What today's introduction of Employment Tribunal Fees really means

As of this morning, Employment Tribunals - set up to provide a proper, impartial forum for the resolution of disputes between employees and employers - are no longer free to access.

The Government's legal aid cuts may have attracted their fair share of criticism, but another reform with potentially huge implications for access to justice quietly kicks in today.

As of this morning, Employment Tribunals - set up to provide a proper, impartial forum for the resolution of disputes between employees and employers - are no longer free to access. If you're unfairly sacked, discriminated against or don't receive wages owed from now on, you'll need to pay an upfront cost or bite your lip.

The Ministry of Justice claims that the £84m (or £74m, depending on which particular Government document you happen to be looking at) cost of running the Employment Tribunals Service is too high. They say it's unfair for taxpayers to foot the bill for workers who choose to "escalate workplace disputes to a tribunal" and argue that "drawn out disputes" can "emotionally damage workers and financially damage businesses".

What this translates to is a fees system compelling claimants (almost always employees or ex-employees) to pay £160 just to begin the process of challenging employers over relatively simple matters like non-payment of wages or statutory redundancy pay.

Should they then want to take the case to a full hearing, they'll need a further £230. If that seems onerous, spare a thought for those challenging unfair dismissal, sexual or racial discrimination in the workplace, or sackings arising from whistle-blowing, who will now have to cough up £250 upfront, with a further £950 due for a day at tribunal.

There's no guarantee either that a claimant will get their fees back, even if they win their case. While the new rules allow tribunals to impose a costs order against a losing party, this is entirely at a judge's discretion, so even if an employee proves that they were, for example, the victim of sexual harassment at work, a good chunk of their compensation awarded could well be swallowed up by fees.

Although the Government's own impact assesment freely concedes that it "cannot rule out... fees may have the effect of deterring some claimants from bringing a claim", it insists that the policy is not designed to reduce claims, only to transfer some of the cost from taxpayers. Responding to criticism that fees might put poor people off seeking redress, the MoJ points to the Civil Fee Remission scheme, whereby low-earners and those in receipt of state benefits such as Jobseekers Allowance can obtain a full or partial waiver of fees for tribunal proceedings.

Yet the MoJ is already planning major reforms to Civil Fee Remission and, while it has yet to respond to the four-week consultation it issued in the spring, proposals already floated include a tougher means test, a reduction in the number of benefits accepted as proof of entitlement to fee remission in line with the Universal Credit reforms and a 66 per cent reduction in the time limit for retrospective remission claims, from six to two months.

While it won't be clear for some months what the what the final reformed remissions system will look like, someone who qualifies for free access to an Employment Tribunal today might not necessarily make the grade come the autumn.

It's easy to raise the spectre of feckless employees cashing in on an overly-generous system. Indeed, the controversial Beecroft report commissioned by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and its rabidly "socialist"  Secretary of State Vince Cable, warned of sacked workers with "time on their hands", who view a free employment tribunal "as a no cost option".

Beecroft's report didn't trouble itself with figures - he famously put the cost of red tape to business at a distinctly unscientific "Who knows?" - but here are a few to consider. Since hitting a peak of 236,100 in the wake of financial crash - when presumably there was a sudden spike in chancers with "time on their hands" - the number of claims accepted for consideration by employment tribunals has fallen by a fifth.

Only eight per cent of unfair dismissal claims are successful at hearing, while there was a whopping, er, zero per cent success rate for equal pay claims in 2011-12. Nobody wants British companies to be bogged down with unnecessary costs at a time of economic stagnation, but if this is a system stacked against employers, it's doing a pretty good job of pretending otherwise.

Even the Federation of Small Business, which backs the principle of claimants bearing some of the cost for employment claims, has said it believes that the fee levels introduced today may be too high, while prominent employment lawyers argue that the reforms could actually lead to more litigation because of disputes over fee payment deadlines. 

Meanwhile, the Institute of Employment Rights think tank warns that, when combined with other changes like the legal aid reforms, the doubling of the qualifying period for unfair dismissal to two years, the halving of consultation periods for collective redundancies, fees will add to a climate "in which it is extremely difficult for workers to receive compensation and support if they are treated unfairly by their employer." If you're lucky enough to be in work at the moment, that should worry you.

Judges make their way to the Palace of Westminster. Photo: Getty
Getty
Show Hide image

Donald Trump is the Republican nominee. What now?

So a Clinton-Trump general election is assured – a historically unpopular match-up based on their current favourability ratings.

That’s it. Ted Cruz bowed out of the Republican presidential race last night, effectively handing the nomination to Donald Trump. “From the beginning I’ve said that I would continue on as long as there was a viable path to victory,” Cruz said. “Tonight, I’m sorry to say it appears that path has been foreclosed.”

What foreclosed his path was his sizeable loss to Trump in Indiana. Cruz had bet it all on the Hoosier State, hoping to repeat his previous Midwest victories in Iowa and Wisconsin. He formed a pact with John Kasich, whereby Kasich left the anti-Trump field clear for Cruz in Indiana in return for Cruz not campaigning in Oregon and New Mexico. He announced Carly Fiorina as his vice-presidential nominee last week, hoping the news would give him a late boost.

It didn’t work. Donald Trump won Indiana handily, with 53% of the vote to Cruz’s 37%. Trump won all of the state’s nine congressional districts, and so collected all 57 of the convention delegates on offer. He now has 1,014 delegates bound to him on the convention’s first ballot, plus 34 unbound delegates who’ve said they’ll vote for him (according to Daniel Nichanian’s count).

That leaves Trump needing just 189 more to hit the 1,237 required for the nomination – a number he was very likely to hit in the remaining contests before Cruz dropped out (it’s just 42% of the 445 available), and that he is now certain to achieve. No need to woo more unbound delegates. No contested convention. No scrambling for votes on the second ballot. 

Though Bernie Sanders narrowly won the Democratic primary in Indiana, he’s still 286 pledged delegates short of Hillary Clinton. He isn’t going to win the 65% of remaining delegates he’d need to catch up. Clinton now needs just 183 more delegates to reach the required 2,383. Like Trump, she is certain to reach that target on 7th June when a number of states vote, including the largest: California.

So a Clinton-Trump general election is assured – a historically unpopular match-up based on their current favourability ratings. But while Clinton is viewed favourably by 42% of voters and unfavourably by 55%, Trump is viewed favourably by just 35% and unfavourably by a whopping 61%. In head-to-head polling (which isn’t particularly predictive this far from election day), Clinton leads with 47% to Trump’s 40%. Betting markets make Clinton the heavy favourite, with a 70% chance of winning the presidency in November.

Still, a few questions that remain as we head into the final primaries and towards the party conventions in July: how many Republican officeholders will reluctantly endorse Trump, how many will actively distance themselves from him, and how many will try to remain silent? Will a conservative run as an independent candidate against Trump in the general election? Can Trump really “do presidential” for the next six months, as he boasted recently, and improve on his deep unpopularity?

And on the Democratic side: will Sanders concede gracefully and offer as full-throated an endorsement of Clinton as she did of Barack Obama eight years ago? It was on 7th June 2008 that she told her supporters: “The way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand is to take our energy, our passion, our strength, and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama, the next president of the United States.” Will we hear something similar from Sanders next month? 

Jonathan Jones writes for the New Statesman on American politics.