Weve been calling for a system which allows employers and employees more opportunities to resolve disagreements before the tribunal machinery is set into motion and it seems the Government has responded. Under the current system, employees can apply for a tribunal hearing without informing their employer that there is even a problem. But this is a ridiculous and costly way of resolving disputes when an employer has to answer a complaint through a tribunal before having an opportunity to discuss the dispute internally. The system is open to abuse from frivolous and vexatious claims and the new proposals encourage both parties to face up to their responsibilities when handling disputes. We are consulting employers to work on the detailed proposals, but feel that the Government is moving in the right direction.
Richard Wilson, business policy executive, Institute of Directors
Our feeling is that there have been a couple of useful reforms. It does help that employees are encouraged to exhaust internal procedures before getting to a tribunal or pay a penalty if the action isnt sensible. But there could be more to discourage the considerable growth in industrial tribunals. There has also been an increase in vexatious claims and industrial tribunals are almost unique in that the vindicated can only reclaim costs in vexatious cases, not simply when they win. Unfair dismissal costs can go up to 50,000 we think a more reasonable figure would be 25,000. With unfair dismissals, the most common complaint is that they havent carried out internal procedures properly. One IoD member was taken to a hearing after dismissing someone. It hadnt got to the tribunal stage by the time of the Christmas party. He didnt invite her as he didnt think shed want to go, and he didnt think the other employees would feel comfortable with her there. She claimed this was vindictive which raises the question of how you treat employees when you are going through this process.
Makbool Javaid, employment lawyer, DLA
The Governments tinkering with the rules will have little impact. The radical suggestion of an application fee for workers was dropped, and in any event there was little confidence that a fee of 50-100 would act as a deterrent to the increasing numbers of unmeritorious claims driven by the growing army of no win, no fee employment consultants. Furthermore, the suggestion that publishing on the Employment Tribunal website the names of workers who have brought actions is helpful to employers is unrealistic and foolish. The latest changes making it easier to strike out misconceived claims are to be welcomed. However it is the practical application of these rules that requires greater focus. Not only should they be revised to root out weak claims and defences, but there ought to be a change in the culture of tribunals. Far too often they allow cases to proceed to give the worker his or her day in court, even if it costs the employer a small fortune.
