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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll