New Employment Tribunal Rules

by p4blaw | Nov 16, 2015 | Uncategorized

New Employment Tribunal Rules

Norbrook Laboratories (GB) Ltd v Shaw

On 29 July 2013, new employment tribunal fees came into force. The major change was the introduction of fees but there are other changes which employers should be aware of.

The ET1 form, on which a claim is made, has been revised and when submitting the ET1 by post (as opposed to online) an additional form must be submitted alongside it which states whether the claim is being made on behalf of one person or more than one person; this information is needed to calculate the fee which is due to the tribunal. The new ET1 also has a part to fill in for cases where the Respondent was not the Claimant’s employer; this situation may arise when a Claimant argues that they were discriminated against during a recruitment process. In discrimination cases, the Claimant can also state what they would like to happen to mitigate the effect of the discrimination on them.

There is also a new version of the ET3 form, on which a response to an ET1 is made. The ET3 now asks the Respondent whether they have a disability and need assistance with the claim; this question was previously only asked of the Claimant.

A new “sifting” stage has been introduced to claims. A tribunal judge will review the paperwork before the hearing to ascertain whether or not the claim has a reasonable prospect of success. It is expected that this will avoid weak claims getting to tribunals.

Case management discussions and pre-hearing reviews will be combined into one preliminary hearing.

Alternative dispute resolution will be strongly encouraged by tribunals wherever practical and appropriate.

Rules relating to interest on unpaid tribunal awards will change. Instead of interest becoming payable 42 days after a judgement, interest will be payable from the day after judgement is given, unless the full amount is settled within 14 days.

Tribunals will have the power to make detailed costs assessments in situations where costs are over £20,000. They may also order a party to pay a deposit in respect of a specific allegation (rather than in respect of the whole allegation as was the situation previously). This deposit must be made in order to continue with their claim and is generally required because the tribunal considers that the likelihood of the party having to make a pay-out after the tribunal is fairly high.

Ready to discuss your own approach to employment law?

If you would like to discuss your employment law options as an employer, please do not hesitate to get in touch. We offer an initial free, no obligation discussion.

Qualifying Disclosures & Adverse Weather Policies

by wpengine | Aug 18, 2015 | Uncategorized

Qualifying Disclosures & Adverse Weather Policies

Norbrook Laboratories (GB) Ltd v Shaw

;

The case of Norbrook Laboratories (GB) Ltd v Shaw involved an employee who had concerns about driving in the harsh weather conditions of the winter of 2010. Mr Shaw was part of a sales team whose members had to drive to see clients. Mr Shaw e-mailed the health and safety manager to enquire whether there was a relevant policy and whether the Company had done a risk assessment on driving in the snow. He was told that the answer to both questions was no and so he e-mailed the manager again asking for formal guidance and expressing his concern that the driving conditions were dangerous. A few days later, he sent another e-mail to the HR department asking whether he and his colleagues would be paid if they could not get to appointments due to the adverse weather.

Mr Shaw was later dismissed. He did not have a year’s service (the qualifying period, at the time, to bring about an unfair dismissal claim) but he alleged that his e-mails counted as a “qualifying disclosure” and that he had been unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing. At a pre-hearing review, the Company submitted that Mr Shaw had merely been expressing an opinion and that he had been concerned about whether he would be paid if he was unable to travel, which would not count as a qualifying disclosure.

It was held that Mr Shaw had done more than just express an opinion; he had brought to the Company’s attention dangerous conditions which were putting the health of safety of him and his colleagues at risk. The Tribunal decided that the three e-mails together (although sent to two different people) did constitute a qualifying disclosure although each e-mail on its own may not have. The Company appealed but the decision was upheld.

The case highlights that qualifying disclosures can be made up of several different communications sent to different recipients. It also highlights the importance of having an adverse weather policy in place.