header-logo header-logo

14 September 2012
Issue: 7530 / Categories: Legal News , Disciplinary&grievance procedures , Employment
printer mail-detail

Cable Reduces Unfair Dismissal Cap

Employment lawyers have spoken out against today's proposals to reduce the £72,300 cap for unfair dismissal.

Business secretary Vince Cable announced today that the unfair dismissal cap is to be cut to either 12 months’ pay or a lower, as yet unspecified, amount.

Claimant lawyer Alison Humphrey, employment law solicitor at Russell Jones & Walker, said: “Slashing compensation award limits for unfair dismissal claims is another nail in the coffin for employee justice.
“Together with fees for issuing claims, and raising the eligibility threshold to two years’ service, these changes are likely to be a disincentive to bona fide claimants who have been treated genuinely unfairly.

At the same time, it will likely encourage a raft of other ‘day one rights’ claims, such as discrimination, which may add to complication and expense for employers.
 

“Compensation awards are calculated by reference to what an employee has actually lost as a result of the employer’s wrongdoing, so it in no way represents a windfall for employees. In circumstances where most awards don't reach the limit, it is difficult to see the justification for the move.”
 

Cable dropped an earlier proposal, made in Adrian Beecroft’s report in May, for compulsory no-fault dismissal. Instead, ‘settlement agreements’ could be introduced, under which employers and employees would come to an agreement in accordance with a code of practice to be drawn up by Acas.

Other reforms announced include proposals on how judges can reduce the number of preliminary hearings and dismiss weak cases more easily, and reforms to TUPE, which governs the transfer of teams of employees.
 

Ed Stacey, partner at PwC Legal, which acts for employers, warned the proposals risk increasing the number of discrimination and whistle-blowing claims.
 

“It is likely that the combination of increased fees for launching claims and the proposed reduction in awards for unfair dismissal claims will lead to a reduction in some of the low merit and low value claims,” he said.

“However, there is a risk that it will also incite employees to bolt on claims that remain uncapped such as claims for discrimination or whistle-blowing.”

MOVERS & SHAKERS

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll