header-logo header-logo

13 November 2013
Issue: 7584 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

How to make employers pay up?

Judges could demand employer deposits in employment tribunals

Employment tribunal judges could be given new powers to demand deposits from employers, after research showed more than half of successful claimants do not receive their money.

Only 49% received their award in full, while 16% received part of their payment and the rest got nothing, according to a study by IFF Research for the department for business, information and skills (BIS), Payment of employment tribunal awards 2013.

Longer serving employees were more likely to receive their award—29% of those with less than a year’s service received full or partial payment, compared to 72% of those who had worked for longer than five years. The average award was £2,600.

Relatively few—one in five—claimants who were not paid in full took enforcement action. The main reason given was that they did not know how to do this. In more than a third of cases, the employer had not paid because they were insolvent—but half of employees in this situation said the company was now trading under a different name.

Enforcement action works in about 50% of cases.

The study, based on interviews with 1,200 claimants in the UK and published in November, acknowledges that the rise in tribunal fees for employment cases “is perhaps a particular concern in light of the forthcoming changes to the employment tribunal process where individuals will need to pay an ‘issue fee’ to file a case with the employment tribunal and a further ‘hearing fee’ if the claim proceeds to a hearing”. 

Sarah Naylor, employment solicitor with Atherton Godfrey, says: “Claimants are often very disheartened to find that after going through what is usually a lengthy and stressful tribunal claim, they then have to face a further set of proceedings in the county court or fast track enforcement system to try and recover what they are due.”

Employment relations minister Jo Swinson says the government is considering giving judges powers to demand deposits from employers, introducing fixed penalty notices for late payment and naming and shaming employers who fail to pay out.

 

Issue: 7584 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers to be joined by leading family law set, 4 Brick Court, this summer

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Real estate and construction energy offering boosted by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Firm bolsters real estate team with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS
A wave of housing and procedural reforms is set to test the limits of tribunal capacity. In his latest Civil Way column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold charts sweeping change as the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 begins biting
Plans to reduce jury trials risk missing the real problem in the criminal justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, David Wolchover of Ridgeway Chambers argues the crown court backlog is fuelled not by juries but weak cases slipping through a flawed ‘50%’ prosecution test
Emerging technologies may soon transform how courts determine truth in deeply personal disputes. In this week's NLJ, Madhavi Kabra of 1 Hare Court and Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers explore how neurotechnology could reshape family law
A controversial protest case has reignited debate over the limits of free expression. In NLJ this week, Nicholas Dobson examines a Quran-burning incident testing public order law
The courts have drawn a firm line under attempts to extend arbitration appeals. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed of the University of Leicester highlights that if the High Court refuses permission under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, that is the end
back-to-top-scroll