“Legal parasites feeding on small businesses” or protectors of rights?

5 January 2011 by

Don't get fired

The future of the employment tribunal system is under review by the coalition government, and the players who are to win and lose from the changes are setting out their positions.

Depending on where you stand, the employment tribunal system is either a refuge for greedy lawyers and scurrilous claimants, or an essential bulwark against workplace abuses. In reality, like the rest of the court system, it can be both but is usually something in between. As such, the coalition should consider its options carefully, and listen to both sides of the debate, before making any decisions on reform.

The employers have been putting their case this week. In a debate on this morning’s BBC Radio 4 Today program (listen here), the Director General of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) John Cridland said that the current system of employment tribunals is “broken” and that “everybody other than the lawyers lose”.

Meanwhile, in yesterday’s Times, Helen Giles, a human resources advisor to small charities, in an article entitled “Stop legal parasites feeding on small business” wrote that “small businesses and charities are groaning under the burden of complying with employment law that encourages employees to misrepresent themselves as victims of bullying and discrimination”. The system is “heavily loaded” against businesses. She suggests that “The burden of proof in discrimination claims should be placed on the employee and there should be stronger prima facie evidence of discrimination before allowing a claim to progress”.

Considering the statistics, in fact the number of individual claims has remained fairly stable, ranging from around 60,000 to 80,000 per year over the past 10 years. So, the burden on small businesses and charities which Helen Giles refers has probably remained constant. It is larger businesses which tend to be affected by group claims. Professor Richard Moorhead has posted a detailed and myth-busting analysis of the statistics here.

The CBI has ideas for reform too. It is urging the coalition to introduce a fee or deposit for bringing an employment claim, in order to buck a trend which saw employment claims rise by 56% last year to 236,100 (the statistics are here), mostly the result of multiple claims. According to the Financial Times, ministers are sympathetic to a fee ranging from £30 to £500.

The employment tribunal system was created by the Industrial Training Act 1964 as industrial tribunals. They were and remain independent judicial bodies consisting of a lawyer chairperson and two other members. They were intended to act as a simple and informal means of resolving disputes, but some argue that they have become as formalised and lawyer-heavy as ordinary civil courts, but without the stronger judicial control over proceedings which has become the norm since the 1999 Civil Procedure Rules.

It is unsurprising that the number of employment claims has increased in light of the poor economic climate. But a poor economy cuts both ways, affecting employers as well as employees, and the coalition is looking at ways to make the system more employer-friendly.

The coalition’s Programme for Government promised to “review employment and workplace laws, for employers and employees, to ensure they maximise flexibility for both parties while protecting fairness” but did not specifically mention the tribunal system.

One of the aspects of a review of enterprise policy announced in November by the former enterprise “tzar” Lord Young was to extend the period of time an employer must have worked for a small company before they can bring a claim for unfair dismissal from one year to two. “Back in the 1980s when we did that, the result was that employment started shooting up again,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today. It is not clear what the position is now following Lord Young’s resignation after telling a newspaper that people had “never had it so good”.

From a perspective of employment rights, tinkering with the unfair dismissal qualifying period, or introducing a fee, is likely to have a significant effect on employees with grievances, and may prevent many from bringing claims. However, a more pernicious outcome may be to encourage employees to bring claims under other grounds with no qualifying periods, for example discrimination or whistle-blowing.

Any change will have an effect on employee’s rights. Employment law frequently crosses over with human rights law, and this is particularly true of discrimination law, which has no time limit for bringing a claim and which has mostly arisen as a result of European directives. The formerly disjointed collection of discrimination rules and regulations has recently been consolidated into the Equality Act 2010, most of which is being implemented by the coalition.

Not all legal debates affect such large groups. The ongoing debate over control orders, an anti-terrorism instrument which allows police to impose stringent conditions on terror suspects who have never appeared in court, shows how much time and energy can be spent on issues which, although important in principle, only affect only a handful of people.

On the other hand, any change to the employment law system, however small, could have an enormous effect on a significant proportion of the population, both employees and employers. Any reforms should therefore be considered carefully and all voices should be heard first. This is particularly important given that many of the criticisms made of the system – for example the “huge” increase of no-win-no-fee claims and the wisdom of proposals to make claims pay respondents’ costs – are more myth than reality.

