Tarbuc v Martello Piling Limited [2026]

 

A Protected Conversation Isn’t Always Protected 

Tarbuc v Martello Piling Limited [2026]

Tarbuc brought claims for unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions from wages and less favourable treatment as a part-time worker.

What happened? 

Before he was dismissed, he claimed he was ambushed into a meeting about his future at the company.

Martello argued the discussion was a protected conversation under section 111A ERA 1996, meaning Tarbuc could not rely on it in support of his claim.

The Tribunal originally sided with Martello.

The EAT disagreed.

It held that the Tribunal should have considered whether Tarbuc’s allegations of being ambushed amounted to improper conduct, which could remove the protection afforded by section 111A.

The EAT also highlighted a common misconception.

Protected conversations are only protected in ordinary unfair dismissal claims.

The case has been referred back to Tribunal for reconsideration.

Lessons for HR

If you’re relying on a protected conversation, be prepared to justify your own conduct.

What is inadmissible for one claim may still be admissible for another.

Need help?

At PJH Law we specialise in Employment Law, feel free to call our office on 01780 757589 or visit our website to get in touch!