header-logo header-logo

Employers ignorant about early conciliation

07 May 2014
Issue: 7605 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

One in 10 large retailers unaware of new scheme

The early conciliation service—which became compulsory this week for anyone considering an employment tribunal claim—is unknown to one in 10 large retailers.

New research by law firm Bond Dickinson and the British Retail Consortium uncovered the gap in knowledge. Of those who knew about the new service, one third were cautiously optimistic and the rest felt it would have a neutral or negative effect on their business.

The early conciliation service, which launched on 6 April and became compulsory a month later, is a free service run by Acas. The aggrieved employee or employer notifies Acas of their complaint. An Acas officer then contacts the parties involved and investigates whether an attempt at agreement can be made. If either side declines or can’t be contacted, Acas issues a form stating that conciliation is not possible. Only then can the aggrieved party launch a claim.

The research also found that 10% of retailers were unaware they could, as of 6 April, face fines of up to £5,000 for losing employment tribunal cases on top of their liability for any compensation due.

Christina Tolvas-Vincent, partner at Bond Dickinson, says: “The service has received a cautious thumbs up from the industry, but it is concerning that some are still unaware of its existence and the new possibility of fines for losing employment tribunals.”

The number of employment claims brought has dropped by nearly 80% since fees of up to £250 were introduced last July. 

 

Issue: 7605 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll