Employers To Be Fined 50Pc Of Award If They Lose Employment Tribunals

[interestrateripoff]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8289578/Employers-to-be-fined-50pc-of-award-if-they-lose-employment-tribunals.html

Employers that lose an employment tribunal case would be fined 50pc of the award under an “astonishing” proposal buried within a new Government consultation.

Organisations found to have breached an individual’s rights would be forced to pay the Exchequer half the amount of the total compensation award, on top of the payout itself, according to the proposal introduced on page 52 of the 88-page document.

The plans threaten to undermine David Cameron’s “pro-business, pro-growth” agenda, lobby groups warned.

An upper limit of £5,000 is being considered, reduced by half for employers that pay within 21 days. It would be the first time organisations would be penalised for losing a case.

Business groups are stunned by the measure which sits within the same document that pledges to “remove barriers to growth and job creation”. It also comes alongside the Government’s new Employer’s Charter, aimed at reducing the burden of employment law.

Manufacturers’ organisation the EEF branded the proposal a “revenue generator”. Steve Radley, director of policy, said: “On the day Government announced an Employer’s Charter to reassure business about the balance of employment legislation, it undermined this principle by burying a potential new tax at the back of a lengthy consultation. [The fine] would impose extra costs at a time when companies are already under immense pressure.”

Tax revenues falling then create new taxes and look for ways of ensuring people can't get out of paying.

Anyone know how many cases are won by employees each year? The on the back of a fag pocket guess at how much revenue this tax could bring in is?

[exiges]

So much for helping business then.

[interestrateripoff]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8288800/Average-discrimination-tribunal-payouts.html

Last year, the most expensive discrimination payout came from a disability case, where the employer was ordered to pay £730,000 to the claimant. Sex discrimination was the second biggest payout, with a £440,000 award. The 56pc rise in tribunals year-on-year has lead to employers becoming increasingly nervous about how much they might be forced to pay if they lost their case at tribunal.

Here we look at the maximum and average tribunal payout in discrimination cases.

Disability discrimination

Maximum award: £729,347

Average award: £52,087

Sex discrimination

Maximum award: £442,366

Average award: £19,499

Race discrimination

Maximum award: £374,922

Average award: £18,584

Sexual orientation discrimination

Maximum award: £163,725

Average award: £20,384

Age discrimination

Maximum award: £48,710

Average award: £10,931

Religious discrimination

Maximum award: £9,500

Average award: £4,886

Looking at these figures that's lots of potential £5,000 for Mr Taxman.

[interestrateripoff]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1351274/So-does-saucy-office-banter-cross-legal-line.html

THE LEWD REMARK

In the open-plan office of a government department, Miss X leaves her desk to go to the ladies’. On the way, she passes a group of men at the water cooler. They are discussing the ­previous night’s I’m A Celebrity, Get My Out Of Here, in which a sexy starlet has taken a Myleene-Klass-style shower in a revealing bikini.

‘Did you see the boobs on her?’ one of the men drools. As the others laugh, another man says: ‘You wouldn’t say no, would you?’ Even though they were not directed at Miss X or meant for her hearing, the woman overhears these remarks and is deeply offended.

The lawyer’s view: It’s irrelevant that the men’s comments were not directed at Miss X. The fact that she knows what they’re talking about and is offended could constitute harassment. She could report the offence to her superiors, claim for sex ­discrimination, or resign and claim constructive dismissal as well as discrimination.

She can claim constructive dismissal only if she’s been with her employer for at least a year, whereas she can claim sex discrimination after a single day in the job. If she makes a discrimination claim but stays in her job, the most she can expect is a few thousand pounds for hurt feelings.

I assume stuff like this would be covered with this new tax, the govt will no doubt be ramping your rights in not being offended and giving out advice to employees to claim to make the workplace a lovely dull place to work with no banter.

This could be a massive revenue generator for govt. If you've been offended at work remember where's there offence there's a claim.

A whole new breed of TV ads will be flooding our TV screens.

[Misanthrope]

28,500 or 13% of all accepted jurisdiction cases were successful at tribunal between April 09 and March 2010.

Full breakdown from the official source:

http://www.employmenttribunals.gov.uk/Documents/Publications/ET_EAT_AnnualStats_Apr09_Mar10.pdf

[interestrateripoff]

28,500 or 13% of all accepted jurisdiction cases were successful at tribunal between April 09 and March 2010.

Full breakdown from the official source:

http://www.employmenttribunals.gov.uk/Documents/Publications/ET_EAT_AnnualStats_Apr09_Mar10.pdf

So that would produce £142,500,000 if the maximum of £5000 is applied.

If this goes through it will be interesting to see if more complaints then get upheld.

[Cinnamon]

Looks like freelance contracting will be the only way of working anywhere soon as no company can afford to employ anyone anymore...

[Xurbia]

This will be great for outsourcing companies. Just make sure you employ all your one-legged, black, disabled, pregnant, lesbian, trade-union-type malcontents offshore.

Who would be a company owner in Britain? There are more ways to fail then succeed. British companies cannot compete.

[Xurbia]

Looks like freelance contracting will be the only way of working anywhere soon as no company can afford to employ anyone anymore...

This would make sense but you know freelancers will get stung again. The Revenue and government will think up some additional ways to screw you. You'll have more risk than reward. I'm sure the accountants will love all the extra hours though.

[Xurbia]

Is there insurance, companies can take out to cover these sorts of risks?

Yes, you move the company abroad!

I personally know a person who defrauded 2 different companies with sexual harrassment claims. It's a nice little moneyspinner. Many companies will settle up without a fight. They are in business to make widgets, not fight legal battles.

Britain is a soft touch.

[HPC001]

Maybe I should have sued for discrimination, those payouts are obscene. So much for being honest and just trying to get paid for work done...

[Kurt Barlow]

Maybe I should have sued for discrimination, those payouts are obscene. So much for being honest and just trying to get paid for work done...

Yes - but most awards are nowhere near the maximum levels.

I actually think this is a good thing. It won't effect good employers at all. It will simply be an additional penalty on bad employers for not complying with our relatively weak and (favourable to the employer) employment laws or agreed contractual terms.

I would have loved my former employer to have had another £11.5K levied against them. Then again it was tax payers money, cost them over £100K in total, and they didn't give a fook

[Kurt Barlow]

Yes, you move the company abroad!

I personally know a person who defrauded 2 different companies with sexual harrassment claims. It's a nice little moneyspinner. Many companies will settle up without a fight. They are in business to make widgets, not fight legal battles.

Britain is a soft touch.

No doubt they settled on commercial terms before the tribunal? If so more fool them and no wonder such a compo culture is building in the UK.

[Democorruptcy]

If they change the law to make it easier for employers to sack people, there will be less point in employees taking employers to a tribunal. Therefore most firms won't have to pay the fine.

[Kurt Barlow]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1351274/So-does-saucy-office-banter-cross-legal-line.html

I assume stuff like this would be covered with this new tax, the govt will no doubt be ramping your rights in not being offended and giving out advice to employees to claim to make the workplace a lovely dull place to work with no banter.

This could be a massive revenue generator for govt. If you've been offended at work remember where's there offence there's a claim.

A whole new breed of TV ads will be flooding our TV screens.

Get a grip - cases like these never get anywhere near the tribunal they are filtered out long before as not having any chance of success.

Overhearing a 'sexist / saucy remark' does not amount to substantive sexual discrimination. Furthermore in discrimination cases the burden of proof is on the claimant so harder to achieve than say unfair dismissal where the BOP is the balance of probability.

[HPC001]

I dont follow?

An employer dismissed me arbritarily without paying me for the previous month, after almost 16 months of legal wrangling he paid up. The fact I was out of a job obviously had further implications for my survival, I was too young and inexperienced to have built up any appreciable savings.

These tribunal payouts make me wonder whether I'd been had to be honest...

[Kurt Barlow]

If they change the law to make it easier for employers to sack people, there will be less point in employees taking employers to a tribunal. Therefore most firms won't have to pay the fine.

Meanwhile banksters, CEO's, Senior Public Servants write themselves every more generous contractual severence terms.

I think we can see where this is going

[SNACR]

If they change the law to make it easier for employers to sack people, there will be less point in employees taking employers to a tribunal. Therefore most firms won't have to pay the fine.

I'm wholly unconvinced by the coalition that it's a good idea to be taking on staff even if this is the case.

In fact as has been mentioned in a valedictory speech by Richard Lambert and by Will Self on Question Time. The government seems incapable of articulating, in any coherent manner, what its grand plan is for the UK economy.

Cameron and Osborne come across as a couple of unworldly public schoolboys who decided they wanted to be Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, for no better reason than, because it would look good on their UCAS forms.

[Democorruptcy]

Cameron and Osborne come across as a couple of unworldly public schoolboys who decided they wanted to be Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, for no better reason than, because it would look good on their UCAS forms.

LOL.

