to say, well, you gave me, because often you'll send the letter saying, well, this is the offer. Let me know what you think within this period and if you're up for it, we'll then draft an agreement for you and then you can. So it's not even that you're forcing them into that within that limited period of time. Anyway, sometimes you might give them a settlement agreement on the day yes, I think it's quite a good idea to do that because, it. 

Helen Goss: 21:28 

It sort of hastens them to their lawyers. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 21:31 

Absolutely, if you do that but if what you're saying is well, here's an offer, take it away, think about it, come back to us, we'll draw up an agreement then that extends the period anyway. So, um, so, yes, the final point that I wanted to make about, um, uh, protected conversations although you may have some other questions you want to ask, but the final point I wanted to make was around redundancy The reason I wanted to mention this is because quite often when an employer is going through a redundancy process they have already decided that they are proposing to offer individuals enhanced terms in exchange for them entering into settlement agreements, and that's either if they've been compulsorily selected for it or if they're asking for volunteers from the outset, and clients will often say so that needs to be without prejudice, doesn't it? Or does that need to be a protected conversation? And my answer to that is no, actually, because what you're saying to the individuals are that while we're going through a redundancy process, you are at risk. 

Helen Goss: 22:36 

So you've started the process well and truly. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 22:38 

Started the process already, there can be no this is constructive dismissal you want me out. No, no, we're telling you what's happening here. It's a redundancy process and we're flagging up to you that if you are ultimately selected at the end of the day and you depart, there is an enhanced package available for you. That enhanced package is available provided that you enter into a settlement agreement with us on the terms that are set out in the agreement. If you don't, then you get the basic redundancy pay, whatever that might be, and that's a matter entirely for you to choose whether or not you want to take us up on the offer of the enhanced terms. There's nothing about that that needs to be without prejudice or covered by a protected conversation. 

Helen Goss: 23:08 

And you do see that scenario quite, quite often, actually, particularly when there are large numbers of redundancies, don't you? Yeah that I suppose businesses have decided that it's probably going to happen, notwithstanding the consultation, and therefore it's better to deal with it as quickly as possible, from their perspective at least yeah and if the individual then gets an enhanced payment as a consequence, then that might be advantageous to them as well yeah. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 23:44 

So, look in summary protected conversations good thing very valuable tool in the armoury. That sounds quite aggressive, doesn't it? But yes a valuable tool available in the toolbox of employers to try and bring about um resolution to tricky workplace situations. We do always need to be mindful that they are not an absolute shield. We do need to apply some thought as to when we're going to be using them and be mindful that we still need to operate them and still need to navigate that process in a reasonable way to ensure that we do get the protection that the legislation entails. 

Helen Goss: 24:20 

Yes, and the point that you made that they don't have to be signposted. Really, it's probably a good idea to signpost them as a protected conversation. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 24:28 

Yes, it's not disastrous if you haven't to begin with, but I would advise clients to do so. 

Helen Goss: 24:32 

Okay, thanks, Andy. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 24:37 

So we've got a little and finally, because we like that sort of thing. 

Helen Goss: 24:41 

We always have a little. And finally, if we can, we can. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 24:43 

If we can find one, we do one. So the And finally, today is about the uh upcoming Christmas party season. 

Helen Goss: 24:45 

Yes, so, whether we're talking about parties that you're attending um outside your organization or, in fact, the, the business's Christmas party, or client lunches or lunch anything the hospitality related in the run-up to Christmas. Exactly because every year, despite the fact that nearly every law firm gives similar advice, we do get quite a barrage of queries and upset phone calls about employees who have behaved inappropriately at the Christmas party. It happens every year, doesn't it? 

Andrew Whiteaker: 25:24 

Yeah, and this year there is a sort of heightened obligations as a result of recent legislative changes that really require employers to think again and focus on actually what they are doing in respect to these events and what steps they're taking to avoid inappropriate, exactly, and that's part of the risk assessment, isn't it? Yes, absolutely so. What are these risk assessments then? What should people be doing? 