So, although they may sometimes house “parasites”, and may need tweaking to become more effective and less choked with claims, employment tribunals also provide protection for millions of employees and a deterrence against scurrilous employers.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

4 comments


  1. Martin says:

    As a small business with 20 employees, I have first hand
    experience from the other side. Despite the size of our company we
    have good procedures, staff handbook and company rules. We had an
    employee with a poor disciplinary record, who following an
    unsuccesful grievance and appeal left. Initially supported by the
    CAB, this apparently straightforward case ran for almost 6 years
    before being overturned. We tried to treat all our employees fairly
    and I never ever expected to be spending six years of my life
    fighting a tribunal claim. This was the first time this happened to
    us, so we had little choice but to use an employment lawyer. The
    initial cost estimate was £2000 (a typical quote) to complete the
    ET3 and provide a response with a likely total of between £4000 and
    £6000 and 6-12 months to complete. We faced legal fees in the first
    year of around £8000 with no sign of a resolution. I then
    represented the business myself (with the help of numerous books
    from Amazon) for the next 5 years. In many ways the biggest cost
    for me was the personal loss of time and the impact on the business
    and indeed other employees. I accept however, that our case is
    probably unusual, and indeed our belief in the fairness of the
    court and the principles involved stood the test of time with a
    successful outcome for us. I think there is an imbalance in the
    system; the employee can make a claim with relatively little
    personal cost, win, and be financially compensated, loose and be no
    worse off. The employer chooses to settle or defend, either way
    there is a cost to that business. If the they loose they should
    rightly pay compensation, but if the business wins it has still
    lost. Despite our experience, I do still believe in the tribunal
    system, and would be worried that many of the ‘proposed solutions’
    would lead to less protection for the employee. However I think
    that there should be some aspect of cost to the unsuccessful
    claimant. A deposit sounds good, but if you have just lost your job
    and not been paid this may well be prohibitive. To expect costs to
    be awarded is simply unrealistic, however a scale of costs for an
    unsuccessful claim may be beneficial. It would certainly make me
    feel like I wasn’t the only looser (even though we won)! The main
    problem with our case was that the CAB used the ‘throw lots
    & lots of mud and hope some of it will stick approach’. A
    cost to the claimant of say £100 for each unsuccessful aspect of a
    case (eg constructive dismissal, injury to feelings, breach of
    contract etc etc) would help focus the mind, especially if this
    came out of any potential compensation. Looking back what seems
    crazy is that nobody sat down and looked at the facts. For small
    businesses there is a simple answer – you cannot rely on treating
    people well and following the procedures. You MUST join an
    employer’s organisation like the Federation of Small Businesses;
    follow their legal advice and support. If everything does go wrong
    their legal insurance will support you. This also has a benefit for
    the employee because it forces the employer to review their
    practices and do things properly. My last piece of advice to other
    businesses is to use the ACAS helpline (before you get to
    tribunal), this is free. They also offer mediation in many cases
    now, their advice is independent and is invaluable

  2. And a further point (sorry to ramble on).

    The assumption behind much of the press reporting of the CBI’s position is that employment law is a means for “parasitic” employees to bleed businesses dry. But the debate is all a bit one-sided. There may be some parasites. Every system has them. But I have nowhere seen any real analysis of the scale of this problem. The press and the business lobby seem keen to portray the parasite as in fact the paradigm, rather than a small-scale problem in an otherwise good system.

    There has long been a tendency for business and HR people to stigmatise employees who bring grievances or claims as either mad, spiteful, or just in it for the money. Don’t worry, this is not a tirade against HR – some of my best friends etc etc… – but the point is that these stereotypes are so strongly identified in people’s minds, and most people in business can think of at least one example, that it leads to an overestimation of the problem. This is what psychologists call a heuristic bias. Giving people a plausible example of something makes them think it is more likely than it is. See this enlightening Wikipedia entry, for example.

