This is a brief overview of the questions we get asked in our employment department, specifically on what you can expect if you are attending an employment tribunal hearing or are considering bringing a claim.

1. What are Employment Tribunals?

Employment Tribunals are independent legal bodies that resolve disputes between employers and employees regarding employment rights including discrimination, unfair dismissal, and other employment related issues.

2. What is it like at an Employment Tribunal?

Your case will be heard by an employment judge, sometimes accompanied by panel members who have experience in employment law. Tribunals are formal proceedings, but they are less formal than traditional courts.

At the Tribunal, both parties present their evidence, witnesses are examined and cross-examined, and legal arguments are made. The Tribunal will then make a decision based on the evidence presented.

3. When do I have to make a claim to an employment tribunal?

You typically need to make a claim to the Employment Tribunal within strict time limits known as the ‘limitation period’. The limitation period varies depending on the type of claim, but it is essential to be aware of these deadlines and ensure your claim is submitted within the required timeframe to avoid your claim being rejected. It is therefore advisable to seek legal advice promptly if you believe you have a claim, to ensure you meet the necessary deadlines.

4. How long will it take to get to a hearing?

The time it takes to get to a hearing can vary depending on the complexity of the case and the Tribunal’s schedule. It’s advisable to seek legal advice for a more accurate estimation.

5. What do I need to do before the employment tribunal?

Before filing a claim with the Employment Tribunal, it is sometimes crucial and cost effective to attempt to resolve the dispute through informal means, such as discussions with your employer or using a formal grievance procedure.

In the majority of cases, you must reach out to ACAS first before making a claim to an Employment Tribunal. ACAS will offer you the option of early conciliation, which is a free service which can help you and your employer resolve the issue before you need to make a claim. If Early Conciliation is not successful, ACAS will issue you with a certificate and it is only at this stage you can issue a claim in the Employment Tribunal.

Your claim may thereafter proceed to an Employment Tribunal. In this instance, the tribunal will typically schedule a case management hearing to establish the framework of proceedings including deadlines that need to be adhered to. During the case management hearing, the tribunal will discuss the issues in dispute and set deadlines for exchanging documents and witness statements and may issue directions to ensure the claim progresses efficiently. It is very important to comply with these directions and provide the requested information, to avoid potential penalties and delays in the proceedings.

Additionally, gathering evidence to support your claims such as e-mails, letters, witness statements and relevant documentation is also crucial.

In an Employment Tribunal Claim, the Respondent is typically the employer or organisation against whom the claim is being brought. In other words, they are the party accused of breaching the employee’s employment rights and/or breaching the employment contract. The Claimant is usually the party alleging that their rights have been infringed upon and that they have been subject to detriment. The claimant often bears the burden of proof to substantiate their claims before the Employment Tribunal.

Seeking legal advice and consulting with an employment lawyer can also provide valuable guidance on your employment rights and options before proceeding with your claim. We can provide valuable advice to prepare you for the process.

6. Can I represent myself and what will I need to do?

Yes, you can represent yourself, but it’s recommended to seek legal advice or assistance. You’ll need to prepare your case, gather evidence, and understand the relevant laws and procedures.

7. How do I answer questions during cross-examination?

Answer questions truthfully and directly. If you’re unsure, it’s okay to say so. Listen carefully to the question and take your time before responding.

8. How much can the Employment Tribunal Award?

The amount of compensation awarded by the employment Tribunal varies depending on the nature of the case and the losses suffered by the claimant (employee). It can include compensation for loss of earnings, injury to feelings, and other financial losses. It’s advisable to seek legal advice for a more accurate estimation.

9. Will I have to pay the other party’s costs?

In most cases, each party is responsible for their own legal costs. However, there are exceptions, such as if a claim is deemed to be vexatious or unreasonable.

10. What can I do if I am not happy with the decision?

If you’re unhappy with the Tribunal’s decision, you may have the right to appeal to a higher court, such as the Employment Appeal Tribunal, but you should seek legal advice before proceeding. Navigating an Employment Tribunal can be complex, but understanding the process and seeking appropriate guidance can help ensure the best possible outcome for your case.

If you require any advice on your employment rights or how these changes may affect you, please contact our Employment Law team on 01604 936512 / 01908 953674 or email info@franklins-sols.co.uk.

The government has recently launched a consultation on the potential reintroduction of fees in the Employment Tribunal (ET) and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). This move follows the controversial introduction of fees in 2013, which was later deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court in 2017. The new proposal suggests a more modest fee structure with the aim of striking a balance between access to justice and the financial contributions of claimants.

