MP's briefing about Employment Tribunal fees

Well, I know we’ve banged the drum many times about ET fees but I think a recent briefing for MP's is worth a mention. The report is located at:

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07081/SN07081.pdf.

In a nutshell, the report confirms that:

• ET claims had been in a long-term decline before ET fees were introduced in July 2013; they rose at the height of recession in 2009/2010 but were declining again three to four years before ET fees were introduced

• Claims dropped by 67-69% after ET fees were introduced

• Fee remission (whereby a person can have the ET fees reduced in full or part, for example because they have a low income) was only applied for in 1/3^rd of ET claims (for issue fees) and of those applications, it was only granted in 39% of applications. This shows that the majority of Claimants have to pay full ET fees of as much as £1,200.00.

This again illustrates the drastic impact of ET fees on access to justice. It also reiterates our previous concern about the need for ET fees in the first place; with falling ET numbers, what rational basis was there for implementation?

David Sorensen - Partner

For further information on Employment Rights please visit our website or call 0033 3344 9603 and ask to speak with our Employment Rights team.

Trade Union Bill

The much publicised Trade Union Bill will not have escaped anyone’s attention. The government (ahead of more drastic cuts to public sectors which we know are coming) are seeking to greatly reduce trade unions’ ability to organise industrial action – and in the case of ‘important’ public services, effectively remove it.

Under the Bill, for a ballot on industrial action to be legal there must be a 50% turnout of all members. So an abstention will now be equivalent to a ‘no vote’. Further, if you work in health services, education, fire services, transport services, nuclear decommissioning and border security, a ballot on industrial action may well require 40% of those balloted to vote in favour of the action for it to be deemed lawful. Let’s look at the reality of this. 1,000 members are balloted regarding industrial action. 500 members vote – the first hurdle is passed. However, of the 1,000 members who were balloted, 400 (40%) must vote in favour of the industrial action. Therefore, out of the 500 members who voted, for industrial action to be lawful, 400 must vote in favour of it. That is 80% of the voters! Let us not forget that the current government who are bringing through this Bill won only 36% of the votes cast, representing less than 25% of the votes of eligible voters.  They would not be in power, by a shortfall of some 15%, under the test they now seek to apply.

Unfortunately the ideological attack doesn’t stop there. The government will have the power to limit the amount of facility time spent by trade unions in public services, thereby directly limiting the union’s ability to represent their members and assist them in enforcing their statutory rights – clearly, restricting employees’ access to justice with swingeing employment tribunal fees didn’t go far enough. As part of the Bill, Trade Unions will also be required to provide annual reports to the Certification Officer (“CO”) with details of all industrial action and the use of political funds. Numerous restrictions and requirements will be implemented regarding picketing, the duration of strike mandates, and information that must be entered on ballot papers, to name but a few. One clear result of these measures will be an increased financial cost to the Trade Unions in carrying out any industrial action. And should they fail to meet any of these new arbitrary hurdles, the CO will have the power to fine them.

The government has also seen fit to change the opt-out requirements regarding the use of political funds. Currently trade union members are balloted providing them with the opportunity to opt-out of part of their subscriptions going towards political funds. Under the Bill, members will instead be required to opt-in to their funds being used in this way, and they must do so every 5 years. It is widely known that opt-in processes reduce participation. The result - a restriction in trade unions’ ability to engage in political debates, and to support the party or parties that support them,  We see no similar restriction on the ability of millionaire hedge-fund managers to donate as they wish, to support the parties that they prefer.

Paul Scholey - Senior Partner

For further information on Employment Rights please visit our website or call 0033 3344 9603 and ask to speak with our Employment Rights team.