In Tarbuc v Martello Piling Ltd [2026] EAT 58, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) clarified both the scope of section 111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the correct approach to assessing ‘improper behaviour’ in protected conversations.
The tribunal had concluded that a pre-dismissal meeting was not improper, focusing only on the tone and content of what was said. The EAT held this was an error. Tribunals must consider the wider circumstances, including allegations that the meeting was arranged without notice and that the employee was not given the opportunity to be accompanied.
The EAT also confirmed that section 111A protection applies only to ordinary unfair dismissal claims. Evidence of pre-termination negotiations remains admissible in relation to other claims, including unlawful deductions from wages and part-time worker discrimination.