I think it might be because they felt it might be like winning a lot of lotteries.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/celebrity/article.html?in_article_id=503845&in_page_id=181

[Xurbia]

No doubt they settled on commercial terms before the tribunal? If so more fool them and no wonder such a compo culture is building in the UK.

I'm not even sure either went to tribunal. One involved soft porn found on the network server. She had secured employment elsewhere before putting in the claim. She got 5K for that incident. At her next port of call she was sent a single provocative email. I don't know how much the settlement was but it was enough to buy a car. I actually believed her when I heard about the first incident. It was when she was showing me her new car and joking about it I understood the truth.

I've been in offices where women have touched my backside and given me a cheeky wink. Fortunately none of the women in question were ugly, so I didn't have to bring in my lawyers!

One guy in my office took 200 days off sick. How do you get away with it? The company still continued to employ him. I wouldn't employ people if I had to run another company back in England. If the employee has more rights than the employer it's time to close the business. The taxation rules are burden enough to most small businesses. Enough is enough.

[Xurbia]

Meanwhile banksters, CEO's, Senior Public Servants write themselves every more generous contractual severence terms.

I think we can see where this is going

The same way as Egypt?

[Kurt Barlow]

I'm not even sure either went to tribunal. One involved soft porn found on the network server. She had secured employment elsewhere before putting in the claim. She got 5K for that incident. At her next port of call she was sent a single provocative email. I don't know how much the settlement was but it was enough to buy a car. I actually believed her when I heard about the first incident. It was when she was showing me her new car and joking about it I understood the truth.

I've been in offices where women have touched my backside and given me a cheeky wink. Fortunately none of the women in question were ugly, so I didn't have to bring in my lawyers!

One guy in my office took 200 days off sick. How do you get away with it? The company still continued to employ him. I wouldn't employ people if I had to run another company back in England. If the employee has more rights than the employer it's time to close the business. The taxation rules are burden enough to most small businesses. Enough is enough.

So exactly as I suggested . The companies in both cases bottled it rather than challenging the claim. Prima Facie in both cases you describe had this even got to tribunal then it would have been thrown out unless the claimant could somehow demonstrate the comapny was complicit in either of the incidents or failed to react once it was aware.

I agree on the sickness issue however again its about having the balls to follow procedure and dismiss. I took a job in Local goverment in 2006 and immediately inherited a guy who had averaged 1 day in 3 off sick in the previous 6 years. Again he failed to meet set targets for sick leave and I went for dismissal. Internal appeal board used the absence of one set of records from a back to work interview as an excuse not to dismiss. Any tribunal would have upheld the decision

[exiges]

No doubt they settled on commercial terms before the tribunal? If so more fool them and no wonder such a compo culture is building in the UK.

If it costs more to defend and win than just settle, why would a company fight it for over a pyrrhic victory.

They have better things to do, like run their business.

When it comes to tribunals, the odds are stacked massively/solely in favour of the employee, they have nothing to lose, everything to gain. The employer has nothing to gain, and can only lose.

[Tonkers]

My ex employer should be punished in this manner for defending themselves even with all the evidence against them. They are wasting the tribunals time.

[6538]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8289578/Employers-to-be-fined-50pc-of-award-if-they-lose-employment-tribunals.html

Tax revenues falling then create new taxes and look for ways of ensuring people can't get out of paying.

Anyone know how many cases are won by employees each year? The on the back of a fag pocket guess at how much revenue this tax could bring in is?

It's maybe jusifiable in extreme cases but what does it achieve other than raising a bit of money? The employment tribunal is supposed to be for the employee to get a settlement so why not give it to them? I thinbk it will backfire and have consequenses for the employee. There are often lots of issues in an employment tribunal, not all of which the winner is successful with as you only need to prove your case on the balance of probabilities, ie; 51%. there will still likely be lots that the employee cannot prove and instances where he will have done something wrong. If the employer is going to incur even more costs if it looses then there will be an increased incentive to sue the employee if he has breached his contract in any way.

I have to say that many, many employees take the p1ss and try a claim simply because they can. You are essentially guaranteed your day in court so there is very little to loose. Even the most pathetic cases get to the tribunal yet there is no suggestion that employees should take it up ther @rse when they loose their zero merit case. I did an investigation for a mate who had an employee resign on spurious grounds and pretty much everything this person claimed was easily dismissed. It subsequantly came out that the person in question had been taking the p1ss for years and had lied and lied and lied and had even hidden very important information from the employer. The tribunal is still entertaining the Construcftive Unfair Dismissal case though whereas they should, in my opinion, have kicked it out immediately.