Employment tribunal time limits

lemonjelly

I see the tories want to raise the qualifying criteria for going to an ET back to 2 years.

Such a backward step. It seems that they will trot the "for the sake of the economy" line for any excuse now.

This isn't about regenerating the economy. It is about giving employers a significant advantage & hold over their employees. It is a further erosion of the rights of workers.

Surely 1 year is a sufficient timescale to work out whether or not an employee is suitable or not?

Surely if you go through a thorough & detailed recruitment process, you will select the most suitable, best equipped candidate?

Surely if you have an employee underperforming, you have systems in place to manage this, take disciplinary action, ultimately leading to dismissal if this is the case?

Kennyboy66

lemonjelly wrote: »

I see the tories want to raise the qualifying criteria for going to an ET back to 2 years.

Such a backward step. It seems that they will trot the "for the sake of the economy" line for any excuse now.

This isn't about regenerating the economy. It is about giving employers a significant advantage & hold over their employees. It is a further erosion of the rights of workers.

Surely 1 year is a sufficient timescale to work out whether or not an employee is suitable or not?

Surely if you go through a thorough & detailed recruitment process, you will select the most suitable, best equipped candidate?

Surely if you have an employee underperforming, you have systems in place to manage this, take disciplinary action, ultimately leading to dismissal if this is the case?

Given the choice would you rather be employed directly with 2 year wait - or be employed via an agency ?

Thrugelmir

lemonjelly wrote: »

I see the tories want to raise the qualifying criteria for going to an ET back to 2 years.

In what context?

MacMickster

They have also announced that a fee will be charged to bring a case before an employment tribunal, to be refunded if the applicant wins. The exact opposite of no-win, no-fee.

I'm sure that this will deter many would be applicants (usually in reduced financial circumstances from having just lost a job) from making a claim against their former employers.

Thrugelmir

MacMickster wrote: »

They have also announced that a fee will be charged to bring a case before an employment tribunal, to be refunded if the applicant wins. The exact opposite of no-win, no-fee.

I'm sure that this will deter many would be applicants (usually in reduced financial circumstances from having just lost a job) from making a claim against their former employers.

The cost of wasted time let alone the expenses of utilising an employment solicitor for a business is also enormous. Taking an employer to a tribunal does not require one to be dismissed.

Few companies conduct exit interviews when employees resign. This would alleviate many of the issues that arise.

The UK needs a significant change of cultural attitude to compete in the global marketplace.

lemonjelly

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

Given the choice would you rather be employed directly with 2 year wait - or be employed via an agency ?

I have never had the misfortune to work via an agency. I pray that continues.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

In what context?

For unfair dismissal claims, though no doubt time limits for all no statutory claims will be shifted to 2 years.

Thrugelmir

lemonjelly wrote: »

For unfair dismissal claims, though no doubt time limits for all no statutory claims will be shifted to 2 years.

There's a lengthy formal process that has to be followed through to effect dismissal in the first place. During this period, relationships tend to degenerate between the parties. So often the employee seeks alternative employment.

Kennyboy66

MacMickster wrote: »

They have also announced that a fee will be charged to bring a case before an employment tribunal, to be refunded if the applicant wins. The exact opposite of no-win, no-fee.

I'm sure that this will deter many would be applicants (usually in reduced financial circumstances from having just lost a job) from making a claim against their former employers.

They have said that low paid / unwaged may be exempt from a fee.

I have the misfortune of having to listen to a local Liverpool commercial music station at the kids insistance.

40% of the adverts are for personal injury / accident / workplace lawyers.

No doubt heavily coaching their 'clients'.

Conrad

lemonjelly wrote: »

This isn't about regenerating the economy.

/QUOTE]


It is about removing barriers to growth.

Above all an unemployed person has a right to a job and this is more important than having fewer jobs with more rights.

It's an old arrogant western notion that somehow the world consumer owes us and is prepared to pay for such high minded indugences.

The balance is being adjusted in favour of job creation. I for one did not set up in business to have additional and unnecessary worries. I have kids to think about and therefore anything that reduces the stress of being an employer is a positive. Doesn't matter how good an employer one is, a certain section of the population will always try on a tribunal and even if it is tenous, the worry is still unwelcome, so the net result is people like me just take less people on.

lemonjelly

If a business wants to remove a barrier to growth, then I'd suggest that they show due diligence & give recruitment & selection of staff the thoroughness it deserves, and makes sure they get it right!

If they are going to invest in wages, time, training etcetera, then make sure you get the right one.

Don't recruit any old so&so with the thinking that you can get rid at any time in the next 22.5 months.

You are an employer conrad. Do you not recruit because they get rights after 12 months? Do you sack them after 10 months to prevent them getting these rights?

Employee rights is not a barrier to growth.

However, lack of job security is a barrier to growth. If I am aware that my position as an employee is protected, I am more likely to go out & spend!

ILW

lemonjelly wrote: »

If a business wants to remove a barrier to growth, then I'd suggest that they show due diligence & give recruitment & selection of staff the thoroughness it deserves, and makes sure they get it right!

If they are going to invest in wages, time, training etcetera, then make sure you get the right one.

Don't recruit any old so&so with the thinking that you can get rid at any time in the next 22.5 months.

You are an employer conrad. Do you not recruit because they get rights after 12 months? Do you sack them after 10 months to prevent them getting these rights?

Employee rights is not a barrier to growth.

However, lack of job security is a barrier to growth. If I am aware that my position as an employee is protected, I am more likely to go out & spend!

If you think your job is at risk, you are likely to work harder.

The micro business I work with decided around 5 years ago to stop employing any outside people and just go with the directors. It was just too much risk and hassle. You will find many small businesses have the same attitude.