Charging Fees in Employment Tribunals and the ... - Ministry of Justice

Charging Fees in Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal Summary ofresponseswith the government’s obligations under Article 6 of theEuropean Convention on Human Rights.36. Many respondents did not disagree that the proposed fee structures wouldsecure a contribution from those who use the service. Doubts were expressedwhether the fee structure would result in achieving the amounts assessed inthe impact assessment for the following reasons:Business respondents argued that the proposed remissions systemwas too generous and would embrace too many claimants, thusimpacting on revenue.Most groups argued that higher level fee levels would deter claims.Complaints from groups representing the views of claimants that thestructure sought to secure a contribution from claimants not usersgenerally.37. Many respondents also agreed that the fee structure should be simple, costeffective and easy to understand but disagreed that this had been achievedwith the proposals, particularly in relation to the remissions system andproposals for multiple claims. It was argued, for example, that the system couldbe simplified if the fee was sought after the claim was concluded. In relation toOption 2 some respondents believed that assessing the value of the claimmeant that the fees system was too complicated.38. All respondents including business respondents agreed access to justice was akey element but there was considerable disagreement as to whether theremissions system adequately achieves this – see section A7 for views ofrespondents on the HMCTS civil courts remission system.39. Many respondents agreed that there was a need to improve the efficiency andeffectiveness of the employment tribunals system but some disagreed that feeswould accomplish this. Most thought that fees would deter claims and whilstbusiness saw this was a positive, by reducing the number of weak andvexatious claims, other respondents argued that there was no evidence of suchclaims filling the employment tribunals.40. As the proposed fees were to be paid mainly by the claimant it was alsosuggested that businesses would become less inclined to settle and wait to seeif the claimant could pay the fee leading to longer delays and intransigentbehaviour by parties. It was seen as creating an uneven playing field given thelikely financial disparity between the claimant and the respondent. In contrastbusiness saw fees as re-balancing a system that heavily favours the rights ofemployees with some arguing that deterring weak and vexatious claims shouldbe included in the success criteria of the policy.Our consideration of responses41. We included the criteria upon which we developed the fee structure to assistrespondents in deciding whether we had been successful and it clearly had the13