    On the other hand, no one writes articles in the press about how many good quality claims are dropped because employees just decide it’s not worth suing. Or about how businesses and their lawyers can pressurise meritorious claimants into dropping their claims, either with threatening letters about seeking a costs order for £10,000 (a not uncommon letter I believe), or with a paltry offer that an unemployed claimant with bills to pay will almost certainly accept even though they potentially have a very good claim for much more. I once had a client with what I thought was a very good realistic claim for around £18,000-£20,000 but settled for £2,000 because she couldn’t afford further legal fees and was too scared to run the case herself. The other side was represented by Peninsula and I’ll say nothing more about them or their tactics.

    I haven’t only been a claimant lawyer. I have acted for employers too. And my experience is that they do frankly stupid things that could have been avoided with common sense and a bit of forethought, and perhaps some proper advice at an earlier stage. I haev dealt with this kind of case more often than I have dealt with parasitic claimants. The strategy then is how to limit the damage of the client’s own actions, and if that means taking advantage of the employee’s weaker economic position then that’s what happens. Richard Moorhead points out in his blog (referred to above) that employers spend more on lawyers than employees do, and I support the other points he makes.

    But it’s not fashionable to complain about businesses being the villains and employees the victims. Businesses, especially small businesses, need our support at times like these, they are the backbone of the economic recovery etc etc and can do no wrong.

    There, I’ve said my piece, I’ll stop now.

  3. ObiterJ says:

    There seems to be a serious practical issue in that some – probably most – small/medium business employers would rather “settle” a claim than fight it since the expense of fighting has gone too high. Smaller businesses and charities simply cannot afford to fight claims even if they are scurrilous. This allows an ex-employee to benefit from dishonesty. Furthermore, where the employer is insured against such claims the insurer may seek to settle rather than run a lengthy case.

    A further assertion appeared in The Times article (4th January – Helen Giles) that some small businesses would employ illegal immigrants “cash in hand, because they see the penalty of an unlimited fine and two years in jail as less risky than having workers on the payroll who might exploit their limitless rights.” The author of the article did not provide any evidence for such a claim but it makes one wonder. It’s not a risk I would run personally and I am not too sure that many responsible employers would run that risk either but it would be interesting to know though probably impossible to find out !

    Few tribunals these days seem to have all the supposed advantages claimed for them as long ago as the Franks Report – i.e. cheapness, accessibility, freedom from technicality, expedition and expert knowledge.” They are certainly not cheap and are likely to get more expensive and they are not free from technicality of both subject-matter and law. In fact, with many tribunals, there is little difference from the mainstream courts. Maybe this reflects the English lawyer’s love of formal proceedings and detailed rules?

    It might be possible to (a) charge applicants a reasonably substantial fee to bring a claim which could be returned if the claim is successful; (b) expect the applicant to show a strong case before any burden falls on the employer and (c) be rigorous at striking out weak cases. Helen Giles would place the burden of proof solely on the employee but that might be a step too far. Like Mrs Markleham (above) I think that I would avoid bringing in a costs regime for the reasons she gave.

    It would really be interesting to hear many more expert views on all of this.

  4. A while ago I blogged about the so-called “compensation culture” and the so-called 56% rise in claims, in an attempt to dispel some of the myths about the danger of discrimination law in an employment context. Some of my observations:

    1. Employers are more successful in defending discrimination cases than other types of case – suggesting the reverse burden of proof is actually not doing employers any harm at all.

    4. The press are keen to report high compensation figures but the reality is that half of tribunal awards are around £5,000 or less.

    5. The 56% “rise” in claims is illusory. It is a sudden peak, mainly due to (1) the recession – i.e. more people being sacked; (2) the repeal of the (terrible) statutory dispute resolution procedures in 2009, which has reduced the time limit from 6 months to 3 months in most cases. This had the effect of forcing employees to bring claims quicker, so there was a surge in claims around the middle of 2009, to pick up the slack.

    See my blog here.

    On the other points raised here – tribunals already have the power to strike cases out at an early stage, or make claimant’s pay a deposit if their case lacks merit. Many people think more use should be made of this power, rather than another legislative solution.

    Tinkering with the costs regime would be disastrous. There would be a proliferation of conditional no-win-no-fee agreements, and after-the event insurance, much as the civil litigation world has seen over the last 12 years or so since Woolf. I don’t think it would stop claims, it would just make them more expensive all round. The current regime of each side bearing their own costs encourages parties to keep their own lawyers’ involvement (and costs) in proportion to the likely value of the claim, and encourages settlement. By far the majority of claims are settled or withdrawn.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology birds directive blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity circumcision citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Cologne Commission on a Bill of Rights common buzzard common law communications competition confidentiality confiscation order conscientious objection consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Criminal Legal Aid criminal records Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty declaration of incompatibility defamation DEFRA Democracy village deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention devolution Dignitas dignity Dignity in Dying diplomacy director of public prosecutions disability Disability-related harassment disciplinary hearing disclosure Discrimination Discrimination law disease divorce DNA doctors does it matter? domestic violence Dominic Grieve don't ask don't ask don't tell don't tell Doogan and Wood double conviction DPP guidelines drones duty of care ECHR economic and social rights economic loss ECtHR Education election Employment Environment environmental information Equality Act Equality Act 2010 ethics Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice european disability forum European Sanctions Blog Eurozone euthanasia evidence Exclusion extra-jurisdictional reach of ECHR extra-territoriality extradition extradition act extradition procedures extradition review extraordinary rendition Facebook Facebook contempt facial recognition fair procedures Fair Trial faith courts fake news Family family courts family law family legal aid Family life fatal accidents act Fertility fertility treatment FGM fisheries fishing rights foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Association Freedom of Expression freedom of information Freedom of Information Act 2000 freedom of movement freedom of speech free speech game birds gangbo gang injunctions Garry Mann gary dobson Gary McFarlane gay discrimination Gay marriage gay rights gay soldiers Gaza Gaza conflict Gender General Dental Council General Election General Medical Council genetic discrimination genetic engineering genetic information genetics genetic testing Google government Grenfell grooming Gun Control gwyneth paltrow gypsies habitats habitats protection Halsbury's Law Exchange hammerton v uk happy new year harassment Hardeep Singh Haringey Council Harkins and Edwards Health healthcare health insurance Heathrow heist heightened scrutiny Henry VII Henry VIII herd immunity hereditary disorder High Court of Justiciary Hirst v UK HIV HJ Iran HM (Iraq) v The Secretary of state for the home department [2010] EWCA Civ 1322 Holder holkham beach holocaust homelessness Home Office Home Office v Tariq homeopathy hooding Hounslow v Powell House of Commons Housing housing benefits Howard League for Penal Reform how judges decide cases hra damages claim Hrant Dink HRLA HS2 hs2 challenge hts http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/04/11/us-state-department-reports-on-uk-human-rights/ Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority human genome human rights Human Rights Act Human Rights Act 1998 human rights advocacy Human rights and the UK constitution human rights commission human rights conventions human rights damages Human Rights Day human rights decisions Human Rights Information Project human rights news Human Rights Watch human right to education human trafficking hunting Huntington's Disease HXA hyper injunctions Igor Sutyagin illegality defence immigration Immigration/Extradition Immigration Act 2014 immigration appeals immigration detention immigration judge immigration rules immunity increase of sanction India Indonesia Infrastructure Planning Committee inherent jurisdiction inherited disease Inhuman and degrading treatment injunction Inquest Inquests insult insurance insurmountable obstacles intelligence services act intercept evidence interception interests of the child interim remedies international international conflict international criminal court international humanitarian law international human rights international human rights law international law international treaty obligations internet internet service providers internment internship inuit investigation investigative duty in vitro fertilisation Iran iranian bank sanctions Iranian nuclear program Iraq Iraqi asylum seeker Iraq War Ireland irrationality islam Israel Italy iTunes IVF ivory ban jackson reforms Janowiec and Others v Russia ( Japan Jason Smith Jeet Singh Jefferies Jeremy Corbyn jeremy hunt job Jogee John Hemming John Terry joint enterprise joint tenancy Jon Guant Joseph v Spiller journalism judaism judges Judges and Juries judging Judicial activism judicial brevity judicial deference judicial review Judicial Review reform judiciary Julian Assange jurisdiction jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Act Justice and Security Bill Justice and Security Green Paper Justice Human Rights Awards JUSTICE Human Rights Awards 2010 just satisfaction Katyn Massacre Kay v Lambeth Kay v UK Ken Clarke Ken Pease Kerry McCarthy Kettling Kings College Klimas koran burning Labour Lady Hale lansley NHS reforms LASPO Law Commission Law Pod UK Law Society Law Society of Scotland leave to enter leave to remain legal aid legal aid cuts Legal Aid desert Legal Aid Reforms legal blogs Legal Certainty legal naughty step Legal Ombudsman legal representation legitimate expectation let as a dwelling Leveson Inquiry Levi Bellfield lewisham hospital closure lgbtq liability Libel libel reform Liberal Democrat Conference Liberty libraries closure library closures Libya licence conditions licence to shoot life insurance life sentence life support limestone pavements limitation lisbon treaty Lithuania Litigation litvinenko live exports local authorities locked in syndrome london borough of merton London Legal Walk London Probation Trust Lord Bingham Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Blair Lord Goldsmith lord irvine Lord Judge speech Lord Kerr Lord Lester Lord Neuberger Lord Phillips Lord Rodger Lord Sumption Lord Taylor LSC tender luftur rahman machine learning MAGA Magna Carta mail on sunday Majority Verdict Malcolm Kennedy malice Margaret Thatcher Margin of Appreciation margin of discretion Maria Gallastegui marriage material support maternity pay Matthew Woods Mattu v The University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 2068 (QB) Maya the Cat Mba v London Borough Of Merton McKenzie friend Media and Censorship Medical medical liability medical negligence medical qualifications medical records medicine mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Capacity Act 2005 Mental Health mental health act mental health advocacy mental health awareness Mental Health Courts Mental illness merits review MGN v UK michael gove Midwives migrant crisis Milly Dowler Ministerial Code Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice cuts misfeasance in public office modern slavery morality morocco mortuaries motherhood Motor Neurone disease Moulton Mousa MP expenses Mr Gul Mr Justice Eady MS (Palestinian Territories) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department murder murder reform Musician's Union Muslim NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 naked rambler Naomi Campbell nationality National Pro Bono Week national security Natural England nature conservation naturism Nazi negligence Neuberger neuroscience Newcastle university news News of the World new Supreme Court President NHS NHS Risk Register Nick Clegg Nicklinson Niqaab Noise Regulations 2005 Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance nursing nursing home Obituary Occupy London offensive jokes Offensive Speech offensive t shirt oil spill olympics open justice oppress OPQ v BJM orchestra Osama Bin Laden Oxford University paramountcy principle parental rights parenthood parking spaces parliamentary expenses parliamentary expenses scandal Parliamentary sovereignty Parliament square parole board passive smoking pastor Terry Jones patents Pathway Students Patrick Quinn murder Pensions persecution personal data Personal Injury personality rights perversity Peter and Hazelmary Bull PF and EF v UK Phil Woolas phone hacking phone taps physical and mental disabilities physician assisted death Pinnock Piracy Plagiarism planning planning human rights planning system plebgate POCA podcast points Poland Police police investigations police liability police misconduct police powers police surveillance Policy Exchange report political judges Politics Politics/Public Order poor reporting Pope Pope's visit Pope Benedict portal possession proceedings power of attorney PoW letters to ministers pre-nup pre-nuptial Pre-trial detention predator control pregnancy press press briefing press freedom Prince Charles prince of wales princess caroline of monaco principle of subsidiarity prior restraint prison Prisoners prisoners rights prisoners voting prisoner vote prisoner votes prisoner voting prison numbers Prisons prison vote privacy privacy injunction privacy law through the front door Private life private nuisance private use proceeds of crime Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest camp protest rights Protocol 15 psychiatric hospitals Public/Private public access publication public authorities Public Bodies Bill public inquiries public interest public interest environmental litigation public interest immunity Public Order Public Sector Equality Duty putting the past behind quango quantum quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 895 R (on the application of) v The General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 2839 (Admin) R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) R (on the application of G) v The Governors of X School Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radmacher Raed Salah Mahajna Raed Saleh Ramsgate raptors rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa south african constitution Spain special advocates spending cuts Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance swine flu Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine unfair consultation universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vaccination vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: