Employment Tribunal Claims See 'dramatic' Rise As Downturn Bites

[Realistbear]

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/employment-tribunal-claims-see-dramatic-rise-as-downturn-bites-tele-824e0af4837d.html?x=0

Employment tribunal claims see 'dramatic' rise as downturn bites

Louisa Peacock, Jobs Editor, 18:03, Thursday 8 July 2010

The number of tribunal claims has soared by 56pc as the recession and an era of multiple claimant cases bites, the latest statistics have shown.

Figures released by the Tribunals Service on Wednesday revealed a sharp rise in the number of claims brought against employers in England, Scotland and Wales. A total of 236,100 cases were lodged in the 12 months to the end of March 2010, up from 151,000 claims in the preceding 12 months.

The big move to austerity may be all quiet now but give it a few more months and mass discontent will rise up and the troubles will begin.

[hilltop]

I am very diillusioned with the Employment Tribunal system.

The good Judges are too busy doing the administration and you are likely to end up infront of a solicitor doing the job on a daily rate.

They are probably OK on an area of law they know, but seem pretty limited.

The Lay members seem thick and prejudiced.

If you are taking on a public body without representation, probably not much chance as they have unlimited resources. After all, if they lose, someone could lose a bonus.

Lawyers as ever, are recession proof.

[The Masked Tulip]

...and soon the divorce rate will follow....

[Fudge]

I am very diillusioned with the Employment Tribunal system.

The good Judges are too busy doing the administration and you are likely to end up infront of a solicitor doing the job on a daily rate.

They are probably OK on an area of law they know, but seem pretty limited.

The Lay members seem thick and prejudiced.

If you are taking on a public body without representation, probably not much chance as they have unlimited resources. After all, if they lose, someone could lose a bonus.

Lawyers as ever, are recession proof.

Which is why people should be in a union.

[Shmoo]

The main reason for the large increase in tribunal claims is the rise in multi-party equal pay claims. These claims have nothing to do with the economy.

[hilltop]

Which is why people should be in a union.

Unemployed people cannot join a Union. Otherwise I agree.

[Fudge]

Unemployed people cannot join a Union. Otherwise I agree.

They should have been in a union before they become unemployed and the union would have provided legal support and represention in an Employment Tribunal. There are also Unemployed Workers Unions

TUC Unemployed Workers Centres

Edited July 8, 2010 by Fudge

[hilltop]

They should have been in a union before they become unemployed and the union would have provided legal support and represention in an Employment Tribunal. There are also Unemployed Workers Unions

TUC Unemployed Workers Centres

None of those centres anywhere near me, comrade.

And if yoiu have never been employed, the unions do not want to know.

[Nickolarge]

And if yoiu have never been employed, the unions do not want to know.

By that do you mean never worked or never worked for an employer?

[Potwalloper]

They should have been in a union

It's always 'should' with you lot.

I'd rather take responsibility myself, thanks.

[hilltop]

By that do you mean never worked or never worked for an employer?

I mean never worked for an employer with a representative Trades Union.

[Nickolarge]

I mean never worked for an employer with a representative Trades Union.

That would have been your choice. Some people call that 'freedom'. The true story is more likely to be that the employer effectively stopped the unions getting involved. You suggested that the unions did not want to know you and that does not square with my recollection of union attitudes to non union firms and their employees.

[Tonkers]

My employment tribunal was accepted this week. I was looking at the stats and very few actually get to the hearing stage, most being settled or refused. A large amount of new cases appear to be from BA staff and working time directive legislation, they get denied and appeal.

My employer broke every rule in the book when he fired me, every rule, and gave me no choice really, going to court is the last thing you want to do! To fire me he made up some professionally damaging lies, and it will be amusing seeing him try to prove them at a public hearing, committing perjury in the process. My favourite is that he fired me at a disciplinary hearing - one which I was unaware of and appears to have been a meeting with himself! Think he'll win?

Edited July 9, 2010 by Tonkers

[Harold Bishop]

Think he'll win?

If you go all the way to a hearing, you may win but your compensation may be trivial if the tribunal consider you are partially responsible for your dismissal. You win, win peanuts and because you've won, you cannot appeal. This is also good for the overloaded system as it completes and files cases. Be careful what you wish for.

[lurker07]

If you go all the way to a hearing, you may win but your compensation may be trivial if the tribunal consider you are partially responsible for your dismissal. You win, win peanuts and because you've won, you cannot appeal. This is also good for the overloaded system as it completes and files cases. Be careful what you wish for.

Reading Tonker's case, what exactly is the alternative?

