Government Watch - 2

Which I do agree with but also means that anyone (and I mean anyone) who has been sacked or made redundant no matter how they behaved and for whatever reasons WILL go to an employment tribunal. In fact they will be encouraged to do so.

Is that what happened before the charges were introduced (in 2013) gillybob?

I don't recall seeing any publicity about an excessive number of people making frivolous claims to industrial tribunals before charges were introduced. (Though I'm sure some people did work the system because that is what some people do...)

But presumably if the appeal to the tribunal is proven false or malicious then they will neither gain and presumably the employer won't lose.

Of course we must also look at it from the employees perspective. His employer cannot dismiss him on a whim.

This is considered to be the most important judgement in the last 10 years, because it throws down a gauntlet that protects us from an overbearing executive.

Para 68
"At the heart of the concept of the rule of law is that society is governed by law....without access to justice, laws are liable to become a dead letter. The work done by parliament must be rendered nugatory, and the democratic election of members of parliament become a meaningless charade."

This will cost us the tax payer £27 million because of the Tories vindictive little law.

Government has said that fees will be refunded to all who have had to pay them. That's £32 million over 4 years according to Paul Lewis.

Paul Lewis‏ @paullewismoney 3h3 hours ago

Supreme Court rules that employment tribunal fees are unlawful. Govt must refund £32m to applicants

This government eagerness to right wrongs is a bit disconcerting...

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/40727400

A quick check on figures MazieD show 191,451 claims (not successes) in the year prior to the fees being introduced (with a huge spike in June and July just before they were introduced on 29th July 2013)

The figures for 2015 were 61,000 (a massive 57% reduction).

Of course we all know that employers are ALWAYS in the wrong.

I wonder if the government is considering taking it to the ECJ I think that they were so sure they would win the minister promised before the judgement that the monies would be paid back. Wouldn't like to be him at this moment.

Many people were unable to afford the fees, so that is the reason for the reduction. They were in the courts view denied their right to access to the law. Unlike the wealthy who have full access.

Many people are unable to afford fees for matters other than employment law due to the withdrawal of legal aid. I wonder if this is going to further to ensure that no one is denied their right to access the law, and not just those seeking justice over employment rights.

And not only are employers ALWAYS in the wrong gilly, they're ALL wealthy too.

Yes Smileless2012 we all live in mansions and drive expensive cars too .... (I am typing this from my Villa in Barbados btw).

When someone is sacked (not that I have ever sacked anyone, I am far too soft for that) the benefits agencies encourage that person to go to tribunal. Even if they know the employer was in the right. I know this for an absolute fact. We discuss it often in the business forums I attend.

I did almost sack someone about 10 years ago. He came to work (in our van) drunk as the proverbial skunk for the third time!

Instead I drove him home (again).

I am sure you are right gillybob and no doubt a model employer. But many are not and the employee has no defence against unscrupulous employers except through the law. The judges recognised this fact.

Oh we have a villa there too, wonder it we're neighbours but seriously though, what you say is true. Of course employees need protection from unscrupulous employers but so do they from unscrupulous employees.

A friend of mine who specialises in employment law and is based in London, is at times rendered speechless by some of the cases people have been encouraged to bring, and if you knew him, you'd know rendering him speechless is no mean feat.

I am no way a model employer WW .

Too soft, too close to the employees, to easy to walk all over...... and every other reason I should not be in business.

I bet you have some very loyal staff though who are willing to go that extra bit for a good employer.

I think the drop in people going to tribunals was about 80%. And the % of frivolous claims did not drop. It was an iniquitous law that made people pay up to several thousands of pounds just to try to get justice, and most people, especially women, just couldn't afford it.
It is good they are repaying the money to those who paid it, but there is no way they can recompense all those who lost jobs unfairly, or who suffered harassment etc, but just had to take it and go.

but there is no way they can recompense all those who lost jobs unfairly, or who suffered harassment etc, but just had to take it and go

Because the employee is always right isn't he/she? yggdrasil?

What would you suggest they do to make recompense?

My dil was one of those. She was bullied from her job ending with a complete breakdown. After 6 months recovery she found another job and has recently received an absolutely glowing report from ofsted. This has helped rebuild her confidence which was totally shattered by her experience. Her new employer is splendid and clearly appreciates her marvellous abilities.

My dil was advised that it would be costly to persue her bullying ex employer through the courts, and quite honestly was in no fit state to do so.

When someone is sacked (not that I have ever sacked anyone, I am far too soft for that) the benefits agencies encourage that person to go to tribunal.

Why do they do that, gillybob? Is it something to do with targets for keeping people off benefits?

I think it is both a benefit avoidance scheme and a make the employer pay no matter what scheme Maizie

Listened to Gove this morning. And a couple of things struck me.

We may well be the last generation to live entirely with combustion engine.

And at last something to be done

However listening to all the comments today it appears that the commentators seem to think Gove was grandstanding and as someone said " if you don't have the skills, if you don't have the infrastructure, if you don't have the wherewithall to pay for it then as a statement or policy it's absurd."

I said "but there is no way they can recompense all those who lost jobs unfairly, or who suffered harassment etc, but just had to take it and go"

Gillybob said@ Because the employee is always right isn't he/she? yggdrasil?
What would you suggest they do to make recompense?

I think you should read what I said again. I said those who lost their jobs unfairly, like whitewave's dil. And there is no way to recompense them, they have lost jobs, money and confidence. All because they couldn't afford the illegal charge.

This apparently is the last week for nursing nurseries. The application for nursing posts has dropped by 96%. Sheer bleeding madness.

Left and right hand continuing to ignore each other.

Hammond say transitional arrangement is certain

Fox says transition not needed or likely.

Good oh - nice to know the governments got its act together.