Employment tribunal fees have been ruled unlawful. In the first of a regular column in routeone, Sam Murray-Hinde, partner at law firm Howard Kennedy, lays out the effect on coach and bus operators
The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed Unison's appeal against the legality of the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal fee system, marking an end to the trade union's four-year fight.
The fees were ruled unlawful under both domestic and EU law, because they have the effect of preventing access to justice and the aims of the fee system do not justify this.
The fees were introduced in 2013 with the aim of transferring part of the cost burden of the Tribunals from taxpayers to users of the service, to deter unmeritorious claims and to encourage earlier settlement.
Unless the criteria for remission were met, claimants were required to pay a fee on presenting their claim to the Tribunal, and a hearing fee ahead of the claim being heard. A successful party could request reimbursement of fees paid from the losing party.
Since the fees were unlawful at the time they were introduced, the Supreme Court has ruled that they must be quashed. The consequence is that fees ceased to be payable from 26 July 2017.
Refunds
The Government will need to refund millions of pounds worth of fees paid, but it remains unclear how this will work in practice and guidance is anticipated. The Tribunal Service will need to review all claims presented since 2013.
It is inevitable that coach and bus operators will face an increase in claims, as there is now no financial disincentive to bringing proceedings and a claimant has little to lose. Even where a claim is unmeritorious, obtaining costs in the tribunal is seen as the exception rather than the rule and so an employer has limited recourse.
Claims are also likely to take longer to conclude, as the Tribunal Service will be stretched administratively and this could lead to increased legal costs for operators.
Tactically, settlement should be seen as a last resort with larger workforces, as there is an increased risk of opening the floodgates to claims; confidentiality clauses are often ineffective. Instead, operators should consider taking a robust stance and considering the merits of claim at the outset.
More use should be made of applications for strike-outs where claims have no reasonable prospect of success, or where the claimant has failed to comply with orders. Seeking deposit orders is a useful tactic where claims have little reasonable prospects of success. Early costs warnings to claimants can lay the groundwork for costs applications on the conclusion of proceedings, albeit these need to be drafted carefully.
Claims brought of time
It will be interesting to see whether employees who were deterred by the fees from bringing a claim will argue that it was not 'reasonably practicable' to present their claim within the deadline or, in relation to discrimination claims, that it is 'just and equitable' to extend time. Disputes that operators thought had been concluded could be resurrected as a result.
Each case would be decided on its merits, but the Tribunal Service will need to consider what evidence is required to show that, but for the fees, a claim would have been presented.
In relation to current workforces, operators should already have in place and be following internal policies and procedures, as well as adhering to best practice. However, it may be a good time to evaluate the risks associated with any ongoing discipline or grievance matters, to include staff who are on long-term sick leave and address any staff training needs.
The ruling will likely serve to enhance the union's role in the workplace. Good industrial relations have always been vital for any business, but with tribunals now more accessible, operators would be well-advised to work more closely with recognised unions when dealing with contentious employee matters to attempt to resolve issues without recourse to litigation.