[Tonkers]

If you go all the way to a hearing, you may win but your compensation may be trivial if the tribunal consider you are partially responsible for your dismissal. You win, win peanuts and because you've won, you cannot appeal. This is also good for the overloaded system as it completes and files cases. Be careful what you wish for.

This is the worry, on procedure the case is won. However, he has no evidence whatsoever as a base for his accusations, but I am concerned about the 'no smoke without fire' attitude. To date, not one person, which include my previous clients, back up his allegations, made with malicious intent to destroy my career. I have proved beyond doubt that his reasons for firing me are false, so I am hopeful. I am not the first person to have had this man attempt to destroy their working lives with his lies, hopefully I will be the last.

[Harold Bishop]

.. his lies..

If it goes to a hearing, you can be sure that all sorts of lies will be told ; the ones you've already heard and new ones. You may win with a limited financial award and this will be seen as a very good result by your employer. You have to judge whether this possible result is reward enough for standing up for your principles, employment track record and the psychological and financial pressure the case will put you under.

[Harold Bishop]

Reading Tonker's case, what exactly is the alternative?

Settle before the hearing, walk away, get another job, start a business, re-train, go through with the hearing and 1. loose 2. win with minor financial compensation and no appeal 3. win with big financial compensation and face an appeal by the employer against the result.

There are other options but HM prisons and their residents are pretty unpleasant.

[hilltop]

That would have been your choice. Some people call that 'freedom'. The true story is more likely to be that the employer effectively stopped the unions getting involved. You suggested that the unions did not want to know you and that does not square with my recollection of union attitudes to non union firms and their employees.

Personally, I was an active Trades Unionist, Branch Chairman no less.

I was reporting the experience of my son, who has a disability, who had only three and a half months work in nearly four years.

[hilltop]

Reading Tonker's case, what exactly is the alternative?

ACAS will already have offered their services. Try and engage through them. They can conciliate a settlement, including getting you a reference.

Some Tribunals will not like the side which was not prepared to meet at ACAS. Meeeting through them will also help you explore the employers position and strength of argument.

A big question is who your employer is. A private sector employer sees the costs hit bottom line. Public sector have all the money in the world to defend their incompetence and reputation. If the latter, you really should have been in the Union.

[Guest PenelopePitstop]

I was once dismissed while I was off sick having a miscarriage (twins!!). £20k. Thank you very much!!

Edited July 9, 2010 by PenelopePitstop

[MrPants]

I don't see the need for all this employment protection legislation and the attendant circus of lawyers, tribunals etc. Jst seems like a lot of unnecessary waste, burdens on business and disincentives for employers to hire new staff.

Surely if you no longer want someone to work for you that's all the justification you need to stop hiring them, in the same way as they can choose to leave your company and work elsewhere if they feel they'd be better off that way. There's no need for the State to be involved in this decision.

It's a bit like Asda trying to sue me if I started shopping at Tescos instead.

Edited July 9, 2010 by MrPants

[Tonkers]

If it goes to a hearing, you can be sure that all sorts of lies will be told ; the ones you've already heard and new ones. You may win with a limited financial award and this will be seen as a very good result by your employer. You have to judge whether this possible result is reward enough for standing up for your principles, employment track record and the psychological and financial pressure the case will put you under.

Thank you for your words on this, it is one of the scariest things I have done, at great financial risk.

Thing is, if he did not want me in the company any more, he only had to ask! However, as is his MO, he has attempted to create a drama which has backfired. I honestly cannot work out what he thought would happen, his own solicitors warned him not to do it. (I have this in writing!) So he knows he is going to lose, and any financial award is then out of his hands, I cannot work out why he is carrying on. It's got everyone I know perplexed.

[Tonkers]

I don't see the need for all this employment protection legislation and the attendant circus of lawyers, tribunals etc. Jst seems like a lot of unnecessary waste, burdens on business and disincentives for employers to hire new staff.

Surely if you no longer want someone to work for you that's all the justification you need to stop hiring them, in the same way as they can choose to leave your company and work elsewhere if they feel they'd be better off that way. There's no need for the State to be involved in this decision.

It's a bit like Asda trying to sue me if I started shopping at Tescos instead.

No employer should be able to fire you on made up accusations just because he feels like it! I was not fired because of my work., but because the guy thinks he is Zeus.

[hilltop]

I don't see the need for all this employment protection legislation and the attendant circus of lawyers, tribunals etc. Jst seems like a lot of unnecessary waste, burdens on business and disincentives for employers to hire new staff.

The system was sensible when it started. Cheap rough justice, quite informal.

Then the lawyers got hold of it and made it convoluted, expensive and difficult.

ACAS is an alternative but a Hospital Trust refused to meet through it in case they were made to settle.

Insted they spent £30,000 beating us to pulp in a Tribunal. £30,000 of public money.