header-logo header-logo

Does the early bird catch the worm?

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

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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll