EMPLOYMENT LAW AND rELATIONS
Reforms to the Employment Tribunal System
Employment relations are riddled with disputes that stem from breaches of trust between employer and employee. Consequently, there is a growing need to address them, and for most employment disputes, the process starts in Employment Tribunals (ETs) which according to Saridakis, et al., (2008) are independent judicial bodies that determine disputes between employers and employees over employment rights. The Employment tribunal system as part of the legal system, works alongside the ordinary courts and was intended to hear employment disputes as a quicker and cheaper alternative to the ordinary court system. However, over the years there have been concerns that ETs have not met this objective since they are now overburdened by the number of claims presented to them annually. For instance, a total of 218,100 claims where presented to the ET during 2010-11, a 44% increase on 2008-09 (Annual Tribunals Statistics, 2011). Subsequently, government has constantly amended the regulations that govern tribunals in a bid to make them as efficient as they were meant to be. It is against this backdrop therefore, that this report seeks to critically examine the effectiveness of these reforms on tribunals and to consider whether the changes have delivered their most clamoured goal. 2. Historical Background
Formerly called Industrial Tribunals, ETs were formed under Section 12 of the Industrial Training Act 1964 to hear Appeals by employers against training levy assessments imposed upon them (Taylor & Emir, 2009; Gibbons,2007). And according to MacMillan (1999), their authority was extended to hear disputes under the Redundancy Payments Act 1965. And as a result of the Industrial Relations Act 1971, the first case for unfair dismissal was heard in 1971(Moving Forward, 2002; Narins, 2008). Since then, due to the constant development of employment law ( Honeyball, 2010; Taylor,2000; Sargeant & Lewis, 2010), they now embrace a wide variety of statutory claims including unfair dismissal, discrimination in employment and redundancy (Hunt, 2005). Apart from statutory claims, by virtue of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 No. 1623 (Gibbons, 2007), employment tribunals can also hear contractual disputes and make awards of up £25,000 (Taylor & Emir, 2009; Frase v Hlmad Ltd 2006). 3. Tribunal Hierarchy
ETs have the status of inferior courts (Hunt, 2005) and appeals against their decisions are to the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) and hear appeals only on point of law (Keenan, 2006). Its decisions are binding upon tribunals and therefore create precedents for them. Yet, the EAT’s decisions do not apply to later hearings (Maclntyre, 2008). Appeals from the EAT are to the Court of Appeal and the final stage in the appeal process is the House of Lords. However, appeals in certain cases containing some element of European law interpretation (for instance equal pay and sex discrimination claims); will be forwarded to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) (Hunt, 2005). 4.
Composition of Employment Tribunals
Tribunals comprise of a panel of three: an Employment Judge (Chairman) and two lay members. The Employment Judge, who must be a barrister of at least seven years is there to advice the lay members on matters of the law, its application to the cases before them, and also makes decisions after hearings (Hunt, 2005). One of the lay members is drawn from organisations representing employers, notably the Confederation of British Industry and the other from employees organisations - usually the Trade Unions Congress (Taylor & Emir, 2009). Unlike Judges who are appointed on the basis of their legal expertise, lay members are selected based on their specialised knowledge in commerce and industry which Judges may lack (Honeyball, 2010; Hunt, 2005). However,...
Bibliography: Ashwood, R. & Hitchins, C., 2011. Radical Reforms to UK 's Employment Laws. [Online] Available at: http://www.morganlewis.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/publication.detail/publicationID/c0b07889 35fd-4ed8-9639-5305c714af45 [Accessed 30 March 2012].
Baker, A., 2002. Access Vs Process in Employment Discrimination: Why ADR suits the US but not the UK. Industrial Law Journal, 31(2).
Boon, A., Urwin, P. & Karuk, V., 2011. What Difference Does it Make? Facilitative Judicial Mediation of Discrimination Cases in Employment Tribunals. Industrial Law Journal , 40(1), pp. 48-50.
Brookes, S. & Davis Christopher, 2011. Reducing Tribunal Claims. Accountancy, 148(1419), p. 66.
Carlin, B., 2011. Osbourne cuts costly tribunals in bid to boost the economy. Mail on Sunday, 10 February.
Chapman, J., 2011
Charlton, J., 2011. Stem the Flow. Employers ' Law, 7 April.
Churchard, C., 2011
Citizens Advice Bureau, 2012. Briefing. [Online] Available at: http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/index/parliament/parliamentary_briefings/employment_tribunals_regulations_2012.htm [Accessed 30 March 2012].
Ellis, M., 2011. Sideways Lbok… Do Employment Tribunals Hold Back The Success Of UK Pic? Employers Law, Volume 11.
Fraser v HLMAD Ltd  EWCA Civ 738. Available at: http://lexisweb.co.uk/cases/2006/june/fraser-v-hlmad-ltd [Accessed 9 April 2012]
Gennard, J., 2010
Hall, M., 2002. Employment Act 2002 outlined. [Online] Available at: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2002/10/feature/uk0210103f.htm [Accessed 11 April 2012].
Honeyball, S., 2010. Honeyball and Bowlers ' Textbook on Employment Law. 11th Ed ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hunt, D., 2005. Successfully Defending Employment Tribunal Cases. 2nd Edition ed. London: Thorogood Professional Insights.
Keenan, D., 2006. Law for Business. 13th Edition ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.
Kelly, D., Holmes, A. E. & Hayward, R., 2005. Business Law. 5th Edition ed. London: Routledge Cavendish.
Laterille, P. L., Latreille, J. A. & Knight, G. K., 2007. Employment Tribunals and Acas: evidence from a survey of representatives. Industrial Relations Journal, 38(2), pp. 136 -154.
Latreille, P. L., Latereille, A. J. & Knight, G. K., 2005. Making a Difference? Legal Representation in Employment Tribunal Cases: Evidence from a Survey of Representatives. Industrial Law Journal, 34(4).
Maclntyre, E., 2008. Business Law. 4th Edition ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.
MacMillan, J. K., 1999. Employment Tribunals: Philosophies and Practicalities. Industrial Law Journal, March, 28(1), pp. 33-56.
Percepective: Introduction of tribunal fees could be a costly business, 2011. Employers ' Law, 7 November.
Rayner, J., 2012
Riches, S. & Allen, V., 2011. Keenan and Riches Business Law. 10th Edition ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.
Rothwell, R., 2011. Neuberger warns against mediation and defends legal aid and Jackson. Law Society Gazette, 4 March 2012.
Saridakis, G., Sen-Gupta, S., Edwards, P. & Storey, D. J., 2008. The Impact of Enterprise Size on Employment Tribunal Incidence and Outcomes: Evidence from Britain. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(3), pp. 469-4999.
Suff, R., 2006. New Rules, new challenges: Acas ' role in the employment tribunal system. [Online] Available at: http://www.acas.org.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=590&p=0 [Accessed 6 April 2012].
Taylor, S. & Emir, A., 2009. Employment Law an Introduction. Second Edition ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wheeler, J., 2006. English Legal System. Second Edition ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Williams, A., 2003. Applying the Employment Act 2002: Crucial Developments for Employers and Employees, London: Thorogood Professional Insights.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document