Staff bringing claims could be "biggest risk" to businesses

Anne McAllister
Member - 115 posts

Disabilty Discrimination and Gender Equality issues are possibly other issues affecting the number of claims .
Staff are becoming more aware of their rights these days and unfortunately some employers are still in the dark ages .
Im in favour of unionised workplaces because they, by making employees more aware, create happier workforces.
Employers have legal duties towards their employees and I would rather carry out my duties than find myself at an ET.

David Mitchell
Member - 5 posts

There is no doubt that there is a greater tendency for employees to bring claims against employers, especially following dismissal, no matter the grounds for termination. The advent of "No Win No Fee" lawyers has fuelled this, especially as it brings about a mercenary element on the basis that a barrister can run rings round an employer who was, after all, only trying to run their business. If a firm of lawyers can see even a small chance of "winning", they'll take on the case. The first action an employer must take under these circumstances is to inform his insurers, who will take over from there (that forms part of the insurance package - doesn't it ??). However, the very insurance companies that we engage to look after our interests must shoulder a very large portion of blame and responsibility for the increase in successful claims, as they will "roll over and play dead" at the slightest hint of a claim. It's often cheaper to settle out of court, with no consideration being given to their client. I speak from bitter experience. A disgruntled, "legitimately dismissed" employee decided to file against us for a physical condition which their "No Win No Fee" lawyers claimed fell within the category of RSI. The fact that it probably resulted from previous minor surgery, repeated injections for a semi-arthritic condition and a refusal to attend subsequent physiotherapy sessions played no part in our defence. My insurer's Claims Investigator asked some fairly cursory questions about the situation, saying that our premiums won't be affected, that this sort of claim is only worth a few thousand pounds and went on to say that they'd probably settle anyway, as it's not worth defending. At next renewal, a couple of months later, my premiums had risen by 58% on the basis of a reserved compensation settlement of £23,000 !! Needless to say my insurance business has gone elsewhere. However, even if the claim doesn't go ahead (the ex-employee has indicated a loathing of attending medical examinations, so probably won't turn up when required by my insurers), the existence of a claim - albeit sucessfully defended, or withdrawn - will remain on my insurance history and will affect premiums henceforth. So, resulting from a fraudulant claim based on malicious intent, my business will endure increased operating costs "ad infinitum" and, if successful, a fraudster will pick up a "nice little earner" - less the lawyer's fees of course. One more reason not to employ people...............

Anne McAllister
Member - 115 posts

Sorry to hear about that David, Theres always someone willing to make a fast buck and that goes for employees as well as employers.
At the end of the day the only ones making money are our friends in the legal service.
Try not to let one bad apple spoil it.

sheena farenden
Member - 52 posts

David I can see clearly you and I are at different ends of a very long piece of string here.

You state that a reserved settlement of £23.000 has been mentioned if this is the case I can assure you this is not a minor issue this is a large sum. I can also assure you that it is not easy to get a Lawyer to take a case they must be very sure of winning to consider a no win no fee case.

I suggest as this is a disability discrimination case, the next person you engage is a well qualified person who has full knowledge of H & S and the repercussions of not undertaking Risk Assessments and providing correct and necessary equipment. This person should also be aware of Equality issues. But more importantly you must listen to them and act on their advice or the next case could be much more expensive.

I should also point out that Physiotherapy is not always suitable for Arthritic conditions and the person may have been refusing as it could have made the condition worse. After all none of us are Consultant Rheumatologists are we?

Please all out there understand that pain is an awful thing and until you have experienced it you have no idea how it effects your whole life. Please be a bit more considerate to your fellow man and benefit from other gifts that person may bring

John Robertson
Member - 7 posts

Anne
I'm in business now but gave-up being an employee after trying to bring a Union-backed case. I would be scared to employ or be employed now after seeing the chaos of the tribunal system in which, as David says, it is assumed that there is no point of principal and that parties must puff-up their positions to each other in a pre-hearing review and then settle.

About recognising unions: I learned that recognition agreements should have the word "democratic" in them, with clauses about members voting directly in elections, saying that they have seen the branch and central accounts, and being able to see rule books and branch documents online as well as voting online. Without these safeguards, unions like my Unite-T&G branch can turn into enthusiasts fundraising organisations without members knowing it, can make no suggestions for reasonable adjustments to disability, don't help with wistleblowing when bad management lines are in place, suggest going off sick for the longest period, and then provide an incompetent no-win no-fee lawyer after most of the time limits have run out.

Everybody lost: the employer, the outgoing employee, and the remaining employees because nobody ever got to the points of principal about bullying management and failures of reasonable adjustment.

David: the same that I said about unions should apply to insurance companies. I've no experience from the employer's side but your new legal insurers should make sure you've got some sort of human resources helpline and free model documents to use.
Maybe, like unions, human resources advice tends to be unimaginative and impractical about reasonable adjustments to arthritis: my employer's in-house human resources worker was hopeless.

So: a tale of woe, which practical, un-bureaucratic, unions and human resources staff could have sorted-out before it happened.
John
PS my disablility was not arthritis but short-term memory loss after HIV and pneumonia. The adjustments asked for were a desk, supervision in a new part of my job writing a teaching syllabus, and peace-and-quiet. The tribunal never even got to the ask about those and whether they had been offered or not.

Anne McAllister
Member - 115 posts

Thats shocking. Im sorry you have had such a bad time.
Unfortunately incompetence runs in every scenario including unions and HR but the majority of employers are good law abiding business people who put their employees on a pedestal.
Im sorry you have been let down especially by the ET.
Have you considered appealing because the Employment Appeals Tribunal sometimes over rules the decisions taken at ET and dont forget there is also the EOC.
Dont know if this has helped or annoyed you but I wish you well.

KHUSHREEN PATEL
Member - 4 posts

Even big companies this days being legally representated are mismanage by the managements in my experience all they lack is a little bit care and welfare of the employees by not communicating with them.

John Robertson
Member - 7 posts

Anne
thanks for your comment!
From what I can make out, successful appeals about time limits are rare, but I did get my MP to forward a letter of complaint. I do agree that most employers are law abiding. Khushreen: yes - it's the same in the public sector too