The Employment Tribunal System - PowerPoint Presentation Example

Introduction: The notion that the Employment Tribunal System established in 1964, is to protect the employees alone is wrong. According to me, its main objective is to create a healthy industrial relations climate, so that the employees are not unnecessarily harassed, and the productivity of the organization does not suffer. Besides offering protection to both the employers and employees, in the larger perspective, Tribunals serve the national interest. Changes for the smooth running of the system have been introduced with the experience gained by the legal/labor departments of the government. “The greatest change introduced by the 2001 Regulations is in relation to the costs which can be awarded. Prior to 2001, Tribunals had a discretion to award costs of up to 500 pounds where as the claim was considered to be frivolous or vexatious.” (Lockton, p.11) Running a case in a Tribunal requires thorough knowledge like the legalities involved in handling regular court cases. Claimants and their counsels presenting themselves before an Employment Tribunal or the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) will face many procedures and rules that seem complicated. An extensive presentation of past cases and their judgments are the important tools of justification to get favorable orders. The skill lies in masterly presentation of the many clauses and sub-clauses related to the laws. Sound knowledge of the substantive law and procedures are a must. The depth and the profundity of the legal proceedings is such, the scenario may be entirely different for, prima-facie, similar looking cases. On behalf of my group, allow me to exhibit before you this Power Point Presentation, on the basis of research conducted by me on the subject from various resources: Topic of research related to: * The Employment Tribunal System established in 1964 and amended from time to time. Agenda: *Employees rights, responsibilities and duties towards the employer. *Employees should be basically sound and industrious and at the same time basic conditions need to be created for the employees to become basically sound and industrious. *It is like the weighing scale. Both arms of the scale are equally important to strike the correct balance. Not on Agenda: *Honkers are able to take the undue advantage on account of the legal provisions that are plastic and can be twisted and interpreted in either way. The greedy lawyers may also resort to the trick of flaming such bonkers. Review of key objectives & critical success factors: *Awareness! With association and with interaction with other employees, one begins to understand one’s rights; also responsibilities and duties towards the employer. *The establishment of the Tribunal system, the very presence of it, will deter many employers from discriminating against the employees. The employees are able to exercise and enforce their legal rights to justice. *Many firms are settling cases, though they have a chance of winning them. The reason is simple and straightforward—Tribunals too often allow weak and vexatious claims to be heard and the cost of servicing them is heavy. *On the basis of the past judgements delivered by the Tribunals organisations have got it right on disability, by revising and liberalising their procedures for such payments to disabled work force. The expert opinions: When any justice-implementing law is framed, the government has the best of the intentions and genuinely hopes that it will serve the section of the society for whose welfare it is framed. The same hopes were raised when the Employment Tribunal System was established in 1964 and Tribunals were set up to dispense justice. Before I tender my comments and summarise the merits and de-merits of the working of the tribunal, let me enumerate before you some of the expert opinions, as for functioning of the Tribunals vis-à-vis its benefits to the employees. *“Will Hutton, the Industrial Society’s Chief Executive says, “The real key to reducing workplace conflict is to make recourse to law the last resort. Instead of conflict resolution should be embedded to high quality management systems and processes that address the causes of disputes and grievances at their source.”(Slapper, 2001, p. 293) *John Cridland, Deputy Director-General of the CBI, observes: “The new tribunal’s procedures are falling short. They may be having an impact on absolute numbers but are unnecessarily complicated and run the risk of undermining business confidence. The number one priority for any review must be making the regulations more user-friendly. Tribunals, across the country, also need to adopt a more consistent, common sense approach. They must properly judge claims on their merit, allowing deserving ones to be heard while striking out unscrupulous ones". (CBI…) *Tim Watts, Chairman of the Pertemps Group, said: “Employment tribunals are not always even-handed and often favour the employee. We had one case recently where the employee failed to attend on three consecutive occasions, gave no reason for his failure to appear and yet was granted a fourth hearing, when the case was dismissed. We received no costs.”