Changes to Employment Tribunal Claims

The time limit imposed on Employment Tribunal Claims is far too short. By the time the average worker has decided they have been unfairly treated and then found that "free advice" is almost impossible to obtain the deadlines have already been exceeded. Even in cases where Trade Unions are involved, unless your Rep is an expert and is not already snowed under with work you can exceed the time limits or submit a substandard claim.

In cases where Equality Legislation applies many cases are being lost on 'technicalities' even though discrimination has occurred.

The system is supposed to help the victims but without legal representation you are at a massive disadvantage. This is unjust.

Why is this idea important?

The time limit imposed on Employment Tribunal Claims is far too short. By the time the average worker has decided they have been unfairly treated and then found that "free advice" is almost impossible to obtain the deadlines have already been exceeded. Even in cases where Trade Unions are involved, unless your Rep is an expert and is not already snowed under with work you can exceed the time limits or submit a substandard claim.

In cases where Equality Legislation applies many cases are being lost on 'technicalities' even though discrimination has occurred.

The system is supposed to help the victims but without legal representation you are at a massive disadvantage. This is unjust.

Reform the National Minimum Wage to allow profit-share enterprises

Simply that the burden of paying the National Minimum Wage should be lifted from enterprises where the Employee or Worker has a share in any profits or gross earnings of that enterprise.

Why is this idea important?

Simply that the burden of paying the National Minimum Wage should be lifted from enterprises where the Employee or Worker has a share in any profits or gross earnings of that enterprise.

Stop ‘child labour’ legislation from restricting teenagers’ right to work

Child labour laws were initially brought in to protect children from the kinds of working environments that no longer legally exist in this country.  They are now overbearing and prevent people who want to work from working, when it would be hugely beneficial to them to do so.

All restrictions of the employment of 16/17 year olds should be fully lifted, as should the restrictions on the number of hours 14/15 year olds can work during school holidays and at weekends.

In addition, 13 year olds should be able to work for up to 20 hours a week during school holidays and 5 hours a week during term time, and 12 year olds up to 10 hours a week during the school holidays.

Why is this idea important?

Child labour laws were initially brought in to protect children from the kinds of working environments that no longer legally exist in this country.  They are now overbearing and prevent people who want to work from working, when it would be hugely beneficial to them to do so.

All restrictions of the employment of 16/17 year olds should be fully lifted, as should the restrictions on the number of hours 14/15 year olds can work during school holidays and at weekends.

In addition, 13 year olds should be able to work for up to 20 hours a week during school holidays and 5 hours a week during term time, and 12 year olds up to 10 hours a week during the school holidays.

Common sense juries allowed in some employment tribunals

This is an extra law but could save a lot of others.

  • Juries where requested by both sides, or one side at an appeal case
  • Juries perhaps in cases where the employee gave up their right to damages, but wanted the case to be heard more like a criminal case, for a statement of guilt and deterrant against future wrongs.

Why is this idea important?

This is an extra law but could save a lot of others.

  • Juries where requested by both sides, or one side at an appeal case
  • Juries perhaps in cases where the employee gave up their right to damages, but wanted the case to be heard more like a criminal case, for a statement of guilt and deterrant against future wrongs.

employment tribunals – the new national lottery

a combination of factors makes employment tribunals a lottery for employers

1 EU regulations (eg maternity provisions) have been incorporated into UK law in such a way that employers havent a clue what the right way to treat their staff is

2 lifting of award limits to which ETs used to be subject has increased their power to do damage if manipulated by parties involved

3 rules on evidence and 'informality of proceedings' are routinely abused

4 lay person involvement in tribunals results in bizarre and inconsistent findings

5 limited rights of appeals results in routine abuses of power by ET judges

6 it is practically impossible for  SME employer of up to 100 people to reasonably understand employment law in relevant areas

why does it matter?

1 because it drives discrimination under ground. Many employees cant get jobs because prospective employers are worried that by employing a 'protected minority' they will get caught out through failing to provide appropriate adjustments

2 it encourages employers to fire people immediate prior to their gaining rights after an initial period of employment (usually 12 months). at a macro level this turnover is bad for the business and bad for the economy as it reduces the incentive for employers to train their staff

3 the legal practictioners and insurers are the principal beneficiaries of the ET system

the solution:

1 root and branch redefinition of employee rights removing anything that isnt 100% clear for employers – this is easy – just look where all the judgments are coming from and remove these entitlements UNLESS they are 100% clear and 100% enforcable. most entitlements dont address deficiencies they just increase uncertainty and therefore reduce job prospects for those in these minorities the law seeks to protect

