This article relates to employment law in Britain.

Where an individual has made an application to an employment tribunal the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) has a duty to conciliate if specifically requested to do so, or:-

"the conciliation officer considers that he could act with a reasonable prospect of success"
(Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (ETA) s.18(2)(b)).

When an employee's application and the accompanying employer's response have been received by a tribunal both are sent to ACAS, who may then attempt to obtain a settlement between the parties. The ACAS advisor must do this without imposition or recommending an outcome in order for there to be a conciliation otherwise (if a solution is recommended) the process becomes mediation. If the parties fail to reach a settlement the application is referred back to the tribunal for a preliminary hearing.

Whilst ACAS cannot legally enforce any decision their conciliators make or help reach, any settlement between the parties obtained by ACAS means that the applicant loses any right to pursue a tribunal hearing. The COT3 form is a record of a settlement, which guarantees the applicant will take no further action against the employer and that both parties will honour any agreement.

Any agreement (contractual or otherwise) which attempts to prevent a person from bringing proceedings before a tribunal is automatically void under Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) s.203 (1)(b). However the COT3 form is written evidence that a conciliator has helped reach a settlement and because this restriction:-

"does not apply to any agreement to refrain from bringing proceedings where a conciliation officer has taken action" (ERA s.203 (2)(e) ).

production of it would prevent a tribunal hearing.

Let us give an example of employment law in practice and let's call her Angela. Assuming Angela has employee status under ERA s.230(1) (and has not been supplied by a management agency) her employee owes her a duty of care. One court defined this as:-

"the care which an ordinary prudent employer would take under all the circumstances" (Paris v. Stepney Borough Council).

In the case of Walker v. Northumberland County Council the court extended this to include:-

"a duty to his employees not to cause them psychiatric damage by the volume or character of the work"

For her case to be successful case at common law Angela must show that her illness was both "foreseeable" (Walker), and as

• 1
• 2
• next page >>

---

Add your voice

Know something about Testimonies: Being treated unfairly by your employer?
We want to hear your view. Write now!