97% of employers say tribunal system weighted against them

Anne Pridmore has a very valid point. It becomes even more valid with the implementation of 'personalised budgets' for those vulnerable people who require personal care because of their disability, and doubly worrying for those whose disability extends to learning and motor skills.

We are faced with a potential tidal wave of physical, mental and financial abuse as a direct result of the current changes in funding arrangements for disability-dependent people of every age. Let us say, for example, that a local authority provides a disabled person with a personal budget of £500 per week to purchase his or her daily care-needs (It can sometimes be much more). This may well include having a person to bath them, get them on and off the toilet, and yes, in some cases, also to wipe their bottoms. The good news is that there are literally thousands of 'key workers' (i.e. employees) who do a magnificent job, day in and day out, but sadly, there are those bad apples that we read about (or see on television) all too often. The exampled £500 every week acts like a honeypot which, again too often, attracts the worst kind of insect. That, I believe, is the problem that Anne Pridmore seeks to be addressed. It is, in my view, a very large and potentially dangerous loophole in the law that relates to employment at this level, and the only advice that I can give to Anne is for her and her friends and colleagues to write to their MP and to their local Councillors and to keep on writing until the law recognises what is a serious problem for
high-dependency disabled people. Rest assured, I have written, and written again, but it needs so many more people to keep on writing, that's the only way to get the message across, Anne, so get to it !!

It has to be remembered that many employers treat their employees badly, and do blatantly break the rules but cow their employees into not taking any action for fear of ruining their future employment (internally or externally). Seen far more cases of this than malicious cases.

IT would be nice if someone "out there" commented on my particular concerns for PA employers who are not in work them selves!

It makes me laugh when you talk about arbitration - it makes little difference to employers like myself getting ACAS involved, if you are on benefit and employ someone through Direct Payment/Personalisation however much the settlement is we haven't got the money. Whilst we are not a business we have to abide by all the same laws as businesses. Local Authorities usually take the attitude that "the balls in your court".

All PA employers have these problems and we need a radical shift in the law.

The trouble is that given the involvement of lawyers in mediation, the same opportunities to torture the evidence are inevitably brought to bear as part of a negotiation. My case is bigger than yours so give me more, or less, money. If the parties can't agree at ACAS, the matter goes to tribunal anyway.

It could be that some of the evidence torturing is omitted at a subsequent tribunal, because it was hopeless at ACAS, and it could be that having spotted a weakness in the opponent during mediation that new forms of evidence torturing are opened up.

I think the law is the problem, the rest is just commerce.

In divorce / separation now there is a huge emphasis on mediation; no lawyers, no judges, no courtroom unless mediation does not work and then the hugely expensive courts are used. Surely there is a place for a system such as this for Employment Tribunals? The outlandish, greedy and / or ficticious can be weeded out before they end up costing the innocent a ton of cash.

Like everything it seems to me that systems are put in place that generalise. People at one end or the other often dont fit the mould. You can have a person who is being totally taken advantage of by a very large employer who can afford to defend their case with swanky and expensive lawyers which intimidates the individual into giving up or if they win the company appeals and just ties them up in legal proceedings hoping to bankrupt them with legal costs so they cannot continue.

On the other end is the individual who takes the very small company to court who does not have the means to defend.

I think there needs to be a system which also takes into consideration the size and financial resources of each side so that parties are not discriminated by their ability to defend/fight on financial grounds. In a perfect world everyone , employer or employee should have the right to a fair and equal system to get the correct result, all to often it comes down to who can afford the best lawyers no matter what the system in place.

I've been to one tribunal. As the respondent i expected there to be bias against me. But there wasn't.

The idea once was that tribunals would quickly resolve the issues and impart justice. Once the law was crystal clear, the disputants would simply focus of the facts and whoever had the right story would win.

But as the law has become more and more detailed what actually happens is that the accuser explores each and every angle available to them and attempts to squeeze the facts until they seem to fit one of the options. The more detailed the law, the more the opportunity to persecute the facts and the longer the process goes on. In other forms of law this is called going on a fishing expedition. The respondent must respond to each sprat and mackerel.

Employers may be 95% compliant every day yet the 5% can detain them hugely disproportionately.

There are no doubt some very poor employers out there. The disproportionate suffering of the majority of good employers is the price being paid for the failure of the law to remain reasonable and to deal effectively with a few rogues. Perhaps this is a price worth paying?

I would like to ask whether or not Chris Booth is taking into account small employers like myself who employ Personal Assistants/carers. i have been taken to tribunal once and it looks like I am about to be taken to tribunal again. The problem we have is unique because it is a one to one situation, we never have a witness and it is always the employees word against mine.

From the research I have done little has been done in this area.

At this time I am forced to have personal care from someone who I am feeling very vulnerable with. I am unable to suspend them till the grievance appeal is over and we are now forced to hold a SOSR I am feeling terrified.

The simple answer would be to impose radical change. It should be mandatory for all ET disputes be put through ACAS in order to arbitrate and make professional judgement decisions.

I am aware though that there would be opposition from both sides for their respective reasons. But since this is often a very emotionally charged problem, it needs common sense to prevail. Both employees and employers alike often circumvent law to suit their own needs, only to fuel employment disputes for a longer duration. Employers can afford to spend money over it, and employees with a grudge feel they have nothing to lose. This is not a good recipy for resolution, and probably explains why 97% of employers feel ET systems are failing them. I'm sure there are many disgruntled employees who feel the same way.

At the moment, it looks like anyone disgruntled ex employee can make a claim and any unscrupulous solicitor will take the case. Employer has to incur costs to prepare for the case and even at the last minutes there is no recourse if the claimant lose the case. Employers can be spending huge amount of money and time and if the claimant lose the case, what next for the employer, claimant walk away smiling because it does not cost him anything and there is no penalty for causing mischief.
I am in favour of tribunal but it has to be fair dude for both parties. At moment it is not and I do not know what possess the tribunal to side with employees and think that employers are always the baddie. They have to start getting out to the real work and be employer themselves and see how many areas and laws one has to be subjected and at the same time producing enough revenue to pay the employees, they get their monthly salary and if you are late because of cashflow, they screamed and want to take you to court, whereas the owners at most time does not take home anything so that others can be paid. Not every business make lots of profits for the owners to enjoy and besides it is mostly a long haul.
Really frightened to employ people if tribunal are leaning towards employees instead of being fair.