Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

£1200 To Make An Employment Tribunal Claim

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23482520

The union Unison has been given permission to seek a judicial review of the introduction of fees for workers seeking employment tribunals.

People wanting to bring tribunals must now pay a fee for the first time since they were created in the 1960s.

Under the rules, it will cost £160 or £250 to lodge a claim, with a further charge of either £230 or £950 if the case goes ahead.

The judicial review will take place in October.

...

Protection fears

Under changes that came into force on Monday, workers in the UK are now charged a fee to bring a claim, a fee if the claim is heard and a further charge if they want to appeal against the decision.

In the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the fees are £400 to lodge an appeal and another £1,200 for a full hearing.

It certainly appears a great way of ensuring those in low paid jobs will just become cannon fodder as they won't have the money to challenge an unfair dismissal. Once more only the rich will have the protection of the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took an ex employer to tribunal for unfair dismissal as did several other colleagues,(FTSE 100).I had 4 months off with cancer when the redundancies happened and I got the bullet.Everyone else settled for £500.

I decided to call for witness ex bosses who were then in the US/China etc knowing the cost would be huge.In the end the day before trial they kept upping the settle offer and in the end I took a good payout only because if I lost I risked losing my house.

The thing is though I was right.I was made redundant by 1 point on the score but lost 39 points for time off with cancer.The system is/was already banked heavily against workers,now it will only be for the rich.

As a small business owner now I can understand how much it does affect small companies,but the big boys will be rubbing their hands,touch your toes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took an ex employer to tribunal for unfair dismissal as did several other colleagues,(FTSE 100).I had 4 months off with cancer when the redundancies happened and I got the bullet.Everyone else settled for £500.

I decided to call for witness ex bosses who were then in the US/China etc knowing the cost would be huge.In the end the day before trial they kept upping the settle offer and in the end I took a good payout only because if I lost I risked losing my house.

The thing is though I was right.I was made redundant by 1 point on the score but lost 39 points for time off with cancer.The system is/was already banked heavily against workers,now it will only be for the rich.

As a small business owner now I can understand how much it does affect small companies,but the big boys will be rubbing their hands,touch your toes.

There's a case for having different rules for small business, just because it has more impact on the business and - anecdotaly at least - given the 2-year limit already in place, you are unlikely to get to 2 years with one of the nuttier small business owners. Whereas the bigger companies are more likely to end up promoting idiots/psychos/both into positions of power where they make unfair dismissals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hear, hear, justice is far too good for proles. And when those of us with substantial means turn up the tribunals will fawn all over us and we will just inflate the claim to cover the fees anyway.

Edited by Nationalist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hear, hear, justice is far too good for proles. And when those of us with substantial means turn up the tribunals will fawn all over us and we will just inflate the claim to cover the fees anyway.

They are hacking away at legal aid as well.

Honestly, you'd think they were trying to turn most of the population into heavily indebted, fearful serfs who dare not raise their voice for fear of destitution..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took an ex employer to tribunal for unfair dismissal as did several other colleagues,(FTSE 100).I had 4 months off with cancer when the redundancies happened and I got the bullet.Everyone else settled for £500.

I decided to call for witness ex bosses who were then in the US/China etc knowing the cost would be huge.In the end the day before trial they kept upping the settle offer and in the end I took a good payout only because if I lost I risked losing my house.

The thing is though I was right.I was made redundant by 1 point on the score but lost 39 points for time off with cancer.The system is/was already banked heavily against workers,now it will only be for the rich.

As a small business owner now I can understand how much it does affect small companies,but the big boys will be rubbing their hands,touch your toes.

A county court like small fees, e.g. £80 would likely to prevent some abuses, £1200 is definitely too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took an ex employer to tribunal for unfair dismissal as did several other colleagues,(FTSE 100).I had 4 months off with cancer when the redundancies happened and I got the bullet.Everyone else settled for £500.

I decided to call for witness ex bosses who were then in the US/China etc knowing the cost would be huge.In the end the day before trial they kept upping the settle offer and in the end I took a good payout only because if I lost I risked losing my house.

The thing is though I was right.I was made redundant by 1 point on the score but lost 39 points for time off with cancer.The system is/was already banked heavily against workers,now it will only be for the rich.

As a small business owner now I can understand how much it does affect small companies,but the big boys will be rubbing their hands,touch your toes.

Some contents insurance packages include legal expenses for unfair dismissal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A county court like small fees, e.g. £80 would likely to prevent some abuses, £1200 is definitely too much.

They have priced it up because they feel that workers having "cheap" access to industrial tribunals represents a barrier to employment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have priced it up because they feel that workers having "cheap" access to industrial tribunals represents a barrier to employment.

Yes, these being the same sort of people who protested that banning kids under 10 from working in coal mines would collapse the economy..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are hacking away at legal aid as well.

Honestly, you'd think they were trying to turn most of the population into heavily indebted, fearful serfs who dare not raise their voice for fear of destitution..

There is an answer to that......don't use their services, don't buy their stuff.......get the down trodden to create their own economy amongst themselves, let them lay down the ground rules to play by........do you think it would work?.....people change to suit themselves when it suits them. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, these being the same sort of people who protested that banning kids under 10 from working in coal mines would collapse the economy..

Scandalous, I mean they are far too big to be shoved up a chimney at 10! Just what is a 10 year old going to do for employment? They can't all work under the looms trying not to get maimed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scandalous, I mean they are far too big to be shoved up a chimney at 10! Just what is a 10 year old going to do for employment? They can't all work under the looms trying not to get maimed.

Yup the rural poor get kicked off the land and herded into towns and the bloody mill owners only want to employ the kids. People don't know they are born today!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twice the cost of petitioning for bankruptcy.

You just had to go and mention it..

You can bet that there is someone somewhere working on a way to make bankruptcy available only to the 'deserving', whilst the proles end up stripped of every possession and slung in a hostel..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup the rural poor get kicked off the land and herded into towns and the bloody mill owners only want to employ the kids. People don't know they are born today!

Gone are the days when we had shared common land we could graze our animals and grow our own food on......the people were kicked off the communal land and told they had to earn 'money' working in the factory of the new land owner.......this is now happening all around the world, land families have lived and used is forfeited and the people are forced to become servants of the rich and powerful where once they were free. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure the public sector itself is the worst unfair dismisser.

A lot of people took the piss now it's ruined for everyone. Apart from very large organisations, where you can be shuffled to another department, it's never going to be viable to stick it out somewhere your face doesn't fit.

A bit like when redundancy is on the cards, as the firm's going bust, people stay to the death to get their hands on a payout and risk making themselves unemployable. The best option, in most cases, is to throw all the energy into finding a new better job.

Edited by SNACR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It certainly appears a great way of ensuring those in low paid jobs will just become cannon fodder as they won't have the money to challenge an unfair dismissal. Once more only the rich will have the protection of the law.

It will probably invoke the law of unintended consequences for the government (and Miliband, too), by boosting trade union membership and activism. If this change sticks, unions will probably offer to pay tribunal fees for members of X years' standing, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will probably invoke the law of unintended consequences for the government (and Miliband, too), by boosting trade union membership and activism. If this change sticks, unions will probably offer to pay tribunal fees for members of X years' standing, etc.

Might be one of the incentives to small scale shifts in attitude that lead to long term shifts in people's associations. Dillow was talking about this phenomenon:

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2013/07/the-transition-to-socialism.html

I think the state wants to see mediation through ACAS rather than litigation. Looks like the long term direction for all disputes - don't go to the judiciary, go to the executive. Helen Grant thinks litigation is too stressful, so this way is better - she's "minister for victims and courts".

So rather than people associating in unions or taking up their rights through a court, we have the state inviting them in for a bit of a chat.

Discuss ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an answer to that......don't use their services, don't buy their stuff.......get the down trodden to create their own economy amongst themselves, let them lay down the ground rules to play by........do you think it would work?.....people change to suit themselves when it suits them. ;)

++ Spot on Winkie. This is my main point in all political discussions I have these days. I don't think they even care any more how they appear. The policies are so driven by protecting the establishment / big business / financier class and pumping the plebbs for tax and debt leverage. We have to create an economy aside from these bastards. The main hurdle is escaping the rentiers. I have been struggling to establish a business and I know there is investment available from the community but to find premises and insurance that is affordable is prooving horrendous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure the public sector itself is the worst unfair dismisser.

A lot of people took the piss now it's ruined for everyone. Apart from very large organisations, where you can be shuffled to another department, it's never going to be viable to stick it out somewhere your face doesn't fit.

A bit like when redundancy is on the cards, as the firm's going busy, people stay to the death to get their hands on a payout and risk making themselves unemployable. The best option, in most cases, is to throw all the energy into finding a new better job.

Yes, it is! Get a good employment (specialist) lawyer, argue for a "reasonable" bung, and don't look back! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What no cup of tea?

I think lawyers are being sidelined (along with their fees) in every area - employment, personal injuries, planning and immigration processes, financial services complaints, even crime. The legal profession is being destroyed - quite a revolution.

The replacement is state mediation (to become state-subsidised mediation, I suppose, dominated by a few monolith corporations). And yes, we will come to think of criminal prosecution in that way - mutually agreed recovery of a percentage of the criminally gotten gains will be considered a victory for justice. The bankers have already achieved that.

The process is less stressful, less expensive. And it's free, so everyone wins - right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will probably invoke the law of unintended consequences for the government (and Miliband, too), by boosting trade union membership and activism. If this change sticks, unions will probably offer to pay tribunal fees for members of X years' standing, etc.

Someone I knew was represented in a tribunal case by a "free" union lawyer, so the incentive to join might well already be there, and won't become much stronger.

Sadly, the law of intended consequences will probably hurt more. In my experience, contracts and employer policies nowadays provide for very generous redundancy terms precisely to ensure that there are no frivolous tribunal cases. I got paid a tax-free 10k, lawyer's fees, notice period, and was given a "customised" reference I wrote myself in exchange for signing an agreement that I would not sue over a redundancy. There was no way I would have, seeing as I would not have had a leg to stand on. (BTW, the only reason for a lawyer was because they insisted I had one). But it's just what they did as a matter of course, since it cut down on inconvenience for HR who in turn were in charge of spending the company money. Which was just money to them, whereas the effort of testifying in court would have been a lot more real.

Having said all that, I'd probably rather it was easier to find a job than to have a better payout when it disappears. But that will only happen if the economy starts growing, and then fast enough to balance the budget before whatever would happen otherwise does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some contents insurance packages include legal expenses for unfair dismissal

The next financial product to be offered at TescoSainsburys?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   224 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.