Employment law shake-up: Workplace Law’s response

The rationale behind the Govt's move is to simplify the processes, which is great if the changes actually work. The experience of introducing more and earlier mediation elsewhere (such as NZ) has generally been favourable (although it does depend on the consistent supply of good quality mediators). But, it does take time to change organisational mindset or cultures from 'rights' to 'interest' based conversations when things go wrong. The challenge for managers is to track a successful pathway to achieving this. The up-side is more certain, speedy and cost-effective results. Also, once culture shifts are achieved, less structured dispute resolution and mediation methods can also be adopted providing even greater bottom-line benefits.

It's also not easy for employees making the claim to do so without solicitors but many have to do it and often while still in employment.

I do appreciate the point you are making but if the claim is genuine in law, then it is genuine and it SHOULD be easy for the employee.

Many small businesses don't invest enough time or money in understanding their obligations as employers and see it as an additional expense when in fact it should be a cornerstone investment.

Many micro-employers have a fear of disciplining employees or managing performance when actually they have no need if they do follow ACAS guidance and if they are genuine in valuing their employees; ACAS provides a free service & helpline- you don't need to read a textbook. In fact, ACAS guidance simply reflects common sense and decency.

If micro-employers did actually properly invest in their role as an employer (as well as in their aim to make profit) then their levels of fear about dealing with employees & with such claims would be reduced.

For those that prefer someone else to deal with it, there are business insurers out there that include support by providing policies etc & advising on how to deal with issues. Usually, if you follow their guidance, they will then deal with or settle any ET claims against you.

The basis of there claim may be genuine in the eyes of the written law, but this may not be genuine to someone who has to use their common sense to make decisions and not written down in a textbook for them to refer to, and who has their complete life tied up in their business, only to have it ruined, because a employee takes exeption to being disciplined and decides to go on work related stress, claiming harrassment and bullying, purely because he was asked to do his job correctly. this happens and it happens alot, because there is no protection for the employer.

It is too easy for an employee to do this, and they have nothing to lose. Protection need to be put in place for the employer.

How many small business owners do you know who would feel comfortable going into these situations without a solicitor, especially if they are against a solicitor who is on NWNF. I wouldn't.

So, how would you define a "rogue" employee?

Someone whose opinion, or perception, of the situation the employee does not accept? (Well, it's for the ET to make a facts & evidence- based decision.)
Someone who makes their claim in good faith but has a very weak case? (Again, a matter of judgement but the ET can warn the employee that they have no reasonable prospect of success or can strike it out.)
Someone who has an incorrect understanding of employment law but a genuine belief in the basis of their claim? (Hardly rogue, misguided perhaps, can expect a costs warning or a strike-out)
Some who has a genuine claim but is only raising it to "punish" their employer/obtain compensation? (Well, tough, that's the purpose of the system.)

I imagine what you mean is someone who doesn't believe their claim has any merit or that their claim is based on their own lies and that their only aim is to wring some money out of their employer?
Well, I'm sure they exist but until someone can provide us with statistics, facts & figures that support this jaded view that there are lots of them, I think Workplace Law is correct to express concerns. This is using a sledgehammer to attempt to crack a nut.

From speaking to lots of employees before they reach the stage of making a claim, I know that a lot of people are simply misinformed about their rights or simply hold a different perception to their employer. Many change their mind (from being determined to make a claim at ET) because they find out that their case might be weak, that they don't have a legal basis for a claim. However, more often than not, it is people who do have a legal basis for their claim changing their minds because they find out exactly what is involved, how stressful it can be and the levels of median awards.

Even so-called "rogue" claims are usually a sign of poor communication & procedures in the workplace.

Employers are no more required to use a solicitor than a claimant so can easily avoid those costs if they choose.

I absolutely agree. The system is still made for rogue claimants, whether the bar to approach the ET is 1 year, 2 years or 10 years.

Nothing but wholesale punishment of vexatious and frivolous claimants, complete with personal bankruptcy to pay for the costs of preparing the defence, is good enough to equalise the balance of power in the Tribunal system.

Im sorry, but the other side to this story is being completly missed by all of these so called experts. What about the ability in the current system for 'ROUGUE' employees to make false accusations against their employer in the hope of recieving a financial windfall, all this at the cost of the employer, who have no opportunity to employ a solicitor on a no win no fee basis, where they are told in a pre tribunal meeting that its best to settle because even if the employer wins, the tribunal will still ask them to pay the costs of the employee(this happened to my company).
I think if you really consider this carefully, there are much more cases of employees taking advantage of the current system, and this is the reason why these changes must happen.