To think this is unfair, unjust, pernicious and downright nasty.

[Fifilosttheplot]

As of Monday, the Government are changing the rules on bringing claims in employment tribunals. If you want to bring a claim it will cost you £250 just file the claim and then a further £950 to get it to a hearing, if it gets that far. The idea is that it will stop spurious claims, my argument is, by all means charge to stop spurious claims (the solicitors will stop most no hopers at the first hurdle anyway), but make it £50-£100 not £1200.

This effectively means pretty much anyone on a modest wage will not be able to afford the fees and their rights will just have gone out of the window. There will be some fees remission for people on benefits and low income but, only if your total household income does not exceed between £18,000 and £23,000 gross, yes folks, thats gross, pay.

We have already seen the qualifying period for employment rights moved from 1 year to 2 (which in fairness will help small businesses). However, these reforms effectively exclude anyone with a modest income from bringing a claim. What household in the country has £950 down the back of the sofa when one wage earner is out of work?

So, this opens the door to employers summarily deducting wages, sacking people without notice, bullying, unfairly dismissing, discriminating and maybe even a bit of sexual harrasment thrown in. Unless you can afford to pay £1200 in court fees (or qualify for the remission), there will be absolutely nothing you can do about it.

In September, we also get another pernicious piece of legislation which allows employers to offer shares in the company in return for the employee waiving their rights to unfair dismissal claims, redundancy pay and flexible working. The shares in the company are not voting shares and have no powers attached to them so are largely worthless. You can just imagine the conversation now "That's the terms, do you want the job or not".

These particular pieces of nastiness have been brought in because Adrian Beecroft wrote a report for the government saying the system needed to be balanced towards employers. This is the same man who owns Wonga.com and the same man who was taken to a tribunal by one of his employees when they had been treated appalingly. Oh yes, and this is the same man who made a very large donation to the Conservative Party shortly before being asked to write his report.

All this is nasty, mendacious and it absolutely stinks...rant over

[HappyYoni]

Thanks K8 and Fifi, that makes sense. Will check out the link.

[Fifilosttheplot]

missabs once again, couldn't agree more, this has all come out of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill which was largely written after the production of the Beecroft Report. Mr Beecroft of course being the ahem venture capitalist and owner of Wonga "legal mind" who was held responsible for an unfair dismissal and ordered to pay £150,000 to a former employee. A sum of course dwarfed by his donation of £537,079 to the Conservative Party last year.

[LessMissAbs]

Happy I don't think unions are going to save the day. So many people work in jobs or careers where there is no union, or no effective union. And we are supposed to have an employment law system which protects people, not have to resort back to the days where then there were barely any employment rights and unions were the average working person's only hope.

Its so short sighted. The UK's main trading partners are in the EU, yet something like this gives the UK such a poor reputation. Its quite embarrassing actually.

[Catmint]

As I understand it, the figures that the government have used to back themselves up are highly misleading.

This is because in quoting the number of claims made to E Ts, they have included all the multiple claims.

That means that if a workforce of 100 people took action together, there would be 1 ET covering them all, but the government have counted 100.

[Fifilosttheplot]

happyyoni the changes you are talking about are coming in under the proposed s.111a of the Employment Rights Act 1996,the Confidentiality of Negotiations before Termination. The Government call it "protected conversations" what you have said is broadly speaking correct as far as we know because the full details haven't been published yet. However, it seems to be quite limited, it will only apply to unfair dismissal claims and doesn't apply in discrimination, breach of contract or whistle blowing cases. Oddly, it also doesn't apply where the behaviour of the employer has been "improper" but no definition of "improper" has been given.

Again it's a half baked idea which is being rushed through and is likely to cause more problems than it solves. It is an attempt to regulate without prejudice discussions, probably for the benefit of employers.

[LessMissAbs]

What an utter mess - we have massive changes to legislation that affects the majority in this country, introduced through the back door and bypassing our normal Parliamentary process, while simultaneously being under judicial review (which is very hard to get authority for). Meanwhile members of the public affected by the changes have no idea what the law is and employment lawyers will charge employers for updating them yet again on the changed law (as opposed to saving employers money).

Waiving employment rights for share options is utterly bizarre - which idiot thought this one up? They seriously expect employees to take a gamble on such an important aspect of their future? And employers already use worthless share options as an excuse for keeping salaries low. And I just cannot see how this is compatible with European law, which is where most of our employment law has emanated from.

This really seems to have been written on the back of a cigarette packet. It is far too important to have been brought in by statutory instrument; it is democratically dishonest.

Perhaps the idea is for the UK to compete with the Third World in offering low wages and low employment rights, not with the developed work in offering high standards, a loyal workforce and high levels of competence?

[RoxyFox211]

Yanbu that's ridiculously unfair,, why am I not surprised though?!

[K8Middleton]

I think you're talking about settlement agreements Happy. Tbh those sorts of conversations have been going on for years called Compromise agreements and all discussions headed without prejudice.

There has been some developments in the common law about without prejudice discussions any way but that be over ridden by changes to the statute which is the proposed settlement agreements. There's loads of stuff on those if you Google. This is quite a good link

[limitedperiodonly]

It is depressing OP.

I had a dispute with an employer. They acted illegally. No question. Didn't stop them bullshitting, bulldozing and bullying.

It was settled outside a tribunal but they had to be threatened with that to behave. They seriously fucked up my career and life and the settlement doesn't reflect that - though I'm more than happy with my solicitor and have recommended him to others.

Anyone who thinks it's free money is deluded. Especially the poster very early on who asked why any firm would get rid of a good employee. I forget your name, but whoever you are, long may you work for people who are nice to you. The alternative is hell.

I speak as someone who's married to an employer. He treats his employees fairly. Therefore he doesn't live in fear of tribunals. Other obstacles to his business do cost us but they're not so headline-grabbing and friendly to bad employers as this one.

[HappyYoni]

Ps also agree with op that these changes are a massive step backwards. Huge. Hopefully may encourage more union membership though and that might not be a bad side affect.

[HappyYoni]

Whilst we're on this subject, does anyone know anything about changes to the law regarding private conversations between employers and employees, where the employer 'encourages' the employee to leave voluntarily? I've heard that they are changing it so if this happens and the employee later makes a claim for unfair dismissal they can't bring those conversations up as evidence. But I don't know if that's true or not or where ican find more info.

[Twattybollocks]

I don't believe that law should be weighted towards employers rather than employees. Employers are there to make a profit, pure and simple. If they treat employees correctly and fairly they will not be subject to tribunals, its as simple as that.

[wharrgarbl]

Why on earth would an employer sack a good worker?

You've never worked for people who sacked when they felt like it, and sometimes when they didn't have the right to? Because they didn't want to pay out the annual leave entitlements, or pay the public holidays over the Christmas period, or because, as someone said earlier, they wanted a relative to have the job?
You have been amazingly lucky.

[Mumoftwoyoungkids]

Oh and Isla - I've changed the details slightly here to make it non identifiable but the reason a company might get rid of a good employee.

Employee works in R & D
Therefore not necessary to keep company going but very necessary for long term profitability
Company secretly in talks for a takeover
Reducing wage bill will increase the value of the company

[Mumoftwoyoungkids]

Two years ago my husband went to work on a Monday morning, was made redundant and escorted out of the building. There were various things about the redundancy that felt ing to us and searching online seemed to back us up.

We are well off, very intelligent and highly educated. However, we really didn't know what to do. We were terrified to go to a solictor in case we ended up with an enormous bill.

Eventually we did work up the courage to go to a solicitor. Who said we had a greater than 50% chance of winning at tribunal. We never got to find out for sure because after one letter and two phone calls from her dh's ex-company paid us a lot of money to go away.

Anyway the point is that we had so much going for us but it was still the Most stressful experience of our lives. people with less resources would have an even tougher time.

[Whothefuckfarted]

Scary that, considering I was 'let go' from my job barely a week after i informed them I was pregnant. I wouldn't have had the money. Luckily a no win no fee solicitor took my claim on and I won.

[Fifilosttheplot]

K8yes that is correct you are but generally not allowed to forum shop on the basis of avoiding fees.

That might change though no if you get a sympathetic judge, its just too early to tell

[K8Middleton]

Unlucky83 the whole point of the tribunal process is that it should be possible to bring a case without needing to seek legal advice.

Even if you win you still have to pay your lawyer. The "losing" side does not pay legal costs.

[K8Middleton]

...and even the best cases are still a gamble

[K8Middleton]

The main issue with fees being added to settlements is that you have to win or be offered a settlement. Many, many cases where employers have behaved badly remain virtually impossible to win because there is insufficient evidence to prove the case.

Now I may be a bit rusty (baby brain!) but I understood on the point of correct forum it has always been possible to bring a variety of employment law cases before an ordinary civil court in England & Wales? Iirc this has usually been for health and safety related cases, harassment cases that do not have a discriminatory aspect as recognised by the equality act of employment rights acts and cases where losses and damages exceed the tribunal thresholds.

[mrscog]

Fair enough fifilos :)

[Fifilosttheplot]

MrscogNo win No fee agreements only cover the Solicitor's charges not disbursements and fees. When taking on a NWNF case, the solicitor is taking a risk that he/she is not going to get paid for all the work done if the case loses. If you were to include the court costs in NWNF, the Solicitor's firms would be taking an even bigger financial risk. The tribunal can award the court costs at the end of a case but they are by no means obliged to and so the Solicitor is taking the risk that he/she wont get them back win lose or draw.

Most firms simply wont or cant take that risk

[unlucky83]

Fifi - but then you could get another problem ....
£50 -£100 for someone with very little who THINKS they might get £30k (or even £5k) is less of a gamble than £250 and easier to find ....but still a lot for them to lose ....
Maybe just maybe the £250 would force them to be more sure that they had a really good case, they are likely to win and get reasonable compensation...

But in fact shouldn't lawyers/solicitors be assessing these cases before they take them on ...

(in our case though it cost them absolutely nothing to try ...but they must have been told (by their solicitor I assume -who must have been being paid by someone...the state some way or another?) to try for £30k -and that really was a fantasy figure....that all needs to be looked at too.....)

[LadyClariceCannockMonty]

Thanks, Fifi.

[Fifilosttheplot]

Clarice Whilst this does come in on Monday it would probably still be good to write to your MP. The more noise that is made about it, the more pressure there might be for them to re-consider the charges