Workers’ fury at tribunals farce

Nearly half of Scots who win employment tribunals against rogue employers never receive a penny of the cash awarded to them by the courts.

A Sunday Post investigation has laid bare the crisis at the heart of the employment tribunal system, with firms refusing to pay or going into liquidation to avoid settling cases.

The situation for workers battling for justice has been made even tougher with “draconian” new fees of up to £1,200 to bring a claim against employers.

Figures from a UK Government study show 46% of mistreated Scots employees who won their tribunal cases have not been paid.

Labour MP and Shadow Business Minister, Ian Murray, said: “This Government is stacking the odds against ordinary people who simply want to have the chance for their case to be heard in court.

“If you consider the high number of cases where payments are not being made and the exorbitant fees being charged, it’s no wonder people are put off going to employment tribunals.”

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills study of 1,200 employment tribunal cases shows that, across the UK, 49% of awards were paid in full, 16% were part-paid and 35% were not paid at all.

In Scotland, the situation is worse.

The Scottish sample of 200 cases involved a total of 41% of awards which were paid in full, 13% were part-paid and 46% were not paid at all.

Jim Warnock, founder of employment law firm Concordia, said: “The problem is mainly the small to medium sized companies. When they know they are going to lose they start pulling tricks such as changing the name or transferring assets to a new company.

“It’s disgusting that firms can get away with this and we have been pressing to get this loophole closed for years. If someone does not pay then we can deploy sheriff officers but they are powerless to act if people pull this trick.

“There are people who, while not breaking the law, are being dishonest. The fees they have introduced are simply draconian too.”

People wanting to bring cases to tribunal must now pay a fee for the first time since the 1960s.

The rules were introduced in July and it now costs £160 or £250 to lodge a claim, with a further charge of either £230 or £950 if the case goes ahead. Discrimination, detriment and dismissal claims attract the higher fee.

Dave Prentis, UNISON General Secretary, said: “We believe the Government shouldn’t put a price on justice and stop working people from exercising their employment rights.

“Since the introduction of the fees, claims from individuals have gone down. These fees are punitive and give the green light to unscrupulous employers to ride roughshod over already basic workers’ rights.”

Unison launched a legal battle against the UK Government in October to get the fees regime thrown out and a decision is due in the New Year.

Justice Minister Shailesh Vara said: “It’s not fair on the taxpayer to foot the entire £74 million bill for people to escalate workplace disputes to a tribunal. We want people, where they can afford it, to make a contribution.”

Employment Relations Minister Jo Swinson said: “We are determined to clamp down on businesses who fail to pay out. Far too many cases are not being resolved leaving people out of pocket. Taking an employer to tribunal is a stressful enough process without having to face the possibility of not getting what you are entitled to if you win your case.

The UK Government is considering moves to issue fixed penalty notices for late payment and naming and shaming employers who fail to pay out.

WHEN an employment tribunal awarded hairdresser Agnes Hyslop £9,000 for unfair dismissal, the 44-year-old was delighted the case was over and she could finally move on with her life. But nine months on from the victory, she is still waiting for her money.

Agnes’s problem is that her former employer no longer technically exists even though she drives past the salon she worked at all the time.

Records at Companies House show an application to liquidate her former employer, Reddz Hairstyling, was made on March 12 two weeks before the tribunal.

A new company called Reddz Hairstyling (West Calder) was created on March 4 and operates from the same premises as the now defunct company.

Agnes said Brian Madden was her boss at the salon but he insisted he had no legal link to either firm and said he was only an advisor to both businesses.

Brian’s son, Christopher, is a director and company secretary of Reddz Hairstyling (West Calder).

Mrs Hyslop, of Polbeth in West Lothian, said: “It was great to win as I thought I had a strong case and I am glad that was recognised, but not getting the money has just left me feeling totally empty.”

The 44-year-old added: “My name was blackened in all of this, it was then cleared by the courts but I only get partial justice because there is no pay-out.”

The Sunday Post asked Brian Madden why the changes were made just weeks before the hearing. He responded: “This was purely because of economic reasons.”

Mr Madden, who pointed out he has done nothing legally wrong and contests the tribunal ruling, confirmed the West Calder salon was closed for just one day before reopening.

THE joy of expecting her first child was wiped out for Nikki Gowland by the stress of losing her full-time job in October.

The 20-year-old trained chef wanted to take her previous employer to a tribunal on the grounds of unfair dismissal but was stunned to find out she would have to pay a £150 fee just to submit her case.

“I just could not believe that even to get into the queue for a court date you have to pay a fee,” explained Nikki, who is four months pregnant. “They want £150 just to submit the application but I don’t have £150.

“I’m only getting £60 a week from the cleaning work I’ve picked up so there is no way I can afford to pay that.

“I’m furious, these fees mean people are being denied justice on the basis of how much money they have rather the rights or wrongs of what has happened.”

Nikki, of Livingston, West Lothian, added: “There must be loads of people like me who just can’t afford to do this. The fees have to be putting people off but that’s what they wanted to do, I guess, to save money.”