Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Early conciliationAcasPregnancy and maternity discriminationEmployment tribunals

MPs recommend substantial cut to employment tribunal fees

by Rob Moss 20 Jun 2016
by Rob Moss 20 Jun 2016 MPs reported on fees in civil courts and employment tribunals. Photo: High Level Photography/REX/Shutterstock
MPs reported on fees in civil courts and employment tribunals. Photo: High Level Photography/REX/Shutterstock

A committee of MPs has concluded that the introduction of employment tribunal fees has had a “significant adverse impact” on access to justice and that the level of fees should be slashed.

It recommended that the level of fees charged to employees bringing an employment tribunal claim should be substantially reduced, with special consideration for women alleging maternity or pregnancy discrimination.

The Justice Committee report into courts and tribunal fees also described as “unacceptable” that the Government has still not reported the results of its review into impact of employment tribunal fees one year after it began, and six months after it was due.

Employment tribunal fees

Check the rules on fees to bring a tribunal claim

Respond to an employment tribunal claim

Unison challenge to legality of employment tribunal fees

The report, published today, is heavily critical of justice minister Shailesh Vara for the delays in publishing the Government’s review, and for him declining a request in April for the committee of MPs to see evidence from the review in confidence.

Employment tribunal fees were introduced in July 2013 in an effort to cut costs, but they have led to a dramatic fall in all types of employment tribunal cases.

Working time cases in early 2015, compared with early 2013, fell 78%; unfair dismissal claims were down 72%; and sex discrimination cases fell 68%.

Earlier this year, Unison was granted permission to take its challenge on the introduction of employment tribunal fees to the Supreme Court.

In evidence, Vara emphasised the fact that in 2014-15, 83,000 early conciliation cases had been dealt with by the early conciliation process, managed by Acas. Early conciliation became mandatory on 5 May 2014. Mr Vara told the committee that the 83,000 cases, “might well have ended up before the employment tribunal”.

However, in its conclusion, the committee described the contention that early conciliation had resolved cases that would otherwise have gone to tribunal as “superficial”.

The Justice Committee recommended that:

  • the “overall quantum of fees” charged for bringing a employment tribunal claim should be substantially reduced;
  • the type A/type B distinction of tribunal claims should be replaced by a single fee, by a three-tier fee structure, or by a fee set as a proportion of the amount claimed;
  • further special consideration should be given to the position of women alleging maternity or pregnancy discrimination, for whom, at the least, the time limit of three months for bringing a claim should be reviewed; and
  • disposable capital and monthly income thresholds for fee remission should be increased.

The committee said that it recognised its recommendations would have cost implications for the Ministry of Justice, but stressed that “if there were to be a binary choice between income from fees and preservation of access to justice, the latter must prevail as a matter of broader public policy”.

The report is very critical of the lack of evidentiary basis for setting employment tribunal fees at their current level, and the Government’s lack of transparency in acknowledging this” – Qian Mou, XpertHR

The committee’s chair Bob Neill said: “The Ministry of Justice has argued that changes to employment law and the improving economic situation, as well as the pre-existing downward trend in the number of employment tribunal cases being brought, may account for part of the reduction in the number of cases.

“These may indeed be facts but the timing and scale of the reduction following immediately from the introduction of fees can leave no doubt that the clear majority of the decline is attributable to fees.”

Qian Mou, employment law editor for XpertHR, said: “The report is very critical of the lack of evidential basis for setting employment tribunal fees at their current level, and the Government’s lack of transparency in acknowledging this.

“It places significant pressure on the Government to provide a more factual foundation for the level of employment tribunal fees in its overdue report, or to significantly reduce the level of fees charged to employment tribunal claimants, among other changes.”

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “We welcome this report and will consider the findings carefully.

“The cost of our courts and tribunal system to the taxpayer is unsustainably high, and it is only right that those who use the system pay more to relieve this burden.

“Every pound we collect from fee increases will be spent on providing a leaner and more effective system of courts and tribunals. At the same time, we’ve made sure that the most vulnerable and those who cannot afford to pay won’t have to.”

Rob Moss
Rob Moss

Rob Moss is a business journalist with more than 25 years' experience. He has been editor of Personnel Today since 2010. He joined the publication in 2006 as online editor of the award-winning website. He specialises in labour market economics, gender diversity and family-friendly working. He has hosted hundreds of webinar and podcasts, most recently on the challenges created by the coronavirus pandemic. Before writing about HR and employment he ran news and feature desks on publications serving the global optical and eyewear market, the UK electrical industry, and energy markets in Asia and the Middle East.

previous post
Holiday requests: three practical scenarios for HR
next post
Is one-stop application the future of hiring?

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

You may also like

Uber has more drivers than ever as worker...

11 Aug 2022

Train conductor unfairly dismissed after ‘black privilege’ comment

10 Aug 2022

Former MP’s aide unfairly dismissed after whistleblowing

9 Aug 2022

Supreme Court: Holiday pay for part-year staff should...

20 Jul 2022

Case involving Citi banker who was called ‘old’...

14 Jul 2022

Whistleblowers’ charity condemns Court of Appeal judgment

13 Jul 2022

M&S worker who suffered abuse from shoppers wins...

13 Jul 2022

Bullying claims up to record high, data shows

11 Jul 2022

Kristie Higgs succeeds in bid to remove LGBT...

5 Jul 2022

Rail signaller discriminated against by staff who watched...

5 Jul 2022
  • 6 reasons why work-based learning is better than traditional training PROMOTED | A recent Fortune/Deloitte survey found that 71% of CEOs are anticipating that this year’s biggest business disrupter...Read more
  • Strengthening Scotland’s public services through virtual recruiting PROMOTED | This website is Scotland's go-to place for job seekers looking to apply for roles in public services...Read more
  • What’s next for L&D? Enter Alchemist… PROMOTED | It’s time to turn off the tedious and get ready for interactive and immersive learning experiences...Read more
  • Simple mistakes are blighting the onboarding experience PROMOTED | The onboarding of new hires is a company’s best chance...Read more
  • Preventing Burnout: How can HR help key workers get the right help? PROMOTED | Workplace wellbeing may seem a distant memory...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2022

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2022 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+