http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23482520

As if it isn't a big enough decision to take a company, or even the civil service for instance, to court after suffering stress in the first place. Scumbags.

The government do not even have figures to prove that vexatious law suits are even a problem. All this does is make the bosses even richer because the staff cannot challenge the terms of employment.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

on my house hold insurance policy i have £50,000 of employment insurance.

not only am i a union member i am a union rep (my wife is also) i have,via the union, insurance cover for any and all employment disputes.

would you drive a car without insurance ... no ... then why go to work without insurance ... its a just covering your ass ...

That might do far more to boost union membership than anything else. At least with a union they would be able to determine whether you have a reasonable claim to start with.

I'm sorry but if it costs nothing to take an employer to a tribunal then people will do it as its a no lose situation and you might get lucky
I know of one case of someone who was sacked for fraud and the police were involved and he was found guilty still took them to the tribunal - OK he lost but the Co still have to pay fees to defend the action

In that case the tribunal route should have been closed to the person not that the person should pay for it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

Easy to say, hard to do as although you could say this case is black nd white there will be many that are not so clear cut - and if the tribunals are free most people will use them as they have nothing to lose

I imagine we're talking about a very small minority there, and I sure as hell wouldn't trust any figures the government came out with. In my place of work I can only think of three people willing to stand up for themselves, and I'm one of them!

This is much more likely to be at the behest of businesses rather than dealing with the actual culture problem within some of them.

There are other solutions, and that is to ban any representatives. One employee and one employer. Keep the costs down is a far better option than denying millions any rights.

Again (to play devils Advocate) I am a less the intelligent worker and my boss is a qualified lawyer - hardly going to be a fair tribunal is it.

That's a spectacularly ill-conceived solution. You shouldn't need anyone to explain why it is blatantly discriminatory; you need only consider what the purpose of representation is.

And in what way is introducing a fee for using a court of arbitration equivalent to "denying millions any rights"? It's exaggerations such as that which lead you to your regular bouts of alarmism, despondency, impractical solutions and improbable predictions.

Incidentally, you are always very keen to refer to (arguably inaccurate) claims about how important small business job creation is to the UK's growth. These tribunals weigh disproportionately on those small businesses and supposedly deter a certain amount of such hiring. Larger companies have better paperwork to hide behind when contesting genuine cases, and can easily absorb the costs of vexatious ones. It seems fairly reasonable that so long as the charge is relatively modest, this change would deter many frivolous claims, but surely very few stronger ones.

no normal individual will be able to represent themselves, they just don’t know the procedures that are set up in law
also these individuals are under pressure with little knowledge of legislation and set time scales for tribunal, again set down in law

everyone regardless, whether we like it or not, is entitled to representation on their behalf, that may even be at a price

i agree with the costs that maybe imposed at tribunal just make sure you have insurance for these costs ...

I do not really worry how it is done, if you can get representation then fine. The aspect is to keep costs down for all concerned. Maybe insurance is the solution?

At least they get them refunded if they win.