Helen Goss: 25:50 

Well, I think that they specifically need to look at the amount of alcohol that's going to be available at events, and in the past there have been issues about the fact that there has been a limitless amount of alcohol and the fact that the business has paid for the alcohol which has caused problems. So you might, for example, want to put some sort of a limit at the bar as to how much alcohol can be consumed, given the amount of money that's going to be available, all the types of alcohol, making sure that there are non-alcoholic drinks available for people and also enough food so that some of that alcohol can be mopped up, and that perhaps the food should be available during the event, not just at the very end, when it's all a bit too late and they've already, you know, their legs, their hollow legs, are full of alcohol by the time that they actually get to eat. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 26:50 

And these risk assessments. They all flow from the new legislative changes around sexual harassment and this heightened obligation upon employers. Whereas they have always been potentially liable for the conduct of their employees and should there be an act of sexual harassment perpetrated by one of their employees on a colleague, there is now an enhanced duty to take steps to prevent such acts taking in place in the first place yes, and I've. 

Helen Goss: 27:16 

I've seen suggestions in various narratives I've been reading around about Christmas party rules, so I suppose it's a type of guidance or policy that you would send out to your workforce in advance of the Christmas season or in advance of your Christmas party, to tell them the sorts of behaviours that are never going to be acceptable and what they can do to ensure that they don't behave in inappropriate ways, whether that's sexual harassment or, in fact, other aggressive, violent, rude what isn't. One of the typical subjects that are raised are your level of salary, discussion with your boss yes, it's never the wisest thing to talk about at that time or telling your boss what you think about him or her yeah, yeah, I think I don't think that's going to go down, really, is it? 

Andrew Whiteaker: 28:06 

not, not ideally. And another thing that I've seen as well. I mean we're talking about that sort of traditional sort of evening Christmas party event, and I'd say this as someone who quite enjoys our evening Christmas party event, that we do. I I've also seen lots of commentary, even more recently actually around, well, should we be doing that sort of event? What about some sort of lunch? What about something during the day, because, not least, it can be exclusory if you're doing something in the evening. 

Helen Goss: 28:36 

Not everybody can be free. Not everyone can make it. Not everyone's free. Not everybody drinks alcohol. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 28:39 

So we need to try and make sure that the events that we're putting on are genuinely for everybody. Um, and everyone feels it's the old ED and I adage, isn't it? It's not just that you have a party, it's not just that you invite everyone to the party, it's that everyone feels that they're able to dance at the party. So you know, you, you want to make sure that what you're doing is something that everyone feels they can't participate in. 

Helen Goss: 29:00 

Of course I have seen you dancing at the Christmas party, Andy. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 29:03 

Is that the time I think we might have to stop the podcast about now? 

Helen Goss: 29:06 

Just quickly be careful about secret Santas, because they can be a source of upset, trauma and humiliation. So be very, very careful as to what is an acceptable secret Santa gift. I always think that some senior managers should stay sober so that they can watch and see what's going on and where they can potentially see or something's been reported to them, go and put a sort of cautionary tap on someone's shoulder or take them away for a while and have a bit of a conversation with them and obviously encourage everybody to have a good time, but to be respectful and remember that they are essentially still at work. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 29:49 

Yeah, and we're endeavouring not to embody the figure and spirit of Ebenezer Scrooge here and say bar humbug to all Christmas activities. Instead, we're endeavouring to embody Bob Cratchit and his desire to spread goodwill and Christmas cheer to all. 

Helen Goss: 30:04 

Exactly. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 30:05 

Okay, so all that remains, then, is to thank you all for listening to the Employment Law podcast and to thank you, Helen, as ever. 

Helen Goss: 30:11 

Thanks Andy. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 30:12 

If you are interested in listening to any more episodes in this series, then do go to the Boyes Turner website. There are new podcasts, interspersing mine and Helen's, from our Managing partner, Barry Stanton, over the next few months, where he is talking to various international employment lawyers about what things you might need to know about doing business in and in various different countries. Can I say I think it's essential listening if you have employees in different European jurisdictions. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 30:40 

Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. So do check those out on the Boyes Turner website or, alternatively, you can follow or subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. So, thanks all once again and goodbye. 

Helen Goss: 30:51

Oh and Merry Christmas.

Andrew Whiteaker: 30:52

Merry Christmas.