header-logo header-logo

How to make employers pay up?

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

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

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