Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 29 2013, 05:56 PM

You'll need £250 to get under way.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/tribunals/employment

Posted by: newres Jul 29 2013, 06:24 PM

It might stop some of the fanciful claims though.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 29 2013, 06:32 PM

And also might help ruthless employers too, so does that make it right? One things for sure, the ones with least will be the ones most effected (again). It's all very well having a fluid work force, but unfortunately modern living requirements needs one to have stability to sign for minimum 12 months or more for things.

I understand that it was costing £75m pa. Big deal, is that simply the cost of justice in a civilised country?

Posted by: On the edge Jul 29 2013, 06:46 PM

You are quite right, there are some dreadful abuses that generally don't get near the tribunal system. Zero hour contracts and the like. All this nonsense about damaging commerce; after all, if the business can't service its customers without paying starvation wages it shouldn't be in business. In effect, its customers are being subsidised with monies taken from its employees. Yes, the tribunal service had its fair share of daft cases, but then so does every other branch of the legal system.

Posted by: Strafin Jul 29 2013, 07:32 PM

The Tories are in power.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 29 2013, 07:43 PM

Yes should have realised! Some years ago I went to a conference on 'Work in the Future' at one of the break out sessions, a chap from one of the right wing think tanks said he didn't understand what 'carrot and stick' actually meant. He knew the stick was to beat them with, but the carrot? 'I suppose that's to stuff up their a*** when they really foul up' - sums up their policy doesn't it!

Posted by: newres Jul 29 2013, 07:47 PM

I can't see it is any worse than the removal of legal aid unless your liberty is at stake. At least it is a flat fee. Is it refundable in the event of a win?

There are some serious employee abuses of the system that cost small businesses thousands in solicitor's fees and compensation that it is too expensive to defend.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 29 2013, 07:50 PM

I don't see Labour being any less oppressive.

It's pretty typical for trades unions only to take cases to an ET if their legal opinion says they have a better than 50:50 chance of success, so that already filters trivial application. You also need grounds to take a case to an ET, and that again filters trivial or misguided applications. There are also rather long qualifying periods for some applications, so that again limits an employee's access to an ET.

I think it's an outrage to charge applicants £250 to go to an ET - if you're in the unfortunate situation to believe you have been denied your employment rights then forking out £250 is going to be a significant barrier to justice.

Rather than relying on your right to go to an ET to defend your employment rights it's invariably better to join a recognised trades union which can do much to prevent infringements occurring in the first place, and then if they do you have the collective protection of your union membership.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 29 2013, 07:52 PM

Would you care to support that claim with objective evidence?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 29 2013, 08:05 PM

There might be, but I feel it is wrong that people's access to justice is inhibited because of it. What stands out to me is the cost of law is the issue, and the apparent lack of competition. The hundreds of pounds an hour to get some secretary to sign a templated letter, etc.

In my time, I'd say that on I've witnessed much more employer abuses than employee. Often at the heart of the issue is incompetent man management.

Posted by: Strafin Jul 29 2013, 08:13 PM

I recently went through the ET process as a fired employee. It was long and arduous, and took a massive amount of time, paperwork and energy on my part. I fought Compass, the worlds biggest catering company. They tried to make it as hard as possible to put me off and nearly succeeded numerous times. They settled out of court days before the hearing rather than go to court. I could not have put more in, and so I know that frivolous and unfounded claims are unlikely to get far, so I don't think,that it is too easy to do. It is hard and the ET have the option of rejecting your case from the outset. This service is invaluable, if suddenly find yourself out of work how are you supposed to come up with a grand to fight an injustice?

Posted by: newres Jul 29 2013, 08:19 PM

I was speaking from experience in which an employee started an appeal to a tribunal in spite of overwhelming evidence of misconduct, costing our business thousands in solicitor's fees, but he called it off the day before. He was hoping for a payout and had absolutely nothing to lose. I am sure his case wasn't unique.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 29 2013, 08:20 PM

Hear, hear. Even worse when you think about how much companies are prepared to pay senior managers in compromise agreements for doing a poor job.

Labour and Lib dems should make this a manifesto pledge to reverse.

Posted by: newres Jul 29 2013, 08:24 PM

Turn it around then. Would it be ok if the loser had to pay a fee?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 29 2013, 08:25 PM

Again, what stands out to me is the cost of law, rather than any abuse.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 29 2013, 08:26 PM

On the face of it, I think that would be fair.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 29 2013, 08:40 PM

There was overwhelming evidence of misconduct, and yet you engaged a solicitor and ran up a bill of thousands? If you sack someone for misconduct and you have the evidence, you followed your disciplinary procedure, and dismissal was reasonable given the seriousness of the misconduct and the employee's record, then I can't see that a small business would need legal representation.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 29 2013, 08:52 PM

Amen to that. Even if you keep your own costs down you can never guarantee winning no matter how good your case, so if the other side can threaten a large legal bill if you lose it effectively means that only the rich or independently funded can get justice.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 29 2013, 08:59 PM

I think it would be fair to pay a fee if your complaint was entirely without merit as that would discourage baseless claims, but if you had costs if you failed you might not be able to risk a claim even with a strong case, and that would be unjust. In other courts judges have a wide discretion to award costs, so they could easily be given this latitude to award costs only against baseless claims.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 29 2013, 09:00 PM

Yes. Hear, hear.

Posted by: MontyPython Jul 29 2013, 09:21 PM

But would the type of person who makes a baseless claim bother to pay costs, or even have enough?

I agree that we need a way to fund valid claims, but this is another case of the lazy and greedy spoiling it for those who have really been treated unfairly.

Posted by: Strafin Jul 29 2013, 09:25 PM

If you are found to be lying, or economical with the truth for example, then you can be charged costs by the tribunal. If your case is completely without merit the tribunal case can be refused. I don't see a problem with the current system.

Posted by: Strafin Jul 29 2013, 09:26 PM

Did you need all the solicitors?

Posted by: On the edge Jul 29 2013, 09:44 PM

It doesn't. If you have the evidence and simply follow the rules, then you've nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. Big legal bills are only likely where there is something you know isn't quite right.