"Less than a million unfair dismissal claims last year..."
Discussion
Just read this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15456585
Ignoring the employment law thing and not commenting on it either way, is anyone else shocked that about half way down, a Miss Sarah Veale (head of the equality and employment rights department at the TUC) is quoted as saying that 'There were less than a million unfair dismissal claims last year which was "absolutely nothing" out of a large workforce'.
I'm sorry, what? As far as I was aware, the UK workforce is about 25M people, which means something like 1 in 25 people claimed unfair dismissal....I don't count that as small. Does anyone else think that is an incredibly large number? Especially when you consider that most people probably stay in their jobs at least a couple of years, and there's a whole bunch of people who are self employed.
Ignoring the employment law thing and not commenting on it either way, is anyone else shocked that about half way down, a Miss Sarah Veale (head of the equality and employment rights department at the TUC) is quoted as saying that 'There were less than a million unfair dismissal claims last year which was "absolutely nothing" out of a large workforce'.
I'm sorry, what? As far as I was aware, the UK workforce is about 25M people, which means something like 1 in 25 people claimed unfair dismissal....I don't count that as small. Does anyone else think that is an incredibly large number? Especially when you consider that most people probably stay in their jobs at least a couple of years, and there's a whole bunch of people who are self employed.
Er, "under a miliion"?
A quick google brought these stats for 2010
http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2010/09/13/...
50,900 claims
5,200 successful at tribunal.
A quick google brought these stats for 2010
http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2010/09/13/...
50,900 claims
5,200 successful at tribunal.
It's not about the figures you will see published though, it's the hidden figures.
Many people are paid a considerable sum over and above what they are entitled to and sign compromise agreements so that the employer doesn't have to worry about the potential disruption and cost of a claim.
It is a nightmare to get rid of staff these days who are underperforming. I was listening to this lady in the car this morning and she was basicly saying that "Well you will have had a year to work out if they are any good at their job when they have no redress so you should know better." Yes that is fine for the checkout operative at Tescos, but what about the people who have been with an employer for 15 years and have been a liability for the last 5 as they have not moved with the times. Or you could look at the people who are fantastic until their probation or first 12 months is up and then fall back into uselessness, knowing that the only way the employer will be able to get rid is to pay them off.
At one company I know an employee was mustard for the first 2 years. Since then, over the last 3-4 years they have been a total liability and tried to make a number of claims against the company, in addition to their comedy sick record (in one year they worked less days than they were off for and none of the reasons they were away from work were 'biggies' (cancer, operations, etc) lots of stress and sore leg's and bad backs. They have openly stated to a manager (verbally and without witnesses so not actionable) that they are waiting for the company to offer them a p
s off payment.
Many people are paid a considerable sum over and above what they are entitled to and sign compromise agreements so that the employer doesn't have to worry about the potential disruption and cost of a claim.
It is a nightmare to get rid of staff these days who are underperforming. I was listening to this lady in the car this morning and she was basicly saying that "Well you will have had a year to work out if they are any good at their job when they have no redress so you should know better." Yes that is fine for the checkout operative at Tescos, but what about the people who have been with an employer for 15 years and have been a liability for the last 5 as they have not moved with the times. Or you could look at the people who are fantastic until their probation or first 12 months is up and then fall back into uselessness, knowing that the only way the employer will be able to get rid is to pay them off.
At one company I know an employee was mustard for the first 2 years. Since then, over the last 3-4 years they have been a total liability and tried to make a number of claims against the company, in addition to their comedy sick record (in one year they worked less days than they were off for and none of the reasons they were away from work were 'biggies' (cancer, operations, etc) lots of stress and sore leg's and bad backs. They have openly stated to a manager (verbally and without witnesses so not actionable) that they are waiting for the company to offer them a p
s off payment.The realt danger in all this is that, as per-fking-usual the BBC and all the commentators miss the critical risk; SMEs.
It's all good and wel for some big plc or public sector HR department to take on the might of the employment tribunal - although we ought not to forget the costs involved - but it is the small businesses that this sort of litigation really frightens. People too small to have the right advice, let alone an HR department and this is the true cost to the economy; jobs never created for fear of red tape or jobs created, but in the black market, so there is no tax-take for the economy.
king-usual the BBC and all the commentators miss the critical risk; SMEs.It's all good and wel for some big plc or public sector HR department to take on the might of the employment tribunal - although we ought not to forget the costs involved - but it is the small businesses that this sort of litigation really frightens. People too small to have the right advice, let alone an HR department and this is the true cost to the economy; jobs never created for fear of red tape or jobs created, but in the black market, so there is no tax-take for the economy.
BBC said:
The Treasury said that more than 80% of applications made to an employment tribunal did not result in a full hearing.
Almost 40% of applicants withdrew their cases, but employers still had to pay legal fees in preparing a defence, it said.
So 40% were fishing trips, but how many never even got to tribunal because teh employer rolleed over somehow?Almost 40% of applicants withdrew their cases, but employers still had to pay legal fees in preparing a defence, it said.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You are right, some of that is a bit dumb, but it works two ways.One of the local bikes shops I use had an unfair dismissal case brought against them by an employee. Long & short of it was that they were cleared of blame but still had the cost, hassle and stress of a totally bulls
t court case to cover.my mate took his former employers (a well known bookmakers) to one after being sacked after trading standards sent in two underage customers (who he claims looked far older than they turned out to be). He was a manager and he'd been there a number of years so it did seem a bit harsh. I think he's expecting a substantial payment.
Jasandjules said:
Also bear in mind that there are many who are unlawfully dismissed who don't take it to Tribunal.. Fear, stress, time etc all can act to prevent a claimant with a strong claim from seeking a remedy.
I honestly doubt that there are too many of those left. At the end of the day if you have just been sacked time is on your hands, you have nothing to lose, and what is more stressful than sitting there knowing that money is only going out...Rude-boy said:
Jasandjules said:
Also bear in mind that there are many who are unlawfully dismissed who don't take it to Tribunal.. Fear, stress, time etc all can act to prevent a claimant with a strong claim from seeking a remedy.
I honestly doubt that there are too many of those left. At the end of the day if you have just been sacked time is on your hands, you have nothing to lose, and what is more stressful than sitting there knowing that money is only going out...I imagine in the lower paid industries a lot more people just get let go and that's the end of it.
Maybe it's a case of the difference between those who perceive themselves as having a "job" and those with a "career"? I dunno, but I see dismissals all the time that would never ever get past a tribunal.
scenario8 said:
I imagine in the lower paid industries a lot more people just get let go and that's the end of it.
From my own personal experiences, I'd agree with this. I've helped the OH win two tribunals in as many years - unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. For the first of these Citizen's Advice were useless and in their "expert" opinion there was no case and she wouldn't have a hope of winning. How many low paid employees have the funds to take professional advice? Even if they did, the costs would negate any award and many solicitors really don't have the necessary expertise in employment law.
There will always be chancers trying it on, but I bet there's even more out there with a legitimate claim that for whatever reason don't take it to a tribunal.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff