- 28-04-2012, 15:21 #41
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
I will add a very pertinent point. Many small companies - lets say 5 - 20 workers - fear the costs associated with dismissing an employee. Even if they get rid of someone for well grounded reasons, they can incur costs fighting their case if the employee takes to using a no-win no fee lawyer. This has had two practical consequences, both detrimental to the UK economy.
1) Small firms are being deterred from taking on staff. Sometimes its easier to stay at the same size rather than take on another few workers, because the cost of getting the hiring decision wrong could really hurt the business.
2) Firms are taking on temporary or part time staff because its easier to get rid of them at need.
Yes, employees do need protection from unscrupulous or poor employers/managers, but lets look at the other side of the coin. Fear of the consequences of getting rid of under-performing staff (real or imagined) is hurting the UK economy.
And that fear of taking on permanent staff is also keeping perfectly good potential employees out of work.
We have to look after individuals, but we also need to look at the needs of the economy as a whole.
- 28-04-2012, 15:47 #42
I just hire people on contract for a year. If I want them another year they get a second contract. If I need them after that then they become a full-timer and permanent; it gives me plenty of time to assess their performance and hire them if they're good enough.
- 28-04-2012, 16:02 #43
Dr Fox's mum was in Dad's Army, fraudulently purloining extra meat rations.
Mail on Sunday."As we moved slowly through the outskirts of the town we passed row after row of little grey slum houses running at right angles to the embankment. At the back of one of the houses a young woman was kneeling on the stones, poking a stick up the leaden waste-pipe which ran from the sink inside and which I suppose was blocked. I had time to see everything about her - her sacking apron, her clumsy clogs, her arms reddened by the cold. She looked up as the train passed, and I was almost near enough to catch her eye." Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier
- 28-04-2012, 16:08 #44
You seem to have something against 'no win, no fee' lawyers (couldn't help from noticing them being mentioned in each of your posts). The fact is that very few of these 'no win, no fee' firms actually deal with Employment Law and of those that do, they don't take on every case which walks through the front door (and that's in any case, not just employment cases). They'll only take on those that they reckon that they will win. That's how they make their money. They'd be run into the ground and bankrupted if they were to take on every case on a 'no win, no fee' basis. Don't believe the daytime adverts. Most enquiries get binned on the phone. It's likely, based on what you've said so far, that you didn't have a strong enough case to begin with. You may also find that in a most cases the employee is represented by a Union lawyer, or even a trained CAB Adviser. Either way, it is highly unlikely that any of these three bodies would run with a blatantly vexatious case. The ET have rules against allowing for that sort of conduct, which backfire on the employee. Again, if the ET were to hear every case, they'd soon be working 24/7.
Last edited by Biscuits_AB; 28-04-2012 at 16:21.
- 28-04-2012, 17:19 #45
A few points.
No win no fee lawyers are extremely difficult to find in Employment Law. Ordinarily there are no cost awards in employment tribunal cases so the winning party cannot have costs met from the other side. This means that if a claimant enters into a condition fee agreement with a solicitor then the solicitor must recoup their costs from the winnings. Most awards in employment tribunal cases are small and virtually all are limited by law (last I checked to £64,000, but I expect the number has changed since then). Most solicitors are highly reluctant to enter into condition fee agreements for employment disputes for this reason.
Wordsmith - I cannot comprehend how you have come up with this £10k figure. If your case was watertight, there is no reason for you to have incurred costs. Indeed, you need not have even attended a hearing. You could have submitted written evidence and asked a judge/members to rule on this evidence alone.
You would not have been liable for the other side's legal fees. Like virtually all employers, you have exagerated the potential costs and seemingly, settled unnecessarily.
That kind of logic, I dare say, should not form the basis of public policy."If a terrorist organisation wanted to knock out the moral compass of Britain, all they'd have to do is to kill 100 celebrities at random. The entire country would have an instant nervous breakdown."
- 28-04-2012, 17:39 #46
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
As we were liable for our own costs, winning the case was going to cost us more than settling out of court. No company willingly spends more than it needs to.
Let me ask you a question. If you ran a business and you had the same choices we had:
1) Settle out of court for £5,000.
2) Win in court at a cost of £10,000.
what would you do?
I do not think this is a typical case. The reason I've discussed it at length is that I think it is a good illustration of the way a less than scrupulous lawyer can exploit the system for personal gain. A big company can afford to fight these cases through the tribunals. For a small company it is a big financial risk. And some lawyers exploit that.
As I've said in earlier posts, small companies are wary about taking on staff because potential problems like this.
- 28-04-2012, 17:44 #47
I apologise in advance for being so blunt, Wordsmith, but it's your own stupid fault for hiring a lawyer when you didn't need one.
If you don't want to incur £10k costs don't hire a lawyer."If a terrorist organisation wanted to knock out the moral compass of Britain, all they'd have to do is to kill 100 celebrities at random. The entire country would have an instant nervous breakdown."
- 28-04-2012, 17:49 #48
- 28-04-2012, 17:51 #49"If a terrorist organisation wanted to knock out the moral compass of Britain, all they'd have to do is to kill 100 celebrities at random. The entire country would have an instant nervous breakdown."
- 28-04-2012, 17:54 #50