Gov proposals to change unfair dismissal tribunals.

[MARTIN3030]

Government acts to change unfair dismissal tribunal system

 

 

28 Jan 11

 

Staff who believe they have been unfairly dismissed could, in future, face extra barriers when taking their employers to an employment tribunal.

The Goverment has said that it wants to see the qualifying time for bringing a claim raised from one to two years of employment.

Any employee making a claim may also be obliged to lodge a fee before the case can proceed. The Government argued that the current system leads to a large number of unmerited or vexatious claims.

A government spokesman commented: "We've heard loud and clear the concerns from businesses up and down the country that the system has become too costly, takes too much time, and that it is too easy to make vexatious claims.

"We're particularly concerned that it places unnecessary strains on small businesses."

However, the plans only extend to claims for unfair dismissal and not to other issues, such as discrimination, for which employers can be taken to a tribunal.

The number of tribunal claims climbed to 236,000 last year, a rise of 56 per cent.

It is estimated that the average cost to employers of defending a claim is in the region of £4,000.

The announcement is the first in a planned series of reforms to employment law.

The Prime Minister, David Cameron said: "The announcements on reforms to employment law are among the first conclusions of our government-wide growth review, and highlight our determination to ensure that employment law is no longer seen as a barrier to growth, while making sure that employees and employers are treated fairly.

"Giving businesses the confidence to take on somebody new will be a real boost to the economy, and help generate the sustainable growth we need."

It is hoped that, by doubling the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims, the number of cases going to tribunal will shrink.

Other proposals include first-stage compulsory mediation stage for workplace disputes through the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas). The Government also wants to see the tribunal process speeded up via a number of measures, such as widening the scope for cases where judges can sit alone.

John Cridland, the CBI's director-general designate, welcomed the move.

He said: "For far too long the tribunals system has put the interests of lawyers above those of employers and employees. Given that 2010 saw a 56 per cent rise in tribunal claims, the Government must look at ways of strengthening the process.

"It is in everyone's interests that disputes are resolved swiftly and fairly. Introducing an element of charging would help weed out weak and vexatious claims, clearing the way for more deserving cases to be heard.

"Extending the qualifying period for unfair dismissal is a positive move that will give employers, especially smaller ones, the flexibility and confidence they need to hire."

David Frost, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), agreed: "Employment tribunals are one of the top business issues and we strongly welcome the government's move to reform the system.

"The current system wastes business time and money, and distracts employers from growing their businesses and creating much-needed jobs. In particular, the introduction of a fee for claimants will help to discourage spurious and baseless claims."

Mr Frost also applauded the proposal requiring all claims to be lodged with Acas to allow conciliation before they reached a tribunal: "This is a very positive step but must be accompanied with enough resource for Acas to deal with new claims."

The measures are to be put out to consultation.

The Government said that it wants views on achieving earlier resolutions of workplace disputes in a way that is fair and equitable for both sides, without having to go to an employment tribunal, and ensuring that, where parties do need to come to an employment tribunal, the process is as swift, user-friendly and effective as possible.

[meekmeek]

in my opinion the truly unfairly dismissed employees would be saying they were not given notice or were not given adequate pay for redundancies so the truly deserving could not afford the possible upfront cost involved

 

those that abuse there way to tribunals such as get employed and cause provokations knowing they can seek tribunal for a financial settlement already know the system well enough to have a money pot for upfront costs due to previous attempts

 

again this is going to make the poorer low paid workers have less rights and less chances of seeking a fair hearing - and the rich can continue milking the system

[MARTIN3030]

those that abuse there way to tribunals such as get employed and cause provokations knowing they can seek tribunal for a financial settlement already know the system well enough to have a money pot for upfront costs due to previous attempts

 

 

Yes those are very good points.

 

 

 

again this is going to make the poorer low paid workers have less rights and less chances of seeking a fair hearing - and the rich can continue milking the system

 

 

Its called Traditional Tory Policy.

[meekmeek]

agreed just like the expenses scandal still ongoing

 

mortgages house repairs and transportation should be paid for by their wage like everyone else

 

many other workers commute to london everyday and only recieve a salery where as mps should be in their area 90% of the time and just travel to london 1 day a week for conferences etc they should buy a prius or a solar car if their wage doesnt fit the fuel bill

 

the only extra cash they really deserve is a bonus for actually following through with their promises to make england better - hang on i think the bonus already exists but no single MP has ever recieved it lol wonder why lol lol lol lol

 

id be happy to pay extra tax for a MP bonus if they actually follow through with their promises and it leads to a positive britain on the "happiness chart" lol

[MARTIN3030]

They said they would deal with bank bonuses yet Bob Diamond has just announced he will take over £9 million in 2011.