In 2013, the Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order led to a significant decline of 68% in individual claims brought to the ET. The fees, ranging from £390 to £1,200, faced criticism for being unaffordable, particularly for those on low to middle incomes. In response, Unison initiated a judicial review in 2017, resulting in the Supreme Court ruling the Fees Order as an unlawful interference with the right of access to justice.

Following this decision, there was a sharp increase in the number of cases, prompting a review by the House of Commons Justice Select Committee. The committee recommended a reduction and restructuring of fees, and although the government expressed an intention to reintroduce fees, details were not provided.

On January 29, 2024, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) launched a consultation proposing the reintroduction of a “one-off fee” of £55 for claims presented to the ET or appeals submitted to the EAT. Noteworthy aspects of this proposal include its application to all claim types, exemption for proceedings related to an individual’s right to a payment from the National Insurance Fund, and the availability of assistance through the “Help with Fees” remission scheme for those unable to afford the fee.

If implemented, these fees would come into effect from November 2024 onwards. The MoJ aims to strike a balance between access to justice and contributors covering the tribunal system’s running costs. The proposed fees, estimated to generate £1.3 – £1.7 million annually from 2025 onwards, are designed to incentivise early dispute settlement and align users of the tribunal service with other courts and tribunals.

Despite early criticism drawing comparisons to the previous regime, the proposed fee is notably lower, and safeguards such as fee assistance and exemptions are in place to address affordability concerns. This presents a uniform application of the fee aims to eliminate indirect discrimination against certain claimants, addressing past criticisms.

The consultation period ends on March 25, 2024, and further details and the consultation document can be accessed on the official Ministry of Justice website.

If you require any employment advice, please contact our Employment Law team on 01604 828282 / 01908 660966 or email info@franklins-sols.co.uk 

The government is expected to bring the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 into force in 2024.

The Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 imposes statutory obligations on employers to allocate tips, gratuities, and services charges to workers without making any deductions. Consequently, withholding tips from staff becomes unlawful resulting in more than 2 million workers’ tips being protected. It is estimated by the government that £200 million a year will go back to workers that would have otherwise been withheld from them.

The Act also provides that Agency workers cannot be excluded or disadvantaged from this benefit. Therefore, under the new legislation, agency workers also gain the statutory right to receive a share of their tip.

The new legislation once in effect will include:

• An obligation on organisations to fairly allocate tips, gratuities and service charges over which they exercise control or significant influence and pay them to workers in full within a month of the tip being paid by the customer.
• Where tips are paid on more than an occasional and exceptional basis, an employer must have a written record and policy, available to all workers, setting out how qualifying tips are dealt with. The records must be maintained for a three-year period beginning with the date on which the qualifying tips, gratuities or service charge were paid.
• Employees have the right to request information about the employer’s tipping record.

The consequences for non-compliance may include an award up to £5,000.00 per Claimant to reflect the additional financial losses caused by non-payment. Workers will have 12 months from the date of non-compliance to raise a claim in the employment tribunal if the employer has not complied with their obligation to fairly allocate tips within a month of the tips being received. In the event the employer has failed to comply with their obligation to have written polices and keep records under the Act, workers have three months to bring a claim in the employment tribunal.

Whilst the Act is due to come into force in 2024, employers in the hospitality, leisure and service sectors may wish to review their policies and practices now to ensure that they are compliant with the Act by the time it comes into force.

Our Employment Law team is able to assist you with a review of your policies and employee handbook and can help you identify any potential risks to be addressed in your current practices.

If you require any employment advice, please contact our Employment Law team on 01604 828282 / 01908 660966 or email info@franklins-sols.co.uk 

In a unanimous judgment by the employment tribunal, the judge dismissed a case brought by a London chef who was sacked after refusing to do tasks until asked politely. The tribunal accepted that a failure to say please in a kitchen environment was not rudeness, it was a matter of practicality. It was accepted that the communication style in the kitchen is “direct and efficient” and therefore “… it is just professional and industry standard”.

Ms. Bridgette Peters, the Claimant, was employed as a Chef de Partie at Leto Café, London from 23 August 2022 until 27 August 2022. The Claimant’s grounds of complaint revolved around the lack of use of the word ‘please’ by her colleagues.  She claimed that instructions from her colleagues came across as rude because staff were not saying please.

On her very first day, Ms. Peters requested her colleagues several times to say ‘please’ when she was set tasks by them. However, one of her colleagues explained to her that he was speaking to her in a normal and professional way for a kitchen. Ms Peters raised further concerns during the week whereupon she was reminded again that the communication style in the kitchen is “direct and efficient, and that this is not personal or rudeness, it is just professional and industry standard and she should not expect that the word ‘please’ follows every request”.

Despite the reassurances given by her colleagues, a dispute between Ms. Peters and a fellow chef occurred on her fourth day of employment. Having only worked one week at the restaurant, she was dismissed by Mr.Sklyrov who is the Head Chef at Leto Café and responsible for a number of other premium restaurants.  After investigations, Mr. Skylrov decided to dismiss Ms. Peters to avoid further conflict between the kitchen staff. Mr. Sklyrov described in his witness statement that Ms Peter’s attitude and expectations were unrealistic.

As a result, Ms. Peters brought a tribunal claim on the basis that her dismissal was because of her race as she is Black British. Mr. Sklyrov denied this claim and reiterated that she was only dismissed as it became clear that her skills and expectations about work demands were unsuited to the role.

The employment tribunal listed Ms. Peters’ claims for a full merits hearing in June 2023 , however her claim of direct race discrimination was held to be not well-founded and therefore dismissed. It was accepted by the tribunal that the behaviour complained of was the normal practice in that working environment and she should therefore not expect that the word ‘please’ follows every request.

The tribunal also agreed with the Respondent’s defence that it is not rudeness if individuals do not use the word ‘please’ and that this is not specific to this particular restaurant; in other words, it is common across the premium hospitality industry, of which Ms Peters herself was part of.

In the case of Dadhania v SAP (UK) Limited et al, part of the Employment Tribunal’s judgment was that swearing is now commonplace in a work setting and therefore swear words do not carry the shock value it once did. In other words, some swear words lack the meaning and significance that they once had. The leading takeaway from this case is that the context in which profanity is used is important. For example, the construction industry is notorious for the use of bad language on construction sites with case law revolving around sexist jokes, negative attitude towards women and reports of harassment, swearing and discrimination.

It follows that swearing in the workplace should be addressed within the organisation’s disciplinary policy or employee handbook. For the sake of clarity, the policies should set out the company’s position on the use of offensive and inappropriate language allowing employees to gain an understanding of the expected standard at the workplace.

Our Employment Law team is able to assist you with a review of your workplace policies and employee handbook and can help identify any potential risks to be addressed in your current practices.

Should you have concerns or simply require guidance on your company policies, please contact our Employment Law team on 01604 828282 / 01908 660966 or email info@franklins-sols.co.uk 

An employment tribunal has ruled that ethical veganism amounts to a philosophical belief and so is protected by law, in particular discrimination legislation.

The ruling followed a claim brought by Jordi Casamitjana, who claimed he was unfairly sacked by his former employer League Against Cruel Sports (LACS), due to his ethical veganism. Mr Casamitjana alleged that he was sacked after disclosing to his colleagues that LACS’s pension fund invested in companies involved in animal testing. LACS argued that he was dismissed due to his gross misconduct.

“Religion or belief” is one of the nine protected characteristics covered by the Equality Act 2010. Judge Robin Postle ruled that ethical veganism was a protected characteristic, specifically a philosophical belief as it satisfied several tests for it to amount to a protected belief, including that it was worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and did not conflict with the fundamental rights of others. The judge ruled that ethical veganism should receive similar legal protections to religious beliefs in the workplace.

Although the case has been described as a “landmark ruling” with having “potentially significant effects on employment and the workplace”, it does not impact the law. This is because a judgement from an employment tribunal of the first instance is not a legally binding precedent and so does not have to be followed. Nevertheless, the judgement gives employers guidance on the protection and support ethical vegans should receive in the workplace. Employers may wish to consider the services they provide to their employees and the products that they use, for example furniture choices and offering vegan options for food.

The judgment is in relation to the first of a two-part employment tribunal. The tribunal is yet to consider the lawfulness of Mr Casamitjana’s treatment by his former employer and whether he was treated less favourably due to this beliefs.

If you require legal assistance in relation to your rights in the workplace, or have reason to believe that you are being unfairly treated due to your beliefs, then please do not hesitate to contact our Employment Department who will be happy to assist on 01908 660966 / 01604 828282 or by email at employment@franklins-solsc.co.uk.