The government promised us with reform of the Employment Tribunal system several months ago, but hard details have still to emerge. Instead the Post Office Minister, Ed Davey addressed the Lib Dems at their conference in Birmingham on Monday and sandwiched between talk about more post offices and supermarkets he produced detailed proposals for a radical overhaul of the ET system, thus redressing the alleged imbalance between employers and employees.
I’ve been away in France for a couple of weeks, hence the silence on this blog. It’s now time to burn off those calories with some serious typing and what better start than on a story that Robert Peston ran on his BBC blog on the 22nd August (apologies if this is staler than yesterday’s croissant)? Under a headline “Coulson got hundreds of thousands of pounds from News International”, Mr. Peston reported that Andy Coulson (yes, the one late of News International (NI) and News of the World) received several hundred thousand pounds in respect of
On Monday I wrote about the government’s plans for reforming legal aid and the funding of civil litigation. One of the issues which confuses me is what will happen to no win no fee agreements now that contingency fee arrangements (or, Damages Based Agreements as they are to be known) are to be allowed in the courts. They have, of course, been allowed in Employment Tribunals for quite some time but were regulated by the Damages Based Agreements Regulations 2010 last year.
Access Denied?
The government has finally published its long awaited bill on civil litigation cost reform, bundled in with legal aid and sentencing reform. It is highly controversial and the government has done nothing to calm fears by fast-tracking the bill through parliament. In the foreword to “Legal Aid Reform in England and Wales: The Government Response” Ken Clarke sets out what he seeks to achieve with these reforms;
The Independent reported yesterday that an “influential” group of City figures was urging the government to restrict compensation payments in discrimination cases to £50,000. Currently such awards are unlimited in size, unlike in unfair dismissal cases where the compensatory award is (currently) capped at £68,400. I have never understood the rationale behind one being restricted and not the other: why should unfair dismissal awards be capped and not those in discrimination cases? Or, conversely why shouldn’t unfair dismissal awards be uncapped?
Not so cuddly Dave
According to today’s Mirror, the government is considering (“in leaked plans”) to double the qualification period for acquiring the right not to be unfairly dismissed to two years. At present, an employee needs to have 12 months continuous employment experience in order to be able to challenge the reason for their dismissal. Without that right, unless there is an issue of discrimination, whistleblowing, trade union membership or health and safety involved, the only challenge available to an employee is if they don’t get paid their notice pay.
I’ve been maintaining radio silence for too long – sorry about that but the day job got in the way – and thought it was about time I put up another post. Part of the problem is that there has been a lot of stuff to write about and knowing where to start. However, our darling Chancellor, or should that be Mr Darling, Chancellor – has made my task a little easier today following his Pre-Budget Report, particularly with his tax on bankers’ bonuses.
This is a thought that has been exercising me (and some of my colleagues) today. In comparison to some of my commuting co-workers (particularly those training in to Waterloo) I had a fairly smooth journey in; not that I want to seem smug about it you understand. It took Nicola, our trainee solicitor, two hours to get from Waterloo into the City. She wasn’t alone with nightmare tales to tell. Reading over someone’s shoulder at the station I saw that the London Lite newspaper has also been questioning it given the travel chaos the RMT has foisted on us today. On their letters page they published a selection of readers’ comments which were 4 – 3 against the RMT. The general consensus around my office was that tube workers shouldn’t be allowed to strike, given the amount of chaos and severe disruption it causes. Is it just me or do the RMT always seem to call a strike when there is a major sporting event on (the Lions tour to South Africa and the ICC Twenty20 World Cup spring to mind and the Ashes Test series starts next month – are there any strikes planned for then?). At least the weather isn’t that brilliant for them this week.
I’ve written before about the National Staff Dismissal Register (NSDR) in the Retail Sector and the blacklist published by The Consulting Association (TCA) in the construction industry. The former is a joint venture between Action Against Business Crime (a consortium formed between leading retailers and the Home Office), the latter a database compiled by a private company that then sold details to about 40 leading construction companies. News comes this week that the government is planning to introduce regulations to proscribe blacklists used by companies to identify Trade Union members and thus not employ them. The TCA blacklist appears to have identified trade union members as trouble – e.g “ex shop steward definite problems” and similar. The government thinks, rightly, that potential employees should not be discriminated against because of their Trade Union membership.
Apologies for the recent silence. Last week I took Mrs J. and the Junior Jobsworths to Southwold, Suffolk, for a brief holiday. I had every good intention of posting whilst away but couldn’t get WiFi access. I have to admit that I didn’t try that hard either.