New rules for employment tribunals from April 2012

[honeybee13]

This doesn't sound like good news for claimants, I would say.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/oct/03/employees-pay-unfair-dismissal-claims

 

My best, HB

[Marianne7]

This is really bad news and just another example of our law-makers not having a clue about how "ordinary" people live. I took my employer to tribunal for constructive unfair dismissal ~ no relevant insurance and couldn't afford representation, so I did it myself. Not surprisingly I lost the case ~ my employers had a barrister. But at least I was able to TRY to get some justice. There is no way I could've even afforded the initial £250, let alone the £1000 to bring the case to tribunal.

 

All over the media one hears that "bullying and harassment will not be tolerated" but in practical terms it's tolerated all the time, and if our small chance of redress is taken away because of these costs, what chance does anyone have?

[postggj]

these are just propsals

 

the tories are all godd at hot air and publicity stunts but have any of the policies in the manifesto come into fact yet

 

not one

 

says it all

[honeybee13]

these are just propsals

 

the tories are all godd at hot air and publicity stunts but have any of the policies in the manifesto come into fact yet

 

not one

 

says it all

 

Well, I hope you're right, post. I tend to agree with the view about politicians living a form of La la land, although it won't be my one, they can have a parallel universe.

 

I don't know about 'not one policy' implemented because I'm not that well informed, but is what they're doing about benefit reform from the manifesto?

 

My best, HB

[Sidewinder]

Appalling proposals and people need to consider the inevitable consequences and drop their MP an email expressing their concerns.

 

This government are no better than the last in terms of being intent on eroding the rights of the average person and if made Law, we will see many thousands of employees simply abused without any course of action available to them!

[honeybee13]

Appalling proposals and people need to consider the inevitable consequences and drop their MP an email expressing their concerns.

 

This government are no better than the last in terms of being intent on eroding the rights of the average person and if made Law, we will see many thousands of employees simply abused without any course of action available to them!

 

That's how I see it going, SW. From this forum's side of things, employees are having a tough enough time already.

 

In a way I'm surprised that a group of lawyers is looking to pass up the opportunity of the current number of ET cases for fellow lawyers, but maybe my paranoia has gone too far .

 

My best, HB

[CONCILLIATOR]

So far this is simply the Tories trying to look tough.

 

Surely enacting this would require changes to employment law. Can they be so silly as to take on the Unions at this time over employment law when they are already in dispute over civil service jobs and pensions?

Edited October 4, 2011 by CONCILLIATOR
spelling mistake

[bonnygirl]

This is what is happening and will continue to keep happening from now on......

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b015r35d/Panorama_All_Work_and_Low_Pay/

[Paul Brendon]

I agree that there needs to be a fair system in place to protect the employees from unfair dismissal, however I also agree that it should not be so easy for employees to just take any company to court as they please. I am sure the courts don't have the time or money to waste on employees thinking they can just get away with 'trying their luck', simply because they know its a win-win situation, and they have nothing to lose in the process.

 

I hope that does not come across in the wrong way. If there is a genuine case for unfair dismissal, I am all for it, however I don't like to see people taking advantage and abusing the system.

 

Two years does seem like a long time though.

[CONCILLIATOR]

Paul,

 

Employers seem to think that they can rob you of your livelihood with impunity and scant regard for morals or the law.

 

Witness the number of people who use this forum who do not know their employment rights, or that they are entitled by law to have written statements of terms and conditions of employment.

 

Some do not even know what a contract of employment is.

 

Hardly taking advantage of the system for an employee to fight for his/her job, a basic human right in most of the rest of the world.

[postggj]

Vince Cable, said the rules would save UK businesses £6m a year and encourage them to take on more staff.

The sums used to justify this latest attack on workers are ridiculously small.

There are approx 4.8million businesses in the UK.

£6m equates to £1.25 per business per year.

How many jobs will that create in a year Vince?

I would imagine as an average,businesses spend more on management coffee in a day than they lose in Employment Tribunals in a year.

 

 

Statistics.

[madari]

These are not proposals, they become Law and will be enforced from the 1 April 2012.

[postggj]

link please to the momemnt it passd the house of lords

[madari]

Apologies for any misunderstanding I only read the blog briefly:

 

My earlier post should have read:

 

From the 1 april 2012 the qualifiyig period for bringing an ET claim will extend from 1 year to two years service.

 

The other law changes mentioned above are just proposals.

 

 

 

How on earth is someone who has lost a pay packet and a livelyhood going to even contemplate paying out these sums if the the above proposals become law?

Edited October 7, 2011 by madari

[honeybee13]

How on earth is someone who has lost a pay packet and a livelyhood going to even contemplate paying out these sums if the the above proposals become law?

 

This would be a good opportunity for the legal insurance people to look at their policy terms, but I guess they're not going to be in a hurry to pay out more.

 

My best, HB

[ms_smith]

Hmm, it says though that the money paid for lodging a claim and those if the case goes to a hearing will be refunded if you win (as it is more or less now, in case of bond to be paid to continue with proceedings and which will be refunded once the case has been won) so I think it is quite OK. Besides, you pay the money to bring in civil proceedings now, anyway...

Maybe I would just argue that to pay one grand if the case reaches the hearing is definitely too much. That would be on top of any bond, wouldn't it?

Who agrees though that apart from that one grand, it is actually a bit motivating to win the case once you pay for bringing it?

 

I read a lot of comments from people who represented themselves in ET and who lost the case.

I feel sorry for all of them, naturally, but I think many are making a fundamental mistake in assumption that the judges are automatically and always on the side of such claimants.

 

Just as automatical assumption claimants who lost the case make that the judge must have been corrupted, is racist, etc., as automatic assumption the judges will make to see unrepresented claimants suing their employer - that such claimants must be crazily brave people who probably only want to greadily obtain some money or hope that they gonna force the employer to settle.

Meanwhile, the reality is that the employer can have a bunch of barristers yet an unrepresented claimant will win if he or she will be able to conduct the case like a professional, show that a law has been broken, give analogical examples, provide excellent evidence at the hearing (including excellent cross-examination of the respondents or others) - in other words, although unrepresented, he or she will be expected to do all the thinking, writing or cross-examining.

The judge or the tribunal panel is a body that STILL needs to be provided everything as if on the tray so to make a decision. Therefore, if the practice direction in some section says that unrepresented claimants will be given a leeway, it is actually offending because the only meaning to it is that they will be considered wrong... Straight away in the beginning of the process.

 

It is as well absolutely crazy to me, even with current legislation, to be able to bring a claim of constructive dismissal only once having worked at least one year. If it says so, why there are some past cases when claimants were winning such, having worked less than a year? It is simply illogical and contrary to the foundations of the concept of justice to impose any time limit in terms of years of service against the allowance to seek that justice.

 

Knowing myself, I will probably send a petition to the government. You can do it as well, guys. The more of us, the better.

 

 

 

_____________

You allright honeybee, sweetheart, anyway? Haven't seen you for ages!

Edited October 8, 2011 by ms_smith

[postggj]

on the proposal of costs to list a claim

 

that should be left alone and leave it up to the judges if they decide it has merit or vexatious action

 

as i understand it that is capped at 500 quid deposit if granted

[Marianne7]

I'm sorry, I don't understand, ms_smith ~ I didn't have to pay any bond to take my employers to ET in 2010.

[ms_smith]

I'm sorry, I don't understand, ms_smith ~ I didn't have to pay any bond to take my employers to ET in 2010.

 

Hi, no, I didn't mean you specifically, darling. Sorry if you got that impression. I was speaking in general terms.

[Marianne7]

Thanks for that, but I didn't know anyone had to pay a bond.

[ms_smith]

Thanks for that, but I didn't know anyone had to pay a bond.

 

Well, apart from the topic of changes in 2012, now you know...

 

It worked for me because today I have in my hand a document where they confess they forged protocols! Who knows if I had it at all, if I didn't have to pay the bond, put all my cards on the table straight away during PHR and their lawyers would sift all the papers more thoughtfully...

Anyway, my case is still going, it is on the appeal stage, as it should, because the hearing itself confirmed part of my Claims - not a British woman (I had the judge and one of the lay members in the panel) should ever get down to assess my case... Sorry, it is obvious bias due to strictly my case details... Hope you do not make too hasty conclusions that I am a racist or so...

 

Speaking of which, can you guys recommend any good guide book for civil/county/crown court claims? I have to sue them for stalking... Do not plan to get any lawyer because the one I initially had for ET, ruined my case in a way...

 

 

 

It is OK, caducea, I understand.

Edited October 12, 2011 by ms_smith

[joesweetsllm]

This is poorly thought through.

 

If someone relies on EU Law in their case, they ought to put on their Application, as a Preliminary point, that the fee ought to be waived as it is incompatible with

the EU law provision that they rely on and that if it is not waived, then their position is reserved, as the fee cannot be objectively justified against the attainment

of the EU legal provisions objective.

 

Whilst this point will not succeed if you are a millionaire, the imposition of fees to limit the number of claimants, irrespective of the merits of their case, is a breach

by the United Kingdom of EU provisions to confer rights upon citizens of the EU by the implementation of Regulations and Directives to which the UK must give

full effect. Because an Employment Tribunal is a manifestation of the State for the purposes of EU law, it must decide the point on receipt of an Application. Apart from the Respondent employer not being put on the same conditions, the only way by which such a prejudicial provision can be objectively justified is by a Legal Aid type means test.

 

The short sightedness of the measure will no doubt cost hundreds of millions of pounds, because at some point the ECJ will rule against the Member State, and all

the cases that could have been brought but which were not brought, will have to be heard or paid off, because the claim can be brought against the Member State.

However, it is an even money bet, that the Employment Tribunals will themselves correct the defects of any legislation by imposing the above inquiry on Financial

Means as I have set, because it is offensive and contrary to any notion of justice, that the merits of case or absence of merits and access to Tribunals, is conditional

upon how much available money an individual has, to lodge their claim. This is true in respect of all mature legal systems, and therefore there is no point in anyone

attempting to characterise such a requirement as a further erosion of UK sovereignty.

 

Bad law is Bad Law, and this is very bad if not revealing of the complete lack of foresight, capacity and skill of those, entrusted to promote the interests of employers

and employees alike.

[Norfolkmouse]

If true this is sad news. The Government should be safeguarding jobs, far too many employers now are using the desperation of job searchers and the over full market to get labour on the cheap.

This is especially true of the large sales and telesales Company's who employ people for a 'qualifying period' then get rid of them on basis of not achieving 'unrealistic' goals and so recycle the jobs without incurring the normal expenses that go with long term employment.

 

It's these 'non employers' the Government should be clamping down on with the misery they bring to employee's who think they have finally made it off of the jobs search merry go round.