Theres also the small issues of unpaid congestion charges for Embassies in London said to be around £50 million.......thats an awful lot of money.

Cameron would be better placed asking Boris to get this money back than taking students and pensioners savings to pay for his masterplans of defecit reduction.

[greendollar]

The upfront fees are only going to mean that low paid workers aren't going to be able to get justice when unfairly dismissed . The Tribunal Service already have the power to make claimants put a deposit down if their claims are weak or vexatious and if employers wanted to cut the number claims perhaps following statutory procedures when dismissing workers would be a good start .

Perhaps they should then employ solicitors that don't deliberately drag proceedings out for months and years , running up huge costs , hoping that genuine claimants will throw in the towel .

[Sidewinder]

I have a better idea. How about placing a responsibility on businesses also to ensure that they have sufficient understanding of employment rights, health and safety legislation etc in order to be able to set up in business and employ staff?

 

By all means use the existing framework to filter out spurious claims, but lets not pretend that the increase in cases is solely down to employees making vexatious claims. A lot of those claims fail simply because there isn't sufficient proof that the employee has been wronged. There are a lot of very genuine grievances against shoddy employment practices, and it is wrong to just move the goalposts to bring the numbers down. Investment in a business should include a responsibility to those whom they employ, not just the ability to hire and fire at will and damn the consequences, and if this proposal succeeds, as with other cost cutting policies it will be another step back towards a complete lack of employment protection. Might as well start sending children back up chimneys!

[SarEl]

And I have an even better idea. Since acting as a good and responsible lawyer within the law is not exactly hard - lets face it, how hard is it to follow ACAS guidelines? - why not bring employment protections down to day one of employment to catch all those shady employers who sack people at 11 months and 2 weeks? There are far more of them than there are vexatious claimants! And by the way, a little known fact (although it is no secret) - tribunals do actually keep records, quite good records. Which include records of what are called "serial claimants" - these are the ones that always get mentioned whenever anyone is rubbishing the existing system. They are people who attempt to make a living out of making false tribunal claims against employers on a repeated basis. At any time, there are less than a handful of them in the country. The tribunals know exactly who they are, and whenever their new claims come in, they are scrutinised very carefully. Tribunals are not fools, and they are not pushovers.

[meekmeek]

ACAS guidelines are simply

as long as theres an investigation which leads to a disciplinary which leads to a end of employment then all the boxes are ticked

 

its not hard for a grimreeper of an employer to make a false accusation to start the ball rolling and their internal manager colleagues to 1 do the investigation and a second manager to then do the disciplinary hearing and in both cases word the questions in a way that evidance for defence gets ignored

 

acas dont care about the evidance [of the issues - accusations raised] just the ladder of investigation followed by disciplinary followed by notice of termination

the only true defense an employee has is a tribunal which has a time limit and soon a price tag attached

 

the majority of serial grimreeper employers are in supermarkets and multinationals where their defense for keep having their name appear in court is not because they are grimreepers but because of their vast size - thus they get away with continuing their grimreeper accusations just to get peoples employment terminated without huge costs

 

no defense for the little guys who get mentally messed up by bosses actions as by the time they well enough to deal with issues its too late and they cant afford it

 

good old england - someone make a time machine and go get robin hood and put him as prime minister - i think he will do a better job at helping out the economy and care about the working class more then current government

 

anyone know of a mythical or hystoric figure that is oposite to robin hood - [steal from the rich, give to the poor] and sorry gordon brown and cameron are options already taken lol

[Bignick58]

Right,

 

How about this idea?

 

If fees are brought in to make a claim, how about a fee to defend the claim also?

PRO RATA!

 

Claimant monthly benefits income = £300, Tribunal fee = £100.

Respondent monthly income = £tens of thousands, Tribunal fee = £one third of tens of thousands.

 

This would have the added benefit of concentrating the Respondent's mind on actually defending the case, rather than clogging up the Tribunal system with delaying tactics.

 

Sadly, there would probably have to be a ceiling on the Respondent's fee.