In a case before the European Court Of Justice (ECJ), Lock v British Gas Trading & Others, the Advocate-General has given an opinion that commission should be included in statutory holiday pay.
The opinion of the Advocate-General is only guidance for the ECJ and is not binding, and the full decision of the ECJ will be given in due course.
The opinion stresses the importance placed on holiday for an employee or worker "to rest and enjoy a period of relaxation and leisure" and that holiday pay should not be adversely affected to prevent an employee from taking their holiday.
If the ECJ does follow the Advocate-General's opinion, this could add a significant cost for employers, particularly where commission forms a significant part of an employee's income, and employers should consider looking at their current commission structures.
There may also be significant claims for back pay in relation to holday pay that should have included commission if the ECJ follows the Advocate-General's opinion.
06 December 2013
Friday, 6 December 2013
Tuesday, 3 December 2013
Factors to Take Into Account When Dismissing Employee On Grounds Of Ill Health
In the recent case in the Scottish Court Of Session of BS v Dundee City Council, the Court set out factors for an Employment Tribunal to consider when deciding an unfair dismissal case where an employer has dismissed an employee on the grounds of ill-health. Ill health is a potentially fair reason for dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Court said that relevant factors to consider are:
1. Whether the employer can be expected to be expected to wait any longer.
2. The employer should consult with the employee regarding their condition and when they expect to return.
3. To discover the employee's condition and likely prognosis.
The Claimant had worked for the employer for 35 years. The Court Of Session said that length of service was only a relevant factor if, during that service, the employee had shown that the employee was likely to return to work as soon as he was able.
The Court said that relevant factors to consider are:
1. Whether the employer can be expected to be expected to wait any longer.
2. The employer should consult with the employee regarding their condition and when they expect to return.
3. To discover the employee's condition and likely prognosis.
The Claimant had worked for the employer for 35 years. The Court Of Session said that length of service was only a relevant factor if, during that service, the employee had shown that the employee was likely to return to work as soon as he was able.
Monday, 2 December 2013
Restrictive Covenant of 1 year non-dealing and non-solicitation post-termination of employment was enforceable
In the recent case in the High Court of Croesus Financial Services Ltd v Bradshaw, the High Court held that Croesus was entitled to rely on a restraint of trade clause in a contract of employment that prevented Mr Bradshaw from soliciting or dealing with clients of Croesus with whom he had had personal contact, for a period of 12 months following the termination of his employment.
Cases regarding restrictive covenants turn very much on their facts, the position of the employee within the organisation, the duration, length and geographical scope of the restraint, and whether the clause protects the legitimate business interests of the employer.
As in this case, injunctions may be granted, but the case is also interesting in that at the end of the High Court judgment it demonstrates the difficulties in quantifying the losses incurred by breaches of restrictive covenants / restraint of trade clauses.
02 December 2013
Cases regarding restrictive covenants turn very much on their facts, the position of the employee within the organisation, the duration, length and geographical scope of the restraint, and whether the clause protects the legitimate business interests of the employer.
As in this case, injunctions may be granted, but the case is also interesting in that at the end of the High Court judgment it demonstrates the difficulties in quantifying the losses incurred by breaches of restrictive covenants / restraint of trade clauses.
02 December 2013
Monday, 25 November 2013
Effective Date Of Termination was when employee told of dismissal by their solicitor
The Effective Date Of Termination is relevant in unfair dismissal claims as the Employment Tribunal has to receive the Claim Form within 3 months of the EDT.
Where an employee has their employment terminated by letter, the "effective date of termination" (EDT) is the date that the Claimant has a reasonable opportunity to read the dismissal letter.
In the recent case of Robinson v Fairhill Medical Practice, the Claimant's solicitor received an email from the Respondent employer on 06 July 2011 stating that the Claimant's employment was terminated on that day.
The solicitor informed the Claimant on 07 July 2011 but the Claimant did not receive and read the letter from the employer until 08 July 2011. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decided that 07 July 2011 was the "effective date of termination" (EDT).
The reason the EDT is relevant is that Claimants have to bring an unfair dismissal claim in the Employment Tribunal within 3 months of the EDT. As the claim form was received by the Tribunal on 08 October 2011 instead of 06 October, the unfair dismissal claim was rejected.
