Reforms to the Employment Tribunal System
EMPLOYMENT LAW AND rELATIONS | Reforms to the Employment Tribunal System | | | Reuben Guma | |
1. Introduction
Employment relations are riddled with disputes that stem from breaches of trust between employer and employee. Consequently, there is a growing need to address them, and for most employment disputes, the process starts in Employment Tribunals (ETs) which according to Saridakis, et al., (2008) are independent judicial bodies that determine disputes between employers and employees over employment rights. The Employment tribunal system as part of the legal system, works alongside the ordinary courts and was intended to hear employment disputes as a quicker and cheaper alternative to the ordinary court system. However, over the years there have been concerns that ETs have not met this objective since they are now overburdened by the number of claims presented to them annually. For instance, a total of 218,100 claims where presented to the ET during 2010-11, a 44% increase on 2008-09 (Annual Tribunals Statistics, 2011).
Subsequently, government has constantly amended the regulations that govern tribunals in a bid to make them as efficient as they were meant to be. It is against this backdrop therefore, that this report seeks to critically examine the effectiveness of these reforms on tribunals and to consider whether the changes have delivered their most clamoured goal. 2. Historical Background
Formerly called Industrial Tribunals, ETs were formed under Section 12 of the Industrial Training Act 1964 to hear Appeals by employers against training levy assessments imposed upon them (Taylor & Emir, 2009; Gibbons,2007). And according to MacMillan (1999), their authority was extended to hear disputes under the Redundancy Payments Act 1965. And as a result of the Industrial Relations Act 1971, the first case for unfair dismissal was heard in 1971(Moving Forward, 2002; Narins, 2008). Since then, due to the constant development of
1. Introduction
Employment relations are riddled with disputes that stem from breaches of trust between employer and employee. Consequently, there is a growing need to address them, and for most employment disputes, the process starts in Employment Tribunals (ETs) which according to Saridakis, et al., (2008) are independent judicial bodies that determine disputes between employers and employees over employment rights. The Employment tribunal system as part of the legal system, works alongside the ordinary courts and was intended to hear employment disputes as a quicker and cheaper alternative to the ordinary court system. However, over the years there have been concerns that ETs have not met this objective since they are now overburdened by the number of claims presented to them annually. For instance, a total of 218,100 claims where presented to the ET during 2010-11, a 44% increase on 2008-09 (Annual Tribunals Statistics, 2011).
Subsequently, government has constantly amended the regulations that govern tribunals in a bid to make them as efficient as they were meant to be. It is against this backdrop therefore, that this report seeks to critically examine the effectiveness of these reforms on tribunals and to consider whether the changes have delivered their most clamoured goal. 2. Historical Background
Formerly called Industrial Tribunals, ETs were formed under Section 12 of the Industrial Training Act 1964 to hear Appeals by employers against training levy assessments imposed upon them (Taylor & Emir, 2009; Gibbons,2007). And according to MacMillan (1999), their authority was extended to hear disputes under the Redundancy Payments Act 1965. And as a result of the Industrial Relations Act 1971, the first case for unfair dismissal was heard in 1971(Moving Forward, 2002; Narins, 2008). Since then, due to the constant development of
Bibliography: Ashwood, R. & Hitchins, C., 2011. Radical Reforms to UK 's Employment Laws. [Online] Available at: http://www.morganlewis.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/publication.detail/publicationID/c0b07889 35fd-4ed8-9639-5305c714af45 [Accessed 30 March 2012]. Baker, A., 2002. Access Vs Process in Employment Discrimination: Why ADR suits the US but not the UK. Industrial Law Journal, 31(2). Boon, A., Urwin, P. & Karuk, V., 2011. What Difference Does it Make? Facilitative Judicial Mediation of Discrimination Cases in Employment Tribunals. Industrial Law Journal , 40(1), pp. 48-50. Brookes, S. & Davis Christopher, 2011. Reducing Tribunal Claims. Accountancy, 148(1419), p. 66. Carlin, B., 2011. Osbourne cuts costly tribunals in bid to boost the economy. Mail on Sunday, 10 February. Chapman, J., 2011 Charlton, J., 2011. Stem the Flow. Employers ' Law, 7 April. Churchard, C., 2011 Citizens Advice Bureau, 2012. Briefing. [Online] Available at: http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/index/parliament/parliamentary_briefings/employment_tribunals_regulations_2012.htm [Accessed 30 March 2012]. Ellis, M., 2011. Sideways Lbok… Do Employment Tribunals Hold Back The Success Of UK Pic? Employers Law, Volume 11. Fraser v HLMAD Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 738. Available at: http://lexisweb.co.uk/cases/2006/june/fraser-v-hlmad-ltd [Accessed 9 April 2012] Gennard, J., 2010 Hall, M., 2002. Employment Act 2002 outlined. [Online] Available at: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2002/10/feature/uk0210103f.htm [Accessed 11 April 2012]. Honeyball, S., 2010. Honeyball and Bowlers ' Textbook on Employment Law. 11th Ed ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hunt, D., 2005. Successfully Defending Employment Tribunal Cases. 2nd Edition ed. London: Thorogood Professional Insights. Keenan, D., 2006. Law for Business. 13th Edition ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. Kelly, D., Holmes, A. E. & Hayward, R., 2005. Business Law. 5th Edition ed. London: Routledge Cavendish. Laterille, P. L., Latreille, J. A. & Knight, G. K., 2007. Employment Tribunals and Acas: evidence from a survey of representatives. Industrial Relations Journal, 38(2), pp. 136 -154. Latreille, P. L., Latereille, A. J. & Knight, G. K., 2005. Making a Difference? Legal Representation in Employment Tribunal Cases: Evidence from a Survey of Representatives. Industrial Law Journal, 34(4). Maclntyre, E., 2008. Business Law. 4th Edition ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. MacMillan, J. K., 1999. Employment Tribunals: Philosophies and Practicalities. Industrial Law Journal, March, 28(1), pp. 33-56. Percepective: Introduction of tribunal fees could be a costly business, 2011. Employers ' Law, 7 November. Rayner, J., 2012 Riches, S. & Allen, V., 2011. Keenan and Riches Business Law. 10th Edition ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. Rothwell, R., 2011. Neuberger warns against mediation and defends legal aid and Jackson. Law Society Gazette, 4 March 2012. Sargeant, M Saridakis, G., Sen-Gupta, S., Edwards, P. & Storey, D. J., 2008. The Impact of Enterprise Size on Employment Tribunal Incidence and Outcomes: Evidence from Britain. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(3), pp. 469-4999. Suff, R., 2006. New Rules, new challenges: Acas ' role in the employment tribunal system. [Online] Available at: http://www.acas.org.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=590&p=0 [Accessed 6 April 2012]. Taylor, S. & Emir, A., 2009. Employment Law an Introduction. Second Edition ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wheeler, J., 2006. English Legal System. Second Edition ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Williams, A., 2003. Applying the Employment Act 2002: Crucial Developments for Employers and Employees, London: Thorogood Professional Insights.