Imagine going into a boxing ring (against your better judgement) on a matter of principle, or even because you’re hell-bent on vengeance.
Suppose your opponent is only a little bigger than you, but could be up to 10 times stronger and may have as many professional fighters in his corner as his wallet will allow.
In your corner you have maybe one other person if you can afford them.
Your witnesses are too scared of losing their jobs to get in the ring with you.
If you can’t afford help then you are completelyon your own against the might of your opponentand his allies.
You’re about to take a beating and you know it.
How would you feel then if you heard you opponent complain that no matter how the odds are stacked in his favour and against you that if you lose this unfair fight you must be made to pay? Yet another beating.
This is the experience of most claimants at tribunals (Letters, Personnel Today, 27 March).
Very often the one who has the most money is the winner, whether right or wrong, because he can afford to pay for the best fighting team.
Employers have the upper hand and I think they should be asked to fund the cost of their employee’s defence if they have failed to resolve it prior to it getting to an employment tribunal.
Currently, employment tribunals are stacked against the person who cannot afford the top lawyers, barristers and advisers. But might does not equal right.
Details supplied
