Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Employment law: Tribunals on trial

Post Thumbnail

The introduction of new rules restricting the ability of workers to take unfair-dismissal claims to an employment tribunal has prompted a growing number to take their bosses to court instead, according to a leading employment lawyer.

In recent years, the UK Government has introduced a series of measures that have cut back on employment rights as part of its Red Tape Challenge to reduce bureaucracy and encourage business growth.
These include new rules requiring employees to have worked for a company for two years before they can claim unfair dismissal, and the introduction of fees of up to ÂŁ1,200 to bring an employment tribunal claim.
The measures have contributed to a 79% fall in the number of claims being heard by employment tribunals.

However, according to Eric Gilligan, an Aberdeen-based employment partner with law firm Brodies LLP, the tightening of the rules has led a growing number of workers to take a different approach.
Rather than seeking redress at an employment tribunal, they are instead taking their bosses to court for alleged breaches of employment contracts.

In some cases, employees are seeking court orders to prevent what they claim is unwarranted disciplinary action. This trend, combined with other developments, means that employment regulation remains a significant risk to business, Mr Gilligan said.

“We have seen increased attempts to use court orders to restrain employers from committing what are argued to be breaches of employees’ contracts of employment, including an implied contractual right to fairness in the operation of disciplinary procedures,” he said.

“Unlike with an unfair-dismissal claim, employees do not have to wait two years before they can claim a breach of their employment contract.”

Mr Gilligan said “reports of the death of employment regulation have been greatly exaggerated”, adding that employers needed to pay close attention to the system still in place to protect workers.

“While there has been a significant reduction in employment protection, and the introduction of the fees regime has clearly led to an extraordinary reduction in the volume of employment tribunal claims, there remains some significant employment protection in place in the UK such as discrimination, collective redundancy and Tupe, which remain potentially expensive for employers to flout,” he said.

Mr Gilligan added that employers also needed to be aware of new measures that the UK Government intended to introduce.

“Plans to extend the right to request flexible working to all employees and new rights to shared parental leave may prove to be a new battleground for workplace disputes,” he said.

“To add to this, although the initial challenge to the fees regime has failed, the accumulating evidence that it impedes access to justice is likely to mean that the fee regime will be moderated in the near future, even if it is not abolished.
“In any event, the failure of employers to apply sound HR and employment practice is associated with poor morale, low productivity, high labour turnover and reputational damage, meaning that obtaining skilled external advice in this area is likely to remain a business-critical issue.”