The EAT did however allow the Claimant to continue with her claim for disability discrimination on the basis that it was "just and equitable" for her to do so.
Where an employee has their employment terminated by letter, the "effective date of termination" (EDT) is the date that the Claimant has a reasonable opportunity to read the dismissal letter.
In the recent case of Robinson v Fairhill Medical Practice, the Claimant's solicitor received an email from the Respondent employer on 06 July 2011 stating that the Claimant's employment was terminated on that day.
The solicitor informed the Claimant on 07 July 2011 but the Claimant did not receive and read the letter from the employer until 08 July 2011. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decided that 07 July 2011 was the "effective date of termination" (EDT).
The reason the EDT is relevant is that Claimants have to bring an unfair dismissal claim in the Employment Tribunal within 3 months of the EDT. As the claim form was received by the Tribunal on 08 October 2011 instead of 06 October, the unfair dismissal claim was rejected.
The EAT did however allow the Claimant to continue with her claim for disability discrimination on the basis that it was "just and equitable" for her to do so.
Wednesday, 31 July 2013
Rejection Of Employment Tribunal Claims and Responses
From 29 July 2013, there are new "sift" procedures where the Employment Tribunal has greater powers to reject a Claim or Response to a claim if they do not comply with the new Rules.
This makes it more important than ever before that the Claim or Response are properly drafted before they are submitted to the Employment Tribunal.
Some reasons why a Claim or Response can be rejected are:
Although it may be possible to resubmit the Claim or Response after it has been rejected, by the time it is resubmitted, it may be out of time.
CONTACT ME
If you want to find out more about the services that I offer, call 01462 418629, or visit my website www.hertsemploymentlaw.co.uk.
Disclaimer
This blog post is intended for information only. It is not intended to amount to legal advice or be relied on in legal proceedings and readers are advised to take specialist legal advice at all times.
This makes it more important than ever before that the Claim or Response are properly drafted before they are submitted to the Employment Tribunal.
Some reasons why a Claim or Response can be rejected are:
- If the Claim or Response is not in the correct form
- If the Claim isn't accompanied by a fee or fee remission application
- If the Claim cannot sensibly be responded to
- If the Response does not state whether the employer wishes to resist any part of the Claim
- If the Claim or Response is late
Although it may be possible to resubmit the Claim or Response after it has been rejected, by the time it is resubmitted, it may be out of time.
CONTACT ME
If you want to find out more about the services that I offer, call 01462 418629, or visit my website www.hertsemploymentlaw.co.uk.
Disclaimer
This blog post is intended for information only. It is not intended to amount to legal advice or be relied on in legal proceedings and readers are advised to take specialist legal advice at all times.
Friday, 26 July 2013
Government To Change Court and Tribunal Fee Remission System
The Government is proposing changes in the way that remissions of fees for submitting claims in the Court or Employment Tribunal will be calculated and for the changes to be made later in the year.
Although the proposals have not yet been finalised, they are likely to make it more difficult for claimants to either pay a reduced fee or no fee at all for bringing a claim.
To read the Government's consultation paper and impact assessment, click here>>
CONTACT ME
If you want to find out more about the services that I offer, call 01462 418629, or visit my website www.hertsemploymentlaw.co.uk.
Disclaimer
This blog post is intended for information only. It is not intended to amount to legal advice or be relied on in legal proceedings and readers are advised to take specialist legal advice at all times.
Although the proposals have not yet been finalised, they are likely to make it more difficult for claimants to either pay a reduced fee or no fee at all for bringing a claim.
To read the Government's consultation paper and impact assessment, click here>>
CONTACT ME
If you want to find out more about the services that I offer, call 01462 418629, or visit my website www.hertsemploymentlaw.co.uk.
Disclaimer
This blog post is intended for information only. It is not intended to amount to legal advice or be relied on in legal proceedings and readers are advised to take specialist legal advice at all times.
Thursday, 25 July 2013
MoJ Issues Employment Tribunal Fees Leaflets
The Ministry Of Justice has now issued leaflets setting out the Employment Tribunal fees that are payable from 29 July 2013 and whether they have to be paid:
Employment Tribunal Fees For Individuals (Form T435)
Employment Tribunal Fees - Do I have To Pay Them (Form T438) - this includes the form to apply for a remission (i.e. whether a claimant has to pay a fee and if so, how much)
If a claim is brought before 29 July 2013, no fee is payable.
