Employment law changes on the way
Regardless of your views of the coalition government, it has certainly been active in the area of employment law. Allison Cook, an associate in the employment department of law firm Veale Wasbrough Vizards, is your guide to the latest changes...
The Coalition has concentrated on examining and reforming existing employment legislation as part of its efforts to encourage business growth and economic recovery. Numerous proposals and reforms have been suggested and the media and public have had mixed reactions. Business Secretary Vince Cable announced a number of proposals to reform employment law on 23th November 2011. The government’s response to the Resolving Workplace Disputes consultation in relation to reforming the employment tribunal system highlighted a number of intended changes that started to take effect in April 2012.
UNFAIR DISMISSALS
One of the most newsworthy changes is the increase in the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims from one to two years. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is yet to make a formal announcement but it is believed that the new two year qualifying period will only apply to employees who commence employment on or after 6th April 2012. The one year qualifying period will still apply to those employed before this date.
The Conservative government raised the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims from one to two years in 1985, Labour lowered it back to one year in
1999 and the qualifying period was once as little as six months. There are differing opinions in relation to the likely success of the change in qualifying period. Many feel that the increased period will lead to employees pursuing claims such as whistleblowing and discrimination where the employee is not required to have a qualifying period of employment. Vince Cable announced that the increase would “give greater confidence to employers in recruiting new employees, without undermining workers’ sense of job security”. Some commentators doubt whether employers genuinely consider the danger of potential claims when hiring new staff. Others say that a year is sufficient time to assess whether the employee is performing to the required level and representing the business in the desired manner.
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL FEES
One of the biggest bug bears for employers is that there are no costs involved in the issuing of Employment Tribunal claims and as such, no barrier to lodging claims irrespective of their merit or otherwise. The Government recognised this and launched its consultation on tribunal fees on 14th December 2011. Two different fee charging structures have been proposed. The first option is the charging of an issue and a hearing fee. The amount would depend on the
nature of the claim. The issue fee could range from £150 to £250. The hearing fee would range from £250 to £1250.
The second option would be payment of an issue
fee only. This would range from £200 to £1,750. The proposed changes are significant, particularly as the initial issue fee is higher than many issue fees in the County Court. For example, the issue fee for recovery of a debt of £3,000 to £5,000 is only £120 in the County Court. Some contend that the level of proposed tribunal fees will discourage genuine claims in the tribunal. The consultation closed on 6th March 2012, with a view to introducing the fees from 2013- 14.
DEPOSITS AND COSTS
A further change, introduced from 15th February 2012, is that a tribunal judge will be able to order a party to pay a deposit order of £1,000. The previous maximum possible order was £500. If an employment judge considers that all or part of a claim has little reasonable prospect of success at a pre-hearing review, he or she may make a deposit order as a condition to continue with the claim. The aim of the increase is to deter claimants from continuing with frivolous, tenuous claims. Some argue that the increase is a barrier to the pursuit of justice.
Costs orders are not the norm in tribunal hearings. They are used where the tribunal believes that a party or their representative has acted in a vexatious, disruptive or abusive manner in bringing or conducting the claim. As the government is keen to discourage vexatious claims, the maximum costs order a tribunal can award increased on 6th April from £10,000 to £20,000. This should dissuade some litigants from pursuing unfounded claims, in the same way as the increase in the amount of potential deposit orders. The government has made it clear that it would like to reduce bureaucracy for employers. In pursuing this aim, it plans to consult on the introduction of the concept of “protected conversations”, evidence of which would not be admissible at tribunal hearings. There has been strong opposition to this proposal, particularly as without prejudice conversations are already commonplace.
CONVERSATIONS & COMPROMISE AGREEMENTS Probably not the best way to inform an employee... 54
The aim of protected conversations is to encourage frank discussions between employers and employees. Some fear that protected conversations will encourage bullying or harassment in private, although the government has stated that discrimination would not be protected.
Erotic Trade Only June 2012
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76