There have been recent modifications made to the employment legislation in the United Kingdom in order to counteract the excessive number of claims that have been submitted in recent years. These claims are costing the British government millions of pounds each year via their costs. In order to alleviate the burden that the expenses of the tribunal are placing on the already overflowing employment tribunal costs that the British government is paying for each year, these new reforms stipulate that everyone who wishes to submit a claim will be required to pay a charge. In direct relation to Type A claims, which are now priced at £160, and Type B claims, which are priced at £230, these costs are applicable. In the case of redundancy payments and improper deductions from employee earnings, type A claims are the ones that are brought forward. For the purpose of evaluating allegations of discrimination and unfair dismissal, such as harassment in the workplace, type B claims are often evaluated. There is, however, some room for negotiation on the part of the claimant, as there are some individuals who will be exempt from these charges if they have a disposable capital of more than three thousand pounds, or sixteen thousand pounds if they are over the age of sixty-one at the time that they make the complaint. When determining whether a claimant has a monthly income that is insufficient to pay these costs, there are further potential loopholes in the fee reduction process that may be used. These new regulations have been directly challenged by Unison, the public sector union in the United Kingdom, which asserts that they are unconstitutional on two different grounds. The first reason is that they violate the rule of efficiency that is imposed by the European Union (EU) because they make it “nearly impossible or unreasonably difficult” for an employee to exercise the rights that are guaranteed to them by EU law. The Type B fees, which are the more costly of the two levies, discriminate against disadvantaged groups such as female claimants, handicapped claimants, and ethnic minorities. This makes these costs discriminatory in a roundabout way as well. Unison’s challenge, on the other hand, was dismissed by the High Court in a ruling that was handed down in February 2014. The justification for this decision was that the union’s concerns were being voiced before a sufficient amount of time had passed since the charges were introduced, and that it is too soon for the legal system in the United Kingdom to evaluate any potential adverse effects that they may have. The Union of United Workers intends to file an appeal with the Court of Appeal in response to this ruling. Statistics that demonstrate that the majority of employment tribunal cases are rejected, with many of them subsequently being regarded to have never been worthy of being presented before a tribunal in the first place, provide support for the decision that was made by the High Court. However, as of the beginning of 2014, there are hundreds of such tribunal claims that are still waiting to be brought to court at the cost of the money that taxpayers have contributed, which will undoubtedly amount to millions of pounds. There has been a good decrease in the number of tribunal claims that have been brought since the fees were established, which is another piece of evidence that lends weight to the judgment taken by the High Court. There were a total of 39,514 claims filed between July and September of 2013, which is a significant decrease when compared to the same time period in 2012, when 47,789 claims were registered, representing a reduction of 17 percent. If you have any questions or concerns about employment law in the United Kingdom, you should get in touch with Natenplaw.co.uk to get professional legal assistance from a group of the most qualified employment law attorneys in London.
Author
jackemails@gmail.com