There are some interesting points from the leaflets:
CONTACT ME
If you want to find out more about the services that I offer, call 01462 418629, or visit my website www.hertsemploymentlaw.co.uk.
Disclaimer
This blog post is intended for information only. It is not intended to amount to legal advice or be relied on in legal proceedings and readers are advised to take specialist legal advice at all times.
Employment Tribunal Fees For Individuals (Form T435)
Employment Tribunal Fees - Do I have To Pay Them (Form T438) - this includes the form to apply for a remission (i.e. whether a claimant has to pay a fee and if so, how much)
If a claim is brought before 29 July 2013, no fee is payable.
There are some interesting points from the leaflets:
- The Hearing Fee is not refundable if the claim is settled before the hearing takes place
- If the Tribunal claim is unsuccessful, the employer can ask the Tribunal to order the Claimant to pay any Tribunal fees the employer has had to pay and vice versa
- If an Issue fee has been paid but the Claimant's circumstances change for the worse in the meantime, the Claimant may not have to pay the Hearing fee
- If an Issue fee was not paid, or a reduced fee was paid because of the Claimant's financial circumstances, if those circumstances improve at the time the Hearing fee is due, then the Hearing fee may be payable.
CONTACT ME
If you want to find out more about the services that I offer, call 01462 418629, or visit my website www.hertsemploymentlaw.co.uk.
Disclaimer
This blog post is intended for information only. It is not intended to amount to legal advice or be relied on in legal proceedings and readers are advised to take specialist legal advice at all times.
Wednesday, 24 July 2013
Unison Judicial Review Application Over Employment Tribunal Fees Fails
UPDATE:
The Judicial Review is to be heard in the High Court later this year, probably October.
It has been reported that the application for a judicial review brought by Unison over the introduction of Employment Tribunal fees has failed. Here is the link to the article by Personnel Today http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/24/07/2013/59568/judicial-review-of-new-employment-tribunal-fees-rejected.htm.
As the article states, this may not be the end of the matter as it may progress to a full hearing later in the year. As reported in a previous post, the issue will be heard by the Court Of Session in Scotland later in the year which the Government has agreed will bind England and Wales.
Under legislation to come into force on 29 July 2013, a fee will be payable for bringing a claim in the Employment Tribunal (£160 to £250) and a separate fee for the Hearing (£230 to £950). Depending on a Claimant's personal circumstances, a fee may not be payable or a reduced fee may be payable.
The fee will be payable upon bringing a claim and when the Hearing is listed by the Employment Tribunal.
If a claim is brought before 29 July 2013, no fee is payable.
CONTACT ME
If you want to find out more about the services that I offer, call 01462 418629, or visit my website www.hertsemploymentlaw.co.uk.
Disclaimer
This blog post is intended for information only. It is not intended to amount to legal advice or be relied on in legal proceedings and readers are advised to take specialist legal advice at all times.
The Judicial Review is to be heard in the High Court later this year, probably October.
It has been reported that the application for a judicial review brought by Unison over the introduction of Employment Tribunal fees has failed. Here is the link to the article by Personnel Today http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/24/07/2013/59568/judicial-review-of-new-employment-tribunal-fees-rejected.htm.
As the article states, this may not be the end of the matter as it may progress to a full hearing later in the year. As reported in a previous post, the issue will be heard by the Court Of Session in Scotland later in the year which the Government has agreed will bind England and Wales.
Under legislation to come into force on 29 July 2013, a fee will be payable for bringing a claim in the Employment Tribunal (£160 to £250) and a separate fee for the Hearing (£230 to £950). Depending on a Claimant's personal circumstances, a fee may not be payable or a reduced fee may be payable.
The fee will be payable upon bringing a claim and when the Hearing is listed by the Employment Tribunal.
If a claim is brought before 29 July 2013, no fee is payable.
CONTACT ME
If you want to find out more about the services that I offer, call 01462 418629, or visit my website www.hertsemploymentlaw.co.uk.
Disclaimer
This blog post is intended for information only. It is not intended to amount to legal advice or be relied on in legal proceedings and readers are advised to take specialist legal advice at all times.
Tuesday, 23 July 2013
Employment Tribunal Fees Update
The Ministry Of Justice has stated that no online Employment Tribunal claims can be submitted from this 4.00 p.m. this Friday 26 July until Monday 29 July 2013 when Tribunal fees come into force.
