Employment Tribunal Claim?

SarEl

Uncertain wrote: »

None of these statistics of course show how many cases were settled beforehand or at what amounts.

As I've said before, some employers tend to settle any even half serious claim whereas others fight lost causes as a matter of policy.

Some idea of your employer's normal approach would be very helpful indeed. However, this is not easy to establish as one of the big advantages of settling, from the employer's point of view, is that there is almost always a confidentiality clause.

Quite true. Although the figures on sex discrimination are disheartening. 42% of cases with admitted jurisdiction are withdrawn; 34% are ACAS conciliated (which does not mean a cash settlement is reached - it includes people who accept they have no claim and may be settled for nothing or a reference); 7% are struck out; - I could go on but the end of the line is that only 3% of cases win. It's pretty depressing reading

Uncertain

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Quite but even then I wouldn't expect settlements to be much differant because most companies will have gotten advice and been given the average payouts etc and what they could expect to lose. If anything if we took all payouts into account I would seriously expect the median and the average to drop rather than increase

Yes and no.

Most employers will be paying solicitors (and possibly a barrister). Even if they have an in house legal department this is probably charged internally.

Most claimants will be either self representing, using insurance, NWNF or a trade union. Very few will be paying themselves.

Let's say a £7K average claim will cost £10K in legal fees to vigourously defend (and this is modest indeed). It will cost the employer either £17K or £10K (or perhaps a lot more) plus whatever value they put on wasted staff time which can also be considerable. Depending on the case there may be some very negative publicity.

An early confidential settlement at £10K starts to look appealing to some mindsets. Others, I agree may be happy to spend £50K defending a £5K claim.

Googlewhacker

SarEl wrote: »

Quite true. Although the figures on sex discrimination are disheartening. 42% of cases with admitted jurisdiction are withdrawn; 34% are ACAS conciliated (which does not mean a cash settlement is reached - it includes people who accept they have no claim and may be settled for nothing or a reference); 7% are struck out; - I could go on but the end of the line is that only 3% of cases win. It's pretty depressing reading

Doesn't this just show that to many claiments are making spurious claims against the employers if the success rate is so low and that employees are making claims on their opinions rather than facts.

To me if I were the employer I would look at the 3% and fancy my chances of defending a tribunal whether or not I was guilty or not (unless it was very obvious I was guilty lol!) and even if you take into account the 34% that is still not even half loss rate

Googlewhacker

Uncertain wrote: »

Yes and no.

Most employers will be paying solicitors (and possibly a barrister). Even if they have an in house legal department this is probably charged internally.

Most claimants will be either self representing, using insurance, NWNF or a trade union. Very few will be paying themselves.

Let's say a £7K average claim will cost £10K in legal fees to vigourously defend (and this is modest indeed). It will cost the employer either £17K or £10K (or perhaps a lot more) plus whatever value they put on wasted staff time which can also be considerable. Depending on the case there may be some very negative publicity.

An early confidential settlement at £10K starts to look appealing to some mindsets. Others, I agree may be happy to spend £50K defending a £5K claim.

The thread hasn't been about costs as this is a seperate manner, the thread was about compensation that the OP could expect and at £7k they would have to determine whether or not the hassle is worth it for this amount when it is not even guaranteed.

As for the costs of the employers side which you have brought up, 1) In house legal teams will be paid whatever so the cost is irrelivant, 2) Some companies will have insurance and 3) as you say defending a tribunal means more than money sometimes

Edited to add that I do also agree that some employers will payout when thinking about all the costs whether they feel they will win or not

Uncertain

Googlewhacker wrote: »

The thread hasn't been about costs as this is a seperate manner..........

Suggest you read the original post again

SarEl

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Doesn't this just show that to many claiments are making spurious claims against the employers if the success rate is so low and that employees are making claims on their opinions rather than facts.

To me if I were the employer I would look at the 3% and fancy my chances of defending a tribunal whether or not I was guilty or not (unless it was very obvious I was guilty lol!) and even if you take into account the 34% that is still not even half loss rate

I agree with the second paragraph. Not the first. Yes, there are spruious claims - just as there are spurious defences. But in the main, there is something to the claim. The problem usually is - not enough. People often fail to realise that in discrimination claims, the burden of proof is not on the employer (unlike unfair dismissal - which interestingly has a much higher success rate). Initially the buurden of proof is on the claimant in discrimination cases, to prove that discrimination may have taken place. It is only at that point that the burden of proof shifts to the employer. It makes these cases very hard to win, becasue in the first instance the employer doesn't have to prove a thing.

The only cases with worse "win records" - constructive unfair dismissal. Where the burden of proof is entirely on the claimant throughout. In the latter case I think this balance is correct because of the circumstances of a resignation - otherwise half the employers in the country would be in tribunals all week and yes, a lot of the claims would be spurious. But in discrimination cases I think that the burden of proof on the claimant is too high - if an employer can show they haven't discriminated then they should be able to do so with relative ease.

SarEl

Uncertain wrote: »

Yes and no.

Most employers will be paying solicitors (and possibly a barrister). Even if they have an in house legal department this is probably charged internally.

Most claimants will be either self representing, using insurance, NWNF or a trade union. Very few will be paying themselves.

Let's say a £7K average claim will cost £10K in legal fees to vigourously defend (and this is modest indeed). It will cost the employer either £17K or £10K (or perhaps a lot more) plus whatever value they put on wasted staff time which can also be considerable. Depending on the case there may be some very negative publicity.

An early confidential settlement at £10K starts to look appealing to some mindsets. Others, I agree may be happy to spend £50K defending a £5K claim.

To put a slightly different point of view though - it cuts both ways. The reason why unions cannot afford to follow many cases to tribunal (which "annoys" a lot of members because they think it's their right) is for exactly the same reason some employers won't go. A unions legal fees for cases are usually far higher than their member (not them) will ever win. An employer will always expect to get their costs back - not through the tribunal, but through profits, through putting up charges, through insurance (if they have it). Unions are not bottomless coffers - they only have the money they have coming in from fees and services. For this reason unions can only afford to fight cases that they have good cause to think they will win. They cannot afford to back prospective losers (in case terms I mean!). But having less than a 50% chance of winning is not the same thing as loosing. Unfortunately, for union members, it is. (and, to be fair - for NWNF and insurance backed claims too).

Googlewhacker

Uncertain wrote: »

Suggest you read the original post again

I apologise....I did mean costs to the employer but didn't make that clear.

vic77en

Thanks for the posts. Has given me something to think about.

I had heard figures of around 3-4% success of winning constructive dismissal cases but 3% winning discrimination is a new one to me.

Right now, I plan to await their response and\or anything via ACAS and then decide next steps.

I know if it comes to settlement I won't get an acknowledgement of any wrongdoing but I am certain that they made their minds up within 5 minutes of my call to informally request part-time working and then spent months trying to justify their decision. I think it's partially a status thing with my department head as his number of "headcount" reflects his importance and a part-timer just doesn't count as much!

SarEl

vic77en wrote: »

Thanks for the posts. Has given me something to think about.

I had heard figures of around 3-4% success of winning constructive dismissal cases but 3% winning discrimination is a new one to me.

Right now, I plan to await their response and\or anything via ACAS and then decide next steps.

I know if it comes to settlement I won't get an acknowledgement of any wrongdoing but I am certain that they made their minds up within 5 minutes of my call to informally request part-time working and then spent months trying to justify their decision. I think it's partially a status thing with my department head as his number of "headcount" reflects his importance and a part-timer just doesn't count as much!

You are no doubt correct - but unfortunately what you believe does not count as evidence. Wait and see what happens, but don't take risks. Constructive unfair dismissal is considerably less than 3%. But I am afraid that even the best odds at tribunal aren't all that good! It isn't quite the goldmine that people think.