Universities that force dismissed staff to sign away their rights to sue may find that they can still be taken to court if they have not drafted the document tightly enough.
In a landmark legal case that has implications for all employees, not just those working in universities, the Court of Appeal decided that a lecturer could continue with an unfair dismissal claim even though he had signed a contract agreeing not to do so.
David Hinton, formerly a lecturer at the University of East London, had raised three grievances with his employer, alleging that senior university officials were involved in financial irregularities. He claims that after he made these whistleblowing allegations, his courses were gradually eroded and he was forced out.
On leaving UEL, Dr Hinton signed a compromise agreement, which is in essence a binding deal not to sue for unfair dismissal in exchange for payment.
But the Court of Appeal held that because the standard-form agreement Dr Hinton was made to sign did not mention whistleblowing in the list of grievances he was barred from suing for, he could pursue his claim. The standard list included grievances that did not apply to him, including sexual and racial discrimination.
The case now reverts to Stratford Employment Tribunal because UEL has decided not to appeal to the House of Lords.
Patrick Wilson, UEL's public relations manager, commented: "As the substantive case has still to be heard, we would not wish to comment on the legal reasoning that led to the decision to allow the case to be heard."
Jonathan Chamberlain, an employment law partner at Wragge and Co, said the case has wide significance in the protection of employees because it made it harder for unscrupulous employers to confuse employees into signing all their rights away.
Mr Chamberlain noted that human resource departments would find it difficult to know what claims are open to a disgruntled employee and what should be covered in the compromise agreement.