2 imposition of statutory limits on ET compensation

3 creation of £50 for both sides telephone mediation service to sort out minor employer employee disputes BEFORE they get out of hand and permit employment contracts to incorporate such provisions

3 statutory grievance and appeal procedures

4 sort out absurdities – you cant fire an employee who has walked off the job and obviously isnt coming back until you have written to him 5 times and given him endless chances to return to work/held his job open for a month at least

5 reform sick pay so the employer has some rights to know if his staff might turn up for work on a monday morning

Why is this idea important?

a combination of factors makes employment tribunals a lottery for employers

1 EU regulations (eg maternity provisions) have been incorporated into UK law in such a way that employers havent a clue what the right way to treat their staff is

2 lifting of award limits to which ETs used to be subject has increased their power to do damage if manipulated by parties involved

3 rules on evidence and 'informality of proceedings' are routinely abused

4 lay person involvement in tribunals results in bizarre and inconsistent findings

5 limited rights of appeals results in routine abuses of power by ET judges

6 it is practically impossible for  SME employer of up to 100 people to reasonably understand employment law in relevant areas

why does it matter?

1 because it drives discrimination under ground. Many employees cant get jobs because prospective employers are worried that by employing a 'protected minority' they will get caught out through failing to provide appropriate adjustments

2 it encourages employers to fire people immediate prior to their gaining rights after an initial period of employment (usually 12 months). at a macro level this turnover is bad for the business and bad for the economy as it reduces the incentive for employers to train their staff

3 the legal practictioners and insurers are the principal beneficiaries of the ET system

the solution:

1 root and branch redefinition of employee rights removing anything that isnt 100% clear for employers – this is easy – just look where all the judgments are coming from and remove these entitlements UNLESS they are 100% clear and 100% enforcable. most entitlements dont address deficiencies they just increase uncertainty and therefore reduce job prospects for those in these minorities the law seeks to protect

2 imposition of statutory limits on ET compensation

3 creation of £50 for both sides telephone mediation service to sort out minor employer employee disputes BEFORE they get out of hand and permit employment contracts to incorporate such provisions

3 statutory grievance and appeal procedures

4 sort out absurdities – you cant fire an employee who has walked off the job and obviously isnt coming back until you have written to him 5 times and given him endless chances to return to work/held his job open for a month at least

5 reform sick pay so the employer has some rights to know if his staff might turn up for work on a monday morning

Six months pay if employment ends.

Instead of the extensive employment rights legislation covering dismissal situations and the endless bureaucracy of TUPE and everything else, simply replace the entire structure with a requirement to pay any employee 'let go' six month's salary. This covers their costs while they get another job.

This is ultimately what happens via the tribunal system anyway, so let's cut to the chase.

Why is this idea important?

Instead of the extensive employment rights legislation covering dismissal situations and the endless bureaucracy of TUPE and everything else, simply replace the entire structure with a requirement to pay any employee 'let go' six month's salary. This covers their costs while they get another job.

This is ultimately what happens via the tribunal system anyway, so let's cut to the chase.

Allow Local Government Officers political freedom.

The Politicically Restricted Posts provisions of Section 1 of the Local Government Officers (Political Resrictions) Regulations 1990 and the associated provisions wthing the Local Govenment & Housing Act 1989 are draconian pieces of legislation that should be repealed.

At a time when Parliamentary and local government service is been seen by many as the increasing preserve of career-political-activists, freeing up the many thousands of local government activists to use their experience and expertise in the political realm can only bring benefits.

The original thoughts behind the legislation were in some ways well intentioned, ie, to prevent undue political influence in local government officership, but it was a case of using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut. A broad curtailment of a council officer's political liberty being put in place where a tight set of rules to prevent specific conflict-of-interest situations would have been more appropriate.

It cannot be right for a government committed to political reform to continue deny political rights and liberties to so many on the basis of a flimsy catch-all piece of out-moded legislation.

I am not asking for council officers to be able to be an elected member of the authority they work for (such a restriction should stand) but they must be allowed to campaign for any political party and stand for an authority other than their employer with the proviso that such political activity does not bring the employing authority into disreute or creat a direst conflict of interest.

Why is this idea important?

The Politicically Restricted Posts provisions of Section 1 of the Local Government Officers (Political Resrictions) Regulations 1990 and the associated provisions wthing the Local Govenment & Housing Act 1989 are draconian pieces of legislation that should be repealed.

At a time when Parliamentary and local government service is been seen by many as the increasing preserve of career-political-activists, freeing up the many thousands of local government activists to use their experience and expertise in the political realm can only bring benefits.

