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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll