header-logo header-logo

09 April 2014
Issue: 7602 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Does the early bird catch the worm?

Cautious welcome for new early conciliation employment procedures

Employment lawyers have given a cautious welcome to new early conciliation procedures.

Under the new system, prospective claimants register their dispute with ACAS, which then investigates whether early conciliation can be achieved. It came into force on 6 April, and becomes mandatory on 5 May. Applicants will not be allowed to lodge a claim with the tribunal unless they have a certificate from ACAS showing early conciliation was not possible.

Early conciliation will be free of charge. By contrast, employment tribunal issue and hearing fees were introduced last April, resulting in a dramatic 79% decrease in claims.

Christina Tolvas-Vincent, partner, Bond Dickinson, says: “Early conciliation is a hurdle for the employee to jump over before they go to the tribunal, and because there is no incentive for them, there may be occasions where the employee or employer will not engage.

“Employers may know that there has been a decrease in claims since fees were introduced, and may think, why enter into negotiations when the fee may deter a claim. But, we do know that ACAS resolve an awful lot of disputes. 

“Pre-claim conciliation [a voluntary forerunner to the new system] has existed for several years and has been quite successful.”

Emma Hamnett, senior associate at Clarke Willmott, says actual participation in conciliation will remain entirely voluntary. ACAS can make “reasonable attempts” to contact the defendant, although it is not yet clear what will count as “reasonable”, she says. 

If the defendant cannot be reached, or declines to take part, then ACAS will issue an early conciliation certificate. The period for early conciliation is one month from receipt of the form, although a 14-day extension can be granted if both parties agree.

Hamnett says: “There is no uncertainty around time limits but unrepresented claimants could end up missing deadlines, and the respondent’s solicitors will run that point, so there could be satellite litigation around that.

“The new system is not going to encourage more people to bring their claims but it might encourage early conciliation. You can’t force people to negotiate against their will.”

 

Issue: 7602 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll