Government considering new employment laws

bap98189

According to the BBC: The government is said to be considering ways to make the labour market more flexible, including making it easier for small firms to hire and fire staff.

It is expected to launch a consultation later this week to consider a range of reforms. Among them is a potential doubling - to two years - of the length of time someone must be employed before they can bring an unfair dismissal claim.

Another possibility would be to require anyone bringing a case to an employment tribunal to pay a fee, returnable if they win, in an effort to discourage spurious claims.

This strikes me as something that is going to be popular with employers and rather less so with employees. Is the current balance right, or is the government right to consider changing the law?

Hammyman

I am so glad I don't employ anyone. Its a flaming nightmare for an employer.

Mudd14

I agree with a fee for bringing and employment tribunal like what is done with claiming through the small claims court. I have dealt with a number of tribunals that are built on accusation with no substance that can easily be seen they have no running distance. However we still must refer them to our solicitor at our costs only for the claim to be dropped leaving us with a solicitor fee. A claim against the individual for the fees is often struck out at the first chance by a judge.

Uncertain

Hammyman wrote: »

I am so glad I don't employ anyone. Its a flaming nightmare for an employer.

Only if they don't do things properly - in which case they get what they deserve.

Uncertain

Mudd14 wrote: »

However we still must refer them to our solicitor at our costs only for the claim to be dropped leaving us with a solicitor fee.

Why "must" - your choice if you want to pay for professional advice or not.

This is half the problem. Employment (Industrial as they were) tribunals were originally intended to be more informal. Like the small claims court it was not intended that parties would normally be legally represented.

Obviously, like small claims, you have a right to be represented if you choose but don't cry about the cost of your own choices.

LittleVoice

Of course, the last time the Conservatives were in Government they quadrupled the time someone had to be employed before being able to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The Labour government then halved it to one year.

Uncertain

Mudd14 wrote: »

A claim against the individual for the fees is often struck out at the first chance by a judge.

Despite the disgraceful tactics displayed by many solicitors, costs are only a possibility if the case is vexatious or wholly without merit.

In my view there should be a significant penalty for making groundless threats about costs.

Mudd14

Uncertain - our choice is to not use a professional and lose a claim through inexperience or pay a professional and have a better chnace of winning.

And regarding threats of costs this is not something we do at every claim, only ones like you say are 'vexatious or wholly without merit'.

Although I am pleased since I have worked at the company there has only be one (massive decrease) tribunal for an unpaid wages, again which is completley untrue and the last hearing date the claimants did not show up so was postponed and no one can now contact them! Yet we are the ones who must keep turning up at a tribunal at our costs!

Googlewhacker

bap98189 wrote: »

According to the BBC: The government is said to be considering ways to make the labour market more flexible, including making it easier for small firms to hire and fire staff.

It is expected to launch a consultation later this week to consider a range of reforms. Among them is a potential doubling - to two years - of the length of time someone must be employed before they can bring an unfair dismissal claim.

Another possibility would be to require anyone bringing a case to an employment tribunal to pay a fee, returnable if they win, in an effort to discourage spurious claims.

This strikes me as something that is going to be popular with employers and rather less so with employees. Is the current balance right, or is the government right to consider changing the law?

Fantastic ideas, especially the spurious claims one. Bout time!

They should also increase the discrimination cases from 0 years to 1 year as well because it is far to easy for people to cry discrimination against a new employer.

Googlewhacker

Uncertain wrote: »

Only if they don't do things properly - in which case they get what they deserve.

There are so many things to do as an employer that even the best ones still get things wrong, for example unions getting sued by their own.

SarEl

Oh good grief, what century are we in? It's amazing that we can feel for the poor employer who has to get so many things right - and not for the poor employee who has to get everything right - even when the employer is wrong. Employers are in business for the profit (and solicitors fees are part of the costs, if they require them which 99% of won't if they abide by the law). Employees, when thrown out of a job for no reason, have nothing. It is a fundamental of British law that people have the right to justice (not that I am sure employment tribunals, or even other courts, serve up justice) without regard to their means. This proposal denies them that. It may not be you today - but it may be you tomorrow. It is estimated ( and there is official information to back this up - tribunals do compare notes) that there are about half a dozen "serial claimants" in the UK. Who get short shrift from the system. That is compared to thousands of claimants every year who genuinely beileve that they have a case. OK, many of them don't - not because what happened to them was fair, but because it was fair in law. They may be wrong (in law) but they are not evil and they are not vexatious. They are simply naive enough to think that the law and justice or fairness are the same thing. If employers treat their employees fairly and with justice, then they have absolutely nothing to fear from tribunals - whether it is on day 1, year 1, or the first decade. The shame is that, as we see all to often on here (in case anyone has forgotten) the same is not true for employees, who are treated for the first year of their employment as disposable items - and by some few employers as disposable items for their whole time.