For more information, see the MoJ website: http://www.justice.gov.uk/forms/hmcts/employment
Under legislation to come into force on 29 July 2013, a fee will be payable for bringing a claim in the Employment Tribunal (£160 to £250) and a separate fee for the Hearing (£230 to £950). Depending on a Claimant's personal circumstances, a fee may not be payable or a reduced fee may be payable.
The fee will be payable upon bringing a claim and when the Hearing is listed by the Employment Tribunal.
If a claim is brought before 29 July 2013, no fee is payable.
CONTACT ME
If you want to find out more about the services that I offer, call 01462 418629, or visit my website www.hertsemploymentlaw.co.uk.
Disclaimer
This blog post is intended for information only. It is not intended to amount to legal advice or be relied on in legal proceedings and readers are advised to take specialist legal advice at all times.
For more information, see the MoJ website: http://www.justice.gov.uk/forms/hmcts/employment
Under legislation to come into force on 29 July 2013, a fee will be payable for bringing a claim in the Employment Tribunal (£160 to £250) and a separate fee for the Hearing (£230 to £950). Depending on a Claimant's personal circumstances, a fee may not be payable or a reduced fee may be payable.
The fee will be payable upon bringing a claim and when the Hearing is listed by the Employment Tribunal.
If a claim is brought before 29 July 2013, no fee is payable.
CONTACT ME
If you want to find out more about the services that I offer, call 01462 418629, or visit my website www.hertsemploymentlaw.co.uk.
Disclaimer
This blog post is intended for information only. It is not intended to amount to legal advice or be relied on in legal proceedings and readers are advised to take specialist legal advice at all times.
Monday, 15 July 2013
Cap On Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal Awards From 29 July 2013
The Government has announced that from 29 July 2013, the Compensatory Award for unfair dismissal claims in the Employment Tribunal will be capped at £74200 (at present rates) or 12 months' pay, whichever is smaller.
The cap does not affect the Basic Award.
The cap would not apply to compensation for other claims, for example discrimination.
In practice, this change will not make much difference because it is rare for an Employment Tribunal to make an award of more than 1 year's pay for an unfair dismissal claim.
CONTACT ME
If you want to find out more about the services that I offer, call 01462 418629, or visit my website www.hertsemploymentlaw.co.uk.
Disclaimer
This blog post is intended for information only. It is not intended to amount to legal advice or be relied on in legal proceedings and readers are advised to take specialist legal advice at all times.
The cap does not affect the Basic Award.
The cap would not apply to compensation for other claims, for example discrimination.
In practice, this change will not make much difference because it is rare for an Employment Tribunal to make an award of more than 1 year's pay for an unfair dismissal claim.
CONTACT ME
If you want to find out more about the services that I offer, call 01462 418629, or visit my website www.hertsemploymentlaw.co.uk.
Disclaimer
This blog post is intended for information only. It is not intended to amount to legal advice or be relied on in legal proceedings and readers are advised to take specialist legal advice at all times.
Friday, 12 July 2013
Compromise Agreements explained
From 29 July 2013, Compromise Agreements will be known as "Settlement Agreements".
What is a Compromise Agreement?
A Compromise Agreement is a legally-binding contract which prevents an employee from bringing a claim against their employer, that is it "compromises" claims such as for unlawful deduction of wages or race discrimination. They can be used to settle Employment Tribunal claims but many claims are settled with COT3s (another catchy term!) through ACAS. (A COT3 is an ACAS agreement which can be used to settle Tribunal claims- more on this later ...)
Why are Compromise Agreements issued?
For certainty.
If an employer is paying enhanced redundancy pay, settling a grievance or an Employment Tribunal claim, they will want to be sure that after agreeing a settlement they will not then be faced with claims by the employee.
Equally, the employee will know what money (if any) they can expect as part of the settlement, when it will be paid, that the employer won't bring claims against them and what kind of reference (if any) they can expect.
Contents of a Compromise Agreement
What is a Compromise Agreement?
A Compromise Agreement is a legally-binding contract which prevents an employee from bringing a claim against their employer, that is it "compromises" claims such as for unlawful deduction of wages or race discrimination. They can be used to settle Employment Tribunal claims but many claims are settled with COT3s (another catchy term!) through ACAS. (A COT3 is an ACAS agreement which can be used to settle Tribunal claims- more on this later ...)
Why are Compromise Agreements issued?
For certainty.
If an employer is paying enhanced redundancy pay, settling a grievance or an Employment Tribunal claim, they will want to be sure that after agreeing a settlement they will not then be faced with claims by the employee.
Equally, the employee will know what money (if any) they can expect as part of the settlement, when it will be paid, that the employer won't bring claims against them and what kind of reference (if any) they can expect.
Contents of a Compromise Agreement
- The parties to the Compromise Agreement
- Which claims (e.g. unfair dismissal, sex discrimination) are being "compromised"
- The settlement sum, for example an enhanced redundancy payment or an "ex-gratia" payment - this is normally the tax-free bit (generally up to £30,000)
- Other sums, for example holiday pay, notice pay, bonus ...
- Tax Indemnity - this clause is to protect the employer if some or all of the sums on offer are taxable. If more tax is payable - this clause usually requires the employee to reimburse the employer.
- Confidentiality - the employer usually insists that the Compromise Agreement is kept confidential
- Restrictive Covenants - these are clauses which restrict the employee from competing with the employer. They're not in all Compromise Agreements because they're often in the contract of employment anyway.
- A Reference - these aren't in all Compromise Agreements, but they are a useful part of a settlement if they can be agreed.
PHEW!
The Formalities
For the Compromise Agreement to be valid, the recipient must be advised on the purpose and effect of the Agreement by a "relevant independent adviser" (like a solicitor specialising in employment law - my contact details are on my website!).
Legal Fees
With most Compromise Agreements, the employer pays a contribution towards the legal fees. Whether or not this is enough will depend on the amount of the contribution but also the amount of work that needs to be done, for example amending the Compromise Agreement or negotiating an improved offer.
The Tax Position
Most settlement payments are exempt up to £30,000, for example redundancy pay or an ex-gratia payment to settle claims. If there is no Payment In Lieu Of Notice (PILON) clause in the contract, at the employer's discretion the PILON can be paid without deductions for PAYE and NI. (NB I'm a solicitor not an accountant and an accountant's tax advice will clarify the position).
The ACAS COT3
COT3s are like Compromise Agreements only they are used to settle Employment Tribunal claims and it is ACAS that has the responsibility for finalising them.Once the parties agree the terms of the COT3, ACAS will confirm there is now a legally-binding agreement and they will inform the Employment Tribunal that the case has been settled.
CONTACT ME
If you want to find out more about the services that I offer, call 01462 418629, or visit my website www.hertsemploymentlaw.co.uk.
Disclaimer
This blog post is intended for information only. It is not intended to amount to legal advice or be relied on in legal proceedings and readers are advised to take specialist legal advice at all times.
Legal Fees
With most Compromise Agreements, the employer pays a contribution towards the legal fees. Whether or not this is enough will depend on the amount of the contribution but also the amount of work that needs to be done, for example amending the Compromise Agreement or negotiating an improved offer.
The Tax Position
Most settlement payments are exempt up to £30,000, for example redundancy pay or an ex-gratia payment to settle claims. If there is no Payment In Lieu Of Notice (PILON) clause in the contract, at the employer's discretion the PILON can be paid without deductions for PAYE and NI. (NB I'm a solicitor not an accountant and an accountant's tax advice will clarify the position).
The ACAS COT3
COT3s are like Compromise Agreements only they are used to settle Employment Tribunal claims and it is ACAS that has the responsibility for finalising them.Once the parties agree the terms of the COT3, ACAS will confirm there is now a legally-binding agreement and they will inform the Employment Tribunal that the case has been settled.
CONTACT ME
If you want to find out more about the services that I offer, call 01462 418629, or visit my website www.hertsemploymentlaw.co.uk.
Disclaimer
This blog post is intended for information only. It is not intended to amount to legal advice or be relied on in legal proceedings and readers are advised to take specialist legal advice at all times.
Discrimination and the Recruitment Process
A short time ago, I was at a networking breakfast. The gentleman sitting next to me asked what I did and I told him that I am a solicitor specialising in employment law. I could tell he was impressed by the way that he rolled his eyes and looked up at the ceiling whilst shaking his head - good start !
Disclaimer
This blog post is intended for information only. It is not intended to amount to legal advice or be relied on in legal proceedings and readers are advised to take specialist legal advice at all times.
The discussion then got on to recruitment of staff. Trying to show off, I pointed out it was important that neither the job advert nor the interview process should be conducted in a way that could be seen as being discriminatory - I was going for broke by now ...
He said "Well, I always ask women if they intend to have any children". Good answer - for lawyers that is.
Here are some tips regarding how to avoid a claim for discrimination in the recruitment process - which is by no means exhaustive:
- Work out a job description for the role itself - what are the essentials? This will help in drafting the job advert and questions for the interview.
- What personal characteristics are relevant for an applicant? Does it really matter whether an applicant is 21 or 61 years old? Does it have to be a man or woman that does the job? Does a person have to be able-bodied? Does an applicant have to be fluent in a particular language?
- Avoid terms such as "mature" in a job advert as this may discriminate against younger candidates. Think about what is meant by "mature". What an employer is probably looking for is someone who is reliable and this can be established by looking at an applicant's CV and getting references from previous employers.
- Consider whether a role has to be full time - can it be split amongst two part-timers on a job-share basis?
- Except in limited circumstances, a prospective employer is not allowed to enquire about an applicant's health before offering them the job.
- Ensure the application form does not ask for information that may be irrelevant to the applicant's ability to perform the role, e.g. marital status, number of children, age, nationality.
- Prior to the interview, set out a list of core questions which are designed to establish whether an applicant has the required characteristics and record their answers. The interview does not have to be restricted to those questions, but questions asked and their responses should be recorded.
- If it turns out after the interview that the applicant is disabled the employer is obliged to consider what "reasonable adjustments" can be made to enable the disabled person to perform the role.
CONTACT ME
If you want to find out more about the services that I offer, call 01462 418629, or visit my website www.hertsemploymentlaw.co.uk.
If you want to find out more about the services that I offer, call 01462 418629, or visit my website www.hertsemploymentlaw.co.uk.
Disclaimer
This blog post is intended for information only. It is not intended to amount to legal advice or be relied on in legal proceedings and readers are advised to take specialist legal advice at all times.
Scottish Judicial Review Application Update (Tribunal Fees)
The Judicial Review Application brought by Fox and Partners in Edinburgh has failed to the extent that no interim injunction was granted by the Court Of Session against the introduction of fees in the Employment Tribunal. There will instead be a full hearing later in the year and the Government has agreed to refund fees if the full hearing determines that they should not be payable. The Government has also agreed that any decision made by the Scottish Court will be binding on England and Wales.
The hearing regarding the judicial review application brought by UNISON in relation to Tribunal fees has been expedited and will be heard shortly.
Here is the link to the article by the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-23280845
CONTACT ME
If you want to find out more about the services that I offer, call 01462 418629, or visit my website www.hertsemploymentlaw.co.uk.
Disclaimer
This blog post is intended for information only. It is not intended to amount to legal advice or be relied on in legal proceedings and readers are advised to take specialist legal advice at all times.
The hearing regarding the judicial review application brought by UNISON in relation to Tribunal fees has been expedited and will be heard shortly.
Here is the link to the article by the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-23280845
CONTACT ME
If you want to find out more about the services that I offer, call 01462 418629, or visit my website www.hertsemploymentlaw.co.uk.
Disclaimer
This blog post is intended for information only. It is not intended to amount to legal advice or be relied on in legal proceedings and readers are advised to take specialist legal advice at all times.
Monday, 1 July 2013
Unison Challenges Employment Tribunal Fees
UNISON has launched judicial review proceedings in the High Court against the introduction of fees - please follow this link https://www.unison.org.uk/unison-demands-equal-access-to-justice to find out more.
Under legislation to come into force on 29 July 2013, a fee will be payable for bringing a claim in the Employment Tribunal (£160 to £250) and a separate fee for the Hearing (£230 to £950). Depending on a Claimant's personal circumstances, a fee may not be payable or a reduced fee.
The fee will be payable upon bringing a claim and when the Hearing is listed by the Employment Tribunal.
If a claim is brought before 29 July 2013, no fee is payable.
CONTACT ME
If you want to find out more about the services that I offer, call 01462 418629, or visit my website www.hertsemploymentlaw.co.uk.
Disclaimer
This blog post is intended for information only. It is not intended to amount to legal advice or be relied on in legal proceedings and readers are advised to take specialist legal advice at all times.
Under legislation to come into force on 29 July 2013, a fee will be payable for bringing a claim in the Employment Tribunal (£160 to £250) and a separate fee for the Hearing (£230 to £950). Depending on a Claimant's personal circumstances, a fee may not be payable or a reduced fee.
The fee will be payable upon bringing a claim and when the Hearing is listed by the Employment Tribunal.
If a claim is brought before 29 July 2013, no fee is payable.
CONTACT ME
If you want to find out more about the services that I offer, call 01462 418629, or visit my website www.hertsemploymentlaw.co.uk.
Disclaimer
This blog post is intended for information only. It is not intended to amount to legal advice or be relied on in legal proceedings and readers are advised to take specialist legal advice at all times.
Wednesday, 26 June 2013
Employment Law Changes from 25 June 2013
There are plenty of changes happening in the Employment law field over the next few months. Much of it is with a view to reducing the number of Tribunal claims as well as encouraging parties to settle.The first batch of changes is with effect from 25 June 2013. There are further changes coming into force from 29 July 2013 (the introduction of fees) and again in 2014 (early ACAS conciliation).
From 25 June 2013, some of the changes are as follows:
Protected Disclosures (aka whistleblowing).From now on, employees will only be protected if they believed that the disclosure was made in the public interest. Tribunals will have the power to reduce compensation if the disclosure was not made in good faith.
Deposit Orders. Deposit Orders are made if the Tribunal considers that a claim, or part of a claim, has limited prospects of success. If a Deposit Order is made then for the part of the claim subject to the Order (now up to £1000), the Claimant has to pay the amount that the Tribunal directs for that part of the claim to continue.
Deposit Orders can now be made for each part of a claim that the Tribunal considers is weak. For example, one single claim could include several claims e.g. for unfair dismissal, breach of contract, discrimination. This will increase the deterrent for Claimants for bringing weak claims in the future as well as continuing with weak claims.
Deposit Orders act as a warning to the Claimant from the Tribunal and, if the Claimant decides to continue with that part of the claim after having paid the Deposit, if that part of their claim fails at the main Hearing the Claimant is more likely to be liable for the Respondent's costs.
Costs Orders. There is now much greater scope for a Tribunal to award costs, either against a Claimant who has brought a claim that is unjustified, or a Respondent who is defending a claim when there is no real defence.
CONTACT ME
If you want to find out more about the services that I offer, call 01462 418629, or visit my website www.hertsemploymentlaw.co.uk.
Disclaimer
This blog post is intended for information only. It is not intended to amount to legal advice or be relied on in legal proceedings and readers are advised to take specialist legal advice at all times.
From 25 June 2013, some of the changes are as follows:
Protected Disclosures (aka whistleblowing).From now on, employees will only be protected if they believed that the disclosure was made in the public interest. Tribunals will have the power to reduce compensation if the disclosure was not made in good faith.
Deposit Orders. Deposit Orders are made if the Tribunal considers that a claim, or part of a claim, has limited prospects of success. If a Deposit Order is made then for the part of the claim subject to the Order (now up to £1000), the Claimant has to pay the amount that the Tribunal directs for that part of the claim to continue.
Deposit Orders can now be made for each part of a claim that the Tribunal considers is weak. For example, one single claim could include several claims e.g. for unfair dismissal, breach of contract, discrimination. This will increase the deterrent for Claimants for bringing weak claims in the future as well as continuing with weak claims.
Deposit Orders act as a warning to the Claimant from the Tribunal and, if the Claimant decides to continue with that part of the claim after having paid the Deposit, if that part of their claim fails at the main Hearing the Claimant is more likely to be liable for the Respondent's costs.
Costs Orders. There is now much greater scope for a Tribunal to award costs, either against a Claimant who has brought a claim that is unjustified, or a Respondent who is defending a claim when there is no real defence.
CONTACT ME
If you want to find out more about the services that I offer, call 01462 418629, or visit my website www.hertsemploymentlaw.co.uk.
Disclaimer
This blog post is intended for information only. It is not intended to amount to legal advice or be relied on in legal proceedings and readers are advised to take specialist legal advice at all times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)