Proposed tribunal fines for employers raise concerns

Businesses are concerned about the Government's proposal to introduce fines for employers found by an employment tribunal to have breached employment rights, according to a survey of over 600 employers by law firm Eversheds.

 

 Under the proposals, in addition to any compensation awarded to the successful claimant an employer would have to pay a penalty to the Government of 50% of the value of the compensation. There would be a minimum penalty of £1,000 and a maximum of £5,000. Six in ten respondents believe that as a result their organisation would settle more claims before they reach a tribunal hearing. The Government’s consultation exercise is due to close on 20th April 2011.

 

 The survey found that 91% of employers support the proposal to introduce a "formal offer" system whereby any compensation awarded by a Tribunal may be increased or decreased if the other party declined to accept a reasonable offer of settlement. If no award of compensation were made, the Tribunal might make a costs award against the party who refused the offer.

 

A further 83% of employers support the introduction of fees for lodging employment tribunal claims and 78% of employers believe that raising the unfair dismissal qualifying period from one year to two years would result in a drop in claims.

 

 Owen Warnock, partner at Eversheds, commented:

 

 "Many of the aims and sentiments contained in this consultation paper clearly strike a chord with employers. It is clear that the Government is keen to ensure that more employment cases are settled without a Tribunal hearing. Our study has however indicated that many employers considered that the proposal to fine employers found to have breached employment rights could improperly increase the pressure on them to settle claims rather than defend themselves.”

 

 He added:

 

“One of the most radical suggestions, which is intended to encourage parties to be realistic about their cases, is to introduce a "formal offers" system. This would put a party at real risk of an adverse adjustment to the compensation awarded, or a costs penalty, if that party had declined to accept a reasonable offer of settlement. An overwhelming 91% of respondents supported this proposal and an additional 2%, (93% in total) feel that their organisation would make use of it.”

 

When asked about the introduction of fees for lodging employment tribunal claims, a measure aimed as a deterrent to "have a go" claimants, more than eight in ten employers (83%) supported the proposal.

 

On the question of what level of fee would be appropriate, there was no clear consensus. The highest number of responses (32%) favoured a fee between £251 and £500, with 26% favouring a fee of between £1 and £250. 19% favoured a fee of between £501 and £750 and 14% between £751 and £1,000.

 

The Government has also sought to canvas opinion on how greater use might be made of alternative dispute resolution tools such as mediation. The consultation seeks to obtain information about current use, costs and benefits, as well as barriers.

 

Eversheds asked employers firstly whether they used workplace mediation, either through internally trained mediators or independent third party mediators, to resolve individual disputes. Less than half of employers who responded (44%) currently use workplace mediation, though 27% feel it is a successful tool for resolving certain employee disputes. 21% said they would encourage other employers to use it and 15% felt that mediation provides direct cost savings by increasing employee engagement.

 

The study found that the most common barrier to using workplace mediation was cost, with four in ten citing this as a factor. A total of 34% of respondents also felt there was a lack of information and guidance on mediation. However, 13% of responses indicated that the employer had tried mediation before but it had proved unsuccessful and this experience was therefore a barrier to future use.

This document is for general guidance and research purposes only, and does not purport to give professional advice. Please check the date at the top of the article; the Workplace Law Network retains historic articles for general research.