header-logo header-logo

02 December 2011 / Stephen Levinson
Issue: 7492 / Categories: Opinion , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-detail

Playing with perceptions

Stephen Levinson puts Vince Cable’s new regime for employment tribunals under the spotlight

The new regime for employment tribunals revealed by the Business Secretary is a product of a variety of motives. Politics and money were the principal drivers and their effect will be analysed in this article, which will suggest that while their overall impact is mixed some will cause long-term damage to a system that has many merits as well as recognised flaws.

Good sense

First, it has to be recognised that some very welcome changes are to be made. The proposals for encouraging early conciliation and mediation, streamlining compromise agreements and redrafting s147 Equality Act 2010 all make sense and are to be encouraged. In addition rewriting the whistle blowing laws to prevent employees bringing claims based on complaints about breaches of their own contracts is long overdue. Also on the list of sensible ideas is the fundamental review of tribunal rules to be carried out by Mr Justice Underhill; and the removal of some of the absurdities of

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll