Non-disclosure risks

Non-disclosure agreements (NDAS) have been around for some time, but have recently come to prominence following the scandal involving Harvey Weinstein, the Hollywood film producer. He used them to pay off and silence women who have now come forward to allege that they were harassed or abused by him.

There are legitimate uses for NDAS, which are legal agreements signed between two parties to share confidential information or to keep trade secrets private. But they are also used in employment settlements so that workers cannot speak about events, such as sexual harassment, that happened in the office or factory. They have been used in the public sector, too, notably in the NHS, to stop workers highlighting safety concerns, to the detriment of the public. They are, in other words, a means of hiding a dirty secret.

After a six-month inquiry, the Commons select committee on women and equalities has concluded that NDAS should not be allowed if they are intended to cover up abusive behaviour by bosses. They contribute to a disincentive for employers and regulators “to take robust action to tackle and prevent unwanted sexual behaviours in the workplace”.

The MPS found that sexual harassment is “widespread and commonplace”, and a new duty should be imposed on employers to stop it. But whether new regulations and statutory codes are needed or not, it is incumbent upon people in a position of authority not to misuse it in this way without such measures. And if they do, the notion that they can then use company money to secure a legally binding contract to hush it up before moving on to the next “victim” cannot be right.