Non-Disclosure Agreements in the UK
About a year ago, I posted an item about a change to Employment Law in Ireland that effectively bans the use of Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) in situations involving allegations of discrimination, victimisation, harassment and sexual harassment. When I posted this, the change had not come into force, but it has now. I think this is a very good move.
There aren’t many reasons to praise the current UK Government, but it seems they are proposing something similar, through an Amendment to the Employment Rights Bill, although the change has not yet come into effect and will not do so until the Bill becomes an Act.
The legislation will state that an employer shall not enter an NDA with an employee where the employee has made allegations of discrimination, harassment or sexual harassment. In my experience, NDAs are currently the default in such cases. I know of many examples in the UK where such legal instruments have been used to prevent victims of harassment from speaking publicly about their experiences, thus enabling harassers to move elsewhere without anyone knowing what they had done. This ploy is also seen by Management as a way of preventing reputational damage, although it does not seem to me to be a good way of doing that, as the truth has a way of coming out anyway and the effect of hiding the misconduct when it does causes more reputational damage than the harassment itself.
This reminds me of things I wrote a while ago in connection with a case at Leiden University where the Management decided not to name a professor involved in such a case (who was subsequently identified as Tim de Zeeuw). I thought this was a nonsense, for at least two reasons. The first is that I think people who have behaved in such a way should be named as a matter of principle, so that potential collaborators and future employers know what they have done. In previous posts on this topic I had defended confidentiality (e.g. here) during an investigation, but I still think that once it has been decided that a disciplinary offences have been committed there should be full disclosure.
The second is that failing to identify the individual concerned led to a proliferation of rumours inside and outside Leiden (none of which I am prepared to repeat here). As a result, the finger of suspicion was pointed at the wrong people until the name of the abusive Professor was revealed. That made for a very difficult working environment for everyone concerned.
Of course the new law, when passed, will only apply to cases in the United Kingdom. In Astronomy, as in many other parts of academia, there is a great deal of international mobility. The new legislation would not prevent someone who has engaged in such misconduct in, for example, The Netherlands, applying for a job in the UK without this coming to light. One could hope that other countries follow suit, but the wheels of the legislature are not known to turn quickly in any country that I know of.
I can sense many Human Resources departments getting very nervous, as the proposed change will render a major component of their modus operandi unlawful. Who knows, it may even encourage them to start tackling the culture of harassment that they have so far been content to hide.
Finally, I think it’s an important question whether or not this legislation is retroactive. If it is, and past NDAs are declared null and void then it will blow open many cases. I can imagine rather a lot of institutions and individuals getting rather nervous at the prospect of their previously concealed misconduct coming out in the open.
P.S. In related news, online voting for the Chancellorship of Cambridge University opened last week. It’s a transferable vote system. I put my first choice for Wyn Evans.
Share this:
- Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
- Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
- Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
Related
This entry was posted on July 13, 2025 at 11:16 am and is filed under Harassment Bullying etc with tags Cambridge University, Employment Equality Act, Harassment, Misconduct, NDA, Non-Disclosure Agreements, Sexual Harassment, Wyn Evans. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 13, 2025 at 12:03 pm
Louise Haigh has stated clearly that the change will not be retroactive. Whether employers feel able to enforce NDAs entered into before the legislation comes into force may be another matter – it may be a reputational problem – but if they do, the law won’t stop them.
July 14, 2025 at 11:42 am
I think that NDAs should be illegal for any behaviour that could in itself lead to legal action. So not just personnel issues but also fraud, theft etc.
With regard to moving country to avoid anything coming to light – people are usually asked (at least at my institution when I was involved in appointments) if there were any such issues that need to be disclosed. If they lied and then came to light later it would be grounds for dismissal. I also suspect that the astronomical community is so interconnected that it would be difficult for someone to hide a transgression.