Women and the low paid have been most affected by a new system which means fees must be paid to bring cases to an employment tribunal.
A report by the national Trades Union Congress (TUC) looked at the impact of the new fees regime, introduced in July 2013. The report, At what price justice (PDF 193 KB), said that overall since the introduction of fees there had been a 79% fall in cases proceeding to tribunal. Tribunal claims from women have fallen most rapidly. Approximately three quarters of applications for financial assistance from low paid workers were found to have been turned down. The TUC argues that the fees regime has been a ‘huge victory for Britain’s worst bosses’.
The Law Society of Scotland also produced a report on the impact of the fees (265 KB PDF). Following the report’s publication, the Society wrote to Chris Grayling, the Lord Chancellor in the coalition government, and Kenny MacAskill, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in the Scottish government, to ask for an urgent review of the fees.
In July 2014, the charity the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) published its own research suggesting costs were deterring many people from making valid claims. The research was based on analysis of 182 cases brought to the CAB’s attention between June and July 2014. The main findings were:
- four in five cases had a 50/50 or greater chance of success if they had gone to a tribunal;
- just 31% of the potentially successful cases were likely or certain to proceed to tribunal;
- in over half of the cases, fees or costs deterred people;
- under a quarter of claims worth £1,000 or less are likely to be, or are definitely being taken forward;
- a fifth contained discrimination as a basis for claim.
The most common issues were non-payment or withholding of wages, along with disputes over holiday pay.
Research published in May 2014 argued that the coalition government’s introduction of fees for tribunals and other policies echoes the policies of the 1980s and 1990s. The effects, while generally bad for workers, are not necessarily good for employers and do not necessarily reduce regulatory burdens.