The original thoughts behind the legislation were in some ways well intentioned, ie, to prevent undue political influence in local government officership, but it was a case of using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut. A broad curtailment of a council officer's political liberty being put in place where a tight set of rules to prevent specific conflict-of-interest situations would have been more appropriate.

It cannot be right for a government committed to political reform to continue deny political rights and liberties to so many on the basis of a flimsy catch-all piece of out-moded legislation.

I am not asking for council officers to be able to be an elected member of the authority they work for (such a restriction should stand) but they must be allowed to campaign for any political party and stand for an authority other than their employer with the proviso that such political activity does not bring the employing authority into disreute or creat a direst conflict of interest.

Removal of politically restricted posts in local government

Dear Mr Clegg

Thank you for this opportunity to put forward my idea.

I refer to the provisions contained in the Locla demiocracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, the Local Government Officers (Political Restrictions) Regulations 1990 and the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not advocating the repeal of those parts of the Local Government Act 1972 that place restrictions on elected councillors becoming officers (and vice versa) in the same council.

The reason that I would like to see the repeal of the provisions in the legislation mentioned in the first paragrpah above are as follows:

a. as currently defined they deprive a large number of individuals of their rights as expressed in Articles 9 and 10 as outlined in the Convention of Human Rights.

b. they are highly patronising to local government employees in that they imply there is a lack of professionalism in being able to appropriately and objectivley advise members in their council capacities whilst also expressing political views outside of those capacities

c. they potentially deprive the political process – at all levels of government – of a large number of individuals who have a range of skills and insights that could make for a positive contribution to civil society, community cohesion and the democratic process

Why is this idea important?

Dear Mr Clegg

Thank you for this opportunity to put forward my idea.

I refer to the provisions contained in the Locla demiocracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, the Local Government Officers (Political Restrictions) Regulations 1990 and the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not advocating the repeal of those parts of the Local Government Act 1972 that place restrictions on elected councillors becoming officers (and vice versa) in the same council.

The reason that I would like to see the repeal of the provisions in the legislation mentioned in the first paragrpah above are as follows:

a. as currently defined they deprive a large number of individuals of their rights as expressed in Articles 9 and 10 as outlined in the Convention of Human Rights.

b. they are highly patronising to local government employees in that they imply there is a lack of professionalism in being able to appropriately and objectivley advise members in their council capacities whilst also expressing political views outside of those capacities

c. they potentially deprive the political process – at all levels of government – of a large number of individuals who have a range of skills and insights that could make for a positive contribution to civil society, community cohesion and the democratic process

Restrict IP laws used to stifle new business

A contract of employment at a former employer has a clause in it that basically says that anything staff so much as think about while employed there belongs to the company. It goes far beyond simply protecting the company's own intellectual property and covers absolutely everything, regardless of any relevance to the company and its products or services. 

The clause also effectively lays claim to any intellectual property staff may subsequently develop after they leave that company. 

The company uses this clause to legally intimidate anyone who leaves to set up their own business or who leave to work for rival companies.

As new businesses typically have little time or money to defend themselves against avaricious former employers, could the government make such restrictive covenants on employment contracts illegal, or set up a lower-cost court that can deal solely with supposed breaches of employment contract, reducing the time and cost of dealing with bullying employers? 

Why is this idea important?

A contract of employment at a former employer has a clause in it that basically says that anything staff so much as think about while employed there belongs to the company. It goes far beyond simply protecting the company's own intellectual property and covers absolutely everything, regardless of any relevance to the company and its products or services. 

The clause also effectively lays claim to any intellectual property staff may subsequently develop after they leave that company. 

The company uses this clause to legally intimidate anyone who leaves to set up their own business or who leave to work for rival companies.

As new businesses typically have little time or money to defend themselves against avaricious former employers, could the government make such restrictive covenants on employment contracts illegal, or set up a lower-cost court that can deal solely with supposed breaches of employment contract, reducing the time and cost of dealing with bullying employers? 

Review the Employment Agency regulations

The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 are seriously lacking. A whole section of these regulations entitles a candidate – someone who the agency has appointed to work for a third party company, the right to submit a complain to the Employment Agencies Inspectorate if they have a problem with an employment agency. This section should be scrapped as it's useless.

Why is this idea important?

The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 are seriously lacking. A whole section of these regulations entitles a candidate – someone who the agency has appointed to work for a third party company, the right to submit a complain to the Employment Agencies Inspectorate if they have a problem with an employment agency. This section should be scrapped as it's useless.