(CBI….) My part of the presentation— research on Employment Tribunal: To fulfill the obligations of my part of the presentation, I went through literature, articles and texts related to Employment Tribunals and here I make an attempt to give you my observations: To prefer a claim in the Tribunal, no employee should attempt to make a claim of one’s own. It is better the two knowledgeable lawyers fight it out! Even though every one does discuss the pros and cons of preferring the claims, legal loopholes are so special, you realise the mistake when you hit against the legal roadblock. Everyone knows, ‘prevention is better than cure.’ But employee sackings are a fact of life, and a few bad apples on either side, whether employees or employers, are the prime causes for the creation of institutions like Tribunals. The essential difference between the criminal courts and Tribunals is, in the latter case, the outcomes are payments in money than declaration of the guilt, and put the accused behind the bars, if need be, for the specified number of years, in proportion to the gravity of the crime. “Figures show that employment tribunal claims by employees against their companies increased by 25 percent during 1999-2000. The number of people contacting ACAS enquiry points for advice rose by 40 percent to 715,000 and employers paid 2.6 million pounds in awards resulting from sex, race and disability discrimination cases. The rise, which is expected to continue, is fuelled by more employment rights, better informed employees and a growing individualism at work.”(Slapper, p.293) No one checks the terms and conditions of employment threadbare, when one is in desperate need of employment. At the entry stage, when it is a big and established organisation, one has no option either. One signs on the dotted lines! Troubles begin later, when the employment is confirmed, when the employee pays the union subscription to become the member. Soon the clash of interest begins. Much depends upon the type of union leadership that an organisation has. There are certain politically affiliated unions, which believe that the management is the permanent enemy and the employees must be always at war with it! The employer wants more productivity, the employee alleges discrimination, nervous breakdown situations arise, and soon a kind of snakes-and-ladders game begins. The employee whose ego is hurt and pay packet has been robbed, goes for legal measures. His attorney first tries to find out whether procedural flaws are there in sacking. In that case, things will become easier later. Jus as a medical practitioner prescribes several tests to diagnose the patient’s complaints; the attorney desperately looks out for the loopholes, in the brief in front of him. Naturally, he is always biased in favour of the employee. He has to; that is his business and his future ‘promotions’ are dependent on the outcome of the case. A successful lawyer is sought after by individuals seeking compensation from the Tribunal. The cases admitted for compensation are growing. Some believe that the Employment Tribunal system is ineffective and it is too adversarial. There is a rampart increase in the “weak and vexatious” claims. The disgruntled employees encourage ‘have-a-go-mentality’ and this has resulted in abnormal increase in frivolous litigation. An employer is not a philanthropist. An employee is not a Good Samaritan. So the tug of war will never end and the Tribunals will continue to get more and more work. Fresh cases will arrive and the employers will try their best to prolong the existing cases. The employee and the union leaders will strategise how to deal with a bullying boss. From the resources point of view to fight the cases, the employer is always in an advantageous position. Depending on the nature of the case, the compensation amount could be so high; the smaller establishments may have to down the shutters in meeting the court obligations for payment of the compensation. The Courts are not ignorant about this fact. The main objective of any media, print or electronic, is to increase the circulation/draw more audience. So, often you come across disability discrimination cases by honkers getting lots of media attention. Sensationalism is the way of the press. This is not special about the Tribunal cases for claims of compensation. In criminal courts, the cases of persons being falsely implicated including those of murders and for political vendetta are many. Any case goes through the elaborate legal processes and there are two lawyers to assist and contest before the Judge regarding the merits/demerits of the case. The gentleman presiding over the Tribunal is also supposed to be an individual with extensive knowledge about the law of the land, legal procedures and such an Official is able to grasp the finer points of law and merit in the arguments of the attorneys. Whereas no one can deny the utility of the Tribunals from the point of view of benefit to the employees, the ground realities need to be noted. Many firms are settling cases, though they have a chance of winning them. The reason is simple and straightforward—Tribunals too often allow weak and vexatious claims to be heard and the cost of servicing them is heavy. Changes for the smooth running of the system have been introduced with the experience gained by the legal/labor departments of the government. “The greatest change introduced by the 2001 Regulations is in relation to the costs which can be awarded. Prior to 2001, Tribunals had a discretion to award costs of up to 500 pounds where as the claim was considered to be frivolous or vexatious.”(Lockton, p.11) The laws have further been amended. The employers now should have no complaints as for the award of costs. “Now tribunals may award costs where either party or the party’s representative has acted improperly. In addition, a tribunal must consider awarding costs where parties or their representatives have acted vexatious, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably, or bringing of the proceedings by a party has been misconceived. ‘Misconceived’ includes having no real prospect of success. The costs a tribunal can award have been increased to 10,000 pounds.”(Lockton, p.11) It is the duty of the concerned attorney to put forward the case for costs in the proper perspective. Whereas this can be the viewpoint of a responsible Official concerned with the dispensation of justice to the workers, there are provisions to award costs against the losing complainants to check unscrupulous litigants. When this position was brought to the notice of the litigants, 41 percent withdrew their claims. But from the point of view of employers, the problem persists, notwithstanding the above amendment. Securing the cost award is one thing; but recovering the amount from the employees who has lost the case, is a difficult process, for which again fresh litigation will have to be initiated—which means, more legal expenses! But one can not blame the Employment Tribunal System for that. It is the failure of the individual Judge. Proper monitoring of the administrative part of the judicial decisions is a must. In the present case, action should have been taken against the concerned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, for discharging his duties inefficiently. Summary and experience gained in working with a group: What is theory after all? It is other man’s experience. Everyone in our group agrees that presently, the compensation culture on British business is taking strong roots. Most of the members of the group belong to the combustible younger generation. Many of them aspire to be attorneys, and some even trade union leaders! The group members agree that an impartial assessment is necessary as for the advantages and disadvantages of the functioning of the Employment Tribunal Service. I have leant much with the association and interaction with the group members. During the course of arguments, often tempers rose high, yet at the end of the discussion session, utmost cordiality prevailed amongst the members of the group. We all became intimate friends. The fierce loyalties of some of the members for the labor class were showing, whereas others favored the small businessman and industrial houses. Some bluntly said that the unionism and the trade union leaders are holding the nation to ransom. They were extremely critical about the left trade union leaders. Such leaders wish to see the failure of the system of Employment Tribunals, they alleged. Personally, I am not an orator, not at all a platform orator! When I am on the stage, even with the file of the prepared speech in my hand, my fingers danced out of stage fear! To face the audiences, the learned members from the faculty and knowledgeable guests, and speak in front of them, in a packed to capacity auditorium,…well, when I alighted from the stage, I was profusely sweating, even though my friends said that it was a good presentation and the contents were well-researched. The Employment Tribunal System, with all its shortcomings, has done yeoman service to the cause of workers. It has one more positive contribution. Formerly, for the grievance concerning a single employee, the possibility of entire workforce of an establishment going on a strike was commonplace. When such strikes happen in government departments and large organisations, productivity will suffer and the common man will be put to lots of inconvenience. Now, by isolating such cases and taking them before the Tribunal, the ends of justice will be met. It is the duty of the concerned attorney to put forward the case for costs in the proper perspective. The Presiding Officers of the Tribunals should also see that the ends of justice are met by treating the employers and employees on equal footing. Nobody has the right to waste the precious time of the Judicial System on meaningless litigation. Works Cited: CBI Press Release 28 Sep 2005 ... Business is losing confidence in the employment tribunal system despite much-needed ... Costs in weak and vexatious cases should be awarded against losing ... to vexatious and frivolous claims because costs are seldom, if ever, awarded. ... The CBI is the UK's top business lobby organisation. ... www.cbi.org.uk/ndbs/press.nsf/0/33f9830ed75f765b8025708800523621?OpenDocument - 34k.Retrieved on May 26, 2009 Lockton, Deborah, J. Employment Law. Published by Macmillan, 2008, 6th edition, Paperback. ISBN: 0230537480, ISBN13: 9780230537484 Slapper, Gary: Sourcebook on the English Legal System Publisher: Routledge-Cavendish Date Published: 2001,606 pages. ISBN-13: 9781859415535 ISBN: 1859415539 Read More