ARmy Rumour SErvice

**Wordsmith** · 28-04-2012, 15:21

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.

Wordsmith

**Pigshyt_Freeman** · 28-04-2012, 15:47

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.

**BoomShackerLacker** · 28-04-2012, 16:02

Dr Fox's mum was in Dad's Army, fraudulently purloining extra meat rations.

Mail on Sunday.

**Biscuits_AB** · 28-04-2012, 16:08

Originally Posted by Wordsmith

As I said before, we took a decision that was - on balance - likely to lead to the minimum financial damage to the business. In an ideal world, we would have called the 'no-win, no fee' lawyers bluff and said 'see you in court'. In the real world we cut our losses and took the cheaper solution. I will re-iterate what I said earlier - this man was justifiably sacked.

He may very well have been, but if you had confidence in your case you would have allowed the matter to go to the ET (I never said that you were angry with the ET by the way). An ideal world has nothing to do with it. Your decision to cut your losses suggests that there was a flaw in your case to begin with, otherwise why not continue to the ET? Why didn't your own legal representative point this out to you in the early stages? You should have been asking questions there. I would have. If you had a strong enough case, you should have had the confidence to got to the ET. It doesn't matter what the other side say.

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.

**Pyianno** · 28-04-2012, 17:19

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.

**Wordsmith** · 28-04-2012, 17:39

Originally Posted by Biscuits_AB

He may very well have been, but if you had confidence in your case you would have allowed the matter to go to the ET (I never said that you were angry with the ET by the way).

As I understood it, we were liable for our own costs - win or lose. The cost of agreeing out of court was less than fighting and winning.

Originally Posted by Biscuits_AB

Your decision to cut your losses suggests that there was a flaw in your case to begin with, otherwise why not continue to the ET?

As I said before, all stages of this employees dismissal were carried out after consulting the employment advisory service retained by the company I worked for. As far as we could tell, the case was watertight. We knew however that it was liable to end up in an ET - the employee threatened us with that at every stage of the disciplinary process.

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.

Originally Posted by Biscuits_AB

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).

I dislike no-win no fee lawyers that do not take cases from merit, but instead takes cases based on their assessment that they can pressure small companies into settling out of court. This sh*t took great pleasure in telling us that we'd win our case but it would cost us more money to do so than settle.

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.

Wordsmith

**Pyianno** · 28-04-2012, 17:44

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.

**Pigshyt_Freeman** · 28-04-2012, 17:49

Originally Posted by Pyianno

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.

Suggests he was carrying out the usual manager's arse-covering exercise and throwing away his company's money in a settlement so as to cover up any errors he may have made, and then blaming his own pusillanimity on the non-existent unfairness of employment law.

**Pyianno** · 28-04-2012, 17:51

Originally Posted by Pigshyt_Freeman

Suggests he was carrying out the usual manager's arse-covering exercise and throwing away his company's money in a settlement so as to cover up any errors he may have made, and then blaming his own pusillanimity on the non-existent unfairness of employment law.

Exactly - if he was that sure of the basis on which he was dismissing beforehand he must have known what the legal requirements were.

There is no need to hire a lawyer unless you think there is a meritous claim to defend.

**Pigshyt_Freeman** · 28-04-2012, 17:54

Originally Posted by Pyianno

Exactly - if he was that sure of the basis on which he was dismissing beforehand he must have known what the legal requirements were.

Equally interesting is why it was not possible for him to spot and weed out an inept and destructive employee in the two years prior to his being granted full employment rights, and why he was unable to train said employee to the required standard.