Employment Tribunals

The procedural rules for the bringing of, and responding to, claims in the employment tribunal, and their subsequent management and determination, are set out in the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (ET Rules 2024), SI 2024/1155. For the early conciliation rules, see Practice Note: Early conciliation rules (rules applying from Sunday 20 April 2014).

The early conciliation requirement

Acas conciliation involves an independent Acas conciliation officer (also known as a conciliator) discussing the issues in dispute with both parties in order to help them reach a better understanding of each other's position. The conciliation officer tries to encourage the parties in dispute to come to an agreement between themselves so as to avoid the need for a tribunal hearing.

For further information on Acas conciliation generally, see Practice Note: Acas conciliation.

The early conciliation (EC) requirement (also known as mandatory Acas early conciliation) is an obligation on a prospective claimant to contact Acas with certain information prior to submitting a claim in the employment tribunal.

The EC requirement applies to 'relevant proceedings', ie:

  1. those proceedings listed in section 18(1) Employment Tribunals Act 1996, which includes

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Employment News

Data by any other name—Court of Appeal reverses Upper Tribunal’s ruling on the protection of ‘personal data’ (DSG v ICO)

Information Law analysis: In this case, the Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal brought by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), holding that it is sufficient that data which has been subjected to unauthorised or unlawful processing by a third party still constitutes personal data from the perspective of the data controller, even if it is pseudonymised ‘in the hands of’ the data controller and therefore anonymised ‘in the hands of’ the attacker. Accordingly, the court held, the data controller is required to take ‘appropriate technical and organisational measures’ (ATOMs) to protect that personal data against such hackers, even where those third parties cannot themselves identify the individuals to whom the data relates. Even though this judgment is under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998), this decision is significant as it confirms, in terms equally applicable to the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (UK GDPR), that the scope of the security obligation is not diminished merely because stolen or exfiltrated data would be anonymised in the hands of the third party with unlawful access. This development expands and makes more pressing the obligation on controllers to assess and guard against a broader range of threats—including ransomware, data destruction, and bulk exfiltration, regardless of the attacker's capacity to re-identify data subjects. Written by Adelaide Lopez, senior associate at Wiggin LLP.

View Employment by content type :

Popular documents