header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
16 March 2018 / Steve Hynes
Issue: 7785 / Categories: Opinion , Tribunals , Legal aid focus , Profession , Employment
printer mail-detail

The Unison effect

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7785_hynes

Steve Hynes discusses the root causes of a big rise in employment tribunal cases

Rises of up to 90% have been reported by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) in their latest statistics on employment tribunal (ET) cases released on 8 March. The trend of an increase in claims has become established over the last six months since the successful challenge, brought by the trade union Unison, to the introduction of the ET fee scheme.

From 29 July 2013 two levels of fees were introduced for ETs. For type A claims involving cases such as non-payment of wages, a fee of £160 was payable to issue proceedings. A charge of £250 was made for type B cases which included discrimination and unfair dismissal claims. With the hearing fee the total cost for a type A would be £390 and £1200 for a type B case. The impact of the fees was immediate as the number of cases being brought plummeted by around 70%.

After the success of Unison’s case before the Supreme Court

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll