Government Watch - 2

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

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.

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 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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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...)

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.