Reply to post: Some change was necessary

Slapping crap bosses just got cheaper: Blighty's Supreme Court nixes tribunal fees

Mad Mike

Some change was necessary

In all this, there is some truth from both sides. Whether the fees were set at the right level or not is another matter, but there is no doubt that companies were being taken to tribunal or settling out of court very regularly when they actually hadn't done anything wrong. The legal bills alone made it worth settling if the amount could be kept smallish (from a companies point of view, large to the employee).

Of course, there were also a huge number of cases where the employee was absolutely right to take the employer to tribunal. Simple right and wrong doesn't exist in this case. There was undoubtedly a need to try and stop the spurious or stupid cases unnecessarily weighing down companies and costing them lots of money. On the other hand, it is absolutely necessary to ensure those that have a good and genuine case can seek appropriate justice through a tribunal.

How exactly you get that balance right, I'm not entirely sure and I'm not defending the fees at all. But, it is a balancing act rather than companies always bad, employees always good.

The biggest issue with the tribunal system is employees still working for a company being scared to take their employer to court. Also, the time it takes, which can be a nightmare if the employers reaction is simply to walk you out the door. How do you survive until the judgement comes?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019