overkill
Distinguished Member
The govt set out today it's proposals to 'make more flexible' UK employment law.
The proposed changes are:- The key points include:
a "call for evidence" on whether "micro-firms" can dismiss staff without their agreement and without them being taken to a tribunal if they pay compensation
a consultation on "protected conversations", which would allow employers to have frank discussions about poor performance with workers without fear that they could be used as evidence in a tribunal
a "call for evidence" on the length of time required for a consultation period on planned redundancies. It is currently 90 days, but the government is considering reducing that to 30
a requirement for all claims to go to the conciliation service Acas before reaching employment tribunal
options for a "rapid resolution scheme" for more simple cases to be settled within three months
The business secretary also confirmed plans to make people work two years before they can make a claim for unfair dismissal from April - up from one year at present.
(Source BBC)
First, ignore the 'consultations' bit. These have been in the pipeline since August 2010, and that means all consultation is finished. Now it's a just a question of getting it before parliament.
Second, I don't disagree with all of these. The rapid resolution scheme is a good idea and would save money and time, all it does is extend ACAS's existing duties.
However, the rest smacks of, once again, rather than trying to improve business practices, and invest in kick starting the economy, the easiest way is to encourage hire and fire (by increasing the unfair dismissal period to two years before you can claim) and make it harder for employees to make a claim to a Tribunal. Which coincidently, many have been shut by the cuts...........
The proposal to make ACAS decide on whether a case should go to tribunal is highly controversial (not least to my company who are livid). ACAS are currently seen by the public at least, as 'impartial'. If they are going to be sole decision makers of whether a case can proceed to tribunal, that is going to be badly eroded. Why? Because the ACAS Conciliation staffs sole job is to STOP cases going to Tribunal!
One also wonders how ACAS, which is tiny compared to it's sister organisations, and not much larger than it's Private Sector competitors, is going to cope with it's new responsibilities and massively increased workload? Don't forget, there is no money in the coffers to recruit civil service staff.......
As for (micro) small businesses being able to fire without reason........ what's the point of having a contract? How would a business feel if none of it's clients adhered to a contract and simply pulled out without reason? I know, because in the current climate it's a complaint I hear often enough.
Protected conversations? Why on Earth would you need to have a protected conversation, if you are only being honest and following company procedure and law? Tribunals want to see them as evidence the employer has followed due procedure - and that's it. I can see this one being challenged in Europe.
The 90 day consultation is there to allow both sides to discuss major redundancies, and only applies to medium to large employers. The vast number of SME's only have to consult for 30 days already. Even then, by choice, many consult for longer. This is one the CBI want.
As for raising the unfair dismissal time to two years, what a joke. Employers use the one year rule as an excuse to sack at the drop of a hat, never mind two years.
The basic thrust of this is to make it even harder to get a tribunal result than it currently is, and, bottom line, save money at employees expense.
Oh, and Cables talk of a 40% increase is codswallop. Tribunals claims (as published by the ET themselves) fell in the last year, the huge increase was from between 2008-2010 and down to bad (and illegal) redundancy practise.
The proposed changes are:- The key points include:
a "call for evidence" on whether "micro-firms" can dismiss staff without their agreement and without them being taken to a tribunal if they pay compensation
a consultation on "protected conversations", which would allow employers to have frank discussions about poor performance with workers without fear that they could be used as evidence in a tribunal
a "call for evidence" on the length of time required for a consultation period on planned redundancies. It is currently 90 days, but the government is considering reducing that to 30
a requirement for all claims to go to the conciliation service Acas before reaching employment tribunal
options for a "rapid resolution scheme" for more simple cases to be settled within three months
The business secretary also confirmed plans to make people work two years before they can make a claim for unfair dismissal from April - up from one year at present.
(Source BBC)
First, ignore the 'consultations' bit. These have been in the pipeline since August 2010, and that means all consultation is finished. Now it's a just a question of getting it before parliament.
Second, I don't disagree with all of these. The rapid resolution scheme is a good idea and would save money and time, all it does is extend ACAS's existing duties.
However, the rest smacks of, once again, rather than trying to improve business practices, and invest in kick starting the economy, the easiest way is to encourage hire and fire (by increasing the unfair dismissal period to two years before you can claim) and make it harder for employees to make a claim to a Tribunal. Which coincidently, many have been shut by the cuts...........
The proposal to make ACAS decide on whether a case should go to tribunal is highly controversial (not least to my company who are livid). ACAS are currently seen by the public at least, as 'impartial'. If they are going to be sole decision makers of whether a case can proceed to tribunal, that is going to be badly eroded. Why? Because the ACAS Conciliation staffs sole job is to STOP cases going to Tribunal!
One also wonders how ACAS, which is tiny compared to it's sister organisations, and not much larger than it's Private Sector competitors, is going to cope with it's new responsibilities and massively increased workload? Don't forget, there is no money in the coffers to recruit civil service staff.......
As for (micro) small businesses being able to fire without reason........ what's the point of having a contract? How would a business feel if none of it's clients adhered to a contract and simply pulled out without reason? I know, because in the current climate it's a complaint I hear often enough.
Protected conversations? Why on Earth would you need to have a protected conversation, if you are only being honest and following company procedure and law? Tribunals want to see them as evidence the employer has followed due procedure - and that's it. I can see this one being challenged in Europe.
The 90 day consultation is there to allow both sides to discuss major redundancies, and only applies to medium to large employers. The vast number of SME's only have to consult for 30 days already. Even then, by choice, many consult for longer. This is one the CBI want.
As for raising the unfair dismissal time to two years, what a joke. Employers use the one year rule as an excuse to sack at the drop of a hat, never mind two years.
The basic thrust of this is to make it even harder to get a tribunal result than it currently is, and, bottom line, save money at employees expense.
Oh, and Cables talk of a 40% increase is codswallop. Tribunals claims (as published by the ET themselves) fell in the last year, the huge increase was from between 2008-2010 and down to bad (and illegal) redundancy practise.