The Mover December 2012

18 The Mover ● December 2012 ● www.themover.co.ukLEGAL: EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL FEESEmployment tribunal fees –good news or bad?Employment law has long been a hot potato. Depending on where you sit, it is either hopelesslyineffective at protecting vulnerable employees against immoral employers, or a huge legal andadministrative burden that allows well meaning employers to be unfairly pursued by formeremployees with spurious claims. Andrew Buckley of Woodfines solicitors looks at the good andthe bad of the new legislation.We can all come up withexamples to illustrateeither viewpoint.Small wonder, then,that the government are keen to makereforms.In 2011, the coalition governmentindicated that Claimants inEmployment Tribunal cases wouldstart to have to pay fees for pursuingcases. In December 2011, aconsultation document (ChargingFees in Employment Tribunals andthe Employment Appeal Tribunal) waslaunched, and views were sought asto how fees should be implemented.The consultation closed in March2012, and the government publishedits response on 13 July, 2012. Thegovernment hopes that fees will beintroduced in the summer of 2013.The proposal is that Claimants willpay a fee when they issue their claim(the issue fee), and a further fee ifthe case proceeds to a final hearing(the hearing fee).The amount of each fee payablewill depend upon what type of caseit is. Level 1 fees will be payable forsimple cases such as deductionsfrom wages claims, and redundancypayment claims. Level 2 claims willbe payable for more complex casessuch as unfair dismissal anddiscrimination claims.It is currently proposed that the feespayable will be: Level 1 – Issue Fee£160 and Hearing Fee £230.Level 2– Issue Fee £250 and Hearing Fee £950.It is apparent from the responsesto the consultation, that the proposalsdo not please either employees oremployers. Employee groups areopposed in principle to the idea ofemployees having to pay fees tobring tribunal cases. They argue thatintroduction of a fee would unfairlydisadvantage employees and preventthem from pursuing valid claims.On the other hand, business groupsargue that the proposals are unlikelyto deter weak claims.The government state that deterringclaims is not the purpose of theproposals. They say that in commonwith other courts, EmploymentTribunals should be partially selffunding.However, the governmenthad originally indicated that deterringclaims was not the purpose of theproposals, but then withdrew thissuggestion.There are other fundamentalcriticisms of the proposals. Firstly,it is thought that having a two stagefee system will clog up the tribunal– employers will delay making offersto settle cases to see if the employeepays the hearing fee, and employeeswho have paid the hearing fee maybe less likely to accept reasonableproposals from the employer.Secondly, applications at the end ofcases for orders that another partyshould be responsible for the feesare likely to become common, whichwill take up more Tribunal time.Whether the proposals change thesystem for the better remains to beseen.● www.woodfines.co.ukAndrew BuckleyAndrew Buckley has been asolicitor for 12 years and hasspecialised entirely inemployment law matters, usuallyrepresenting employers. He is amember of the Solicitors Associationof Higher Courts Advocates, as well asthe Employment Lawyers Association.He is a partner in the Employmentdepartment at Woodfines.