Kirsten Roberts is a Director and Head of Marketing at Box Legal

On reviewing our ATE product for Employment cases and the loans we offer to pay the tribunal hearing fee, I came across a couple of press releases leading up to the introduction of the Employment Tribunal Fees. The releases play on the suggestion that those who try to take their companies to a tribunal for unfair dismissal, or other reasons, are simply using up taxpayers money by being allowed to do so.

Apparently it is not fair on the tax payer who foots the bill for ‘people who want to escalate workplace disputes to a tribunal’, according to 2012 Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly. So how do they find a resolution? Surely no one really wants to escalate a workplace dispute. Surely if you reach that point, you are desperate to find some sort of reasoning behind what has happened and surely you are concerned about any possible financial costs. With this in mind, and the new fees imposed, isn’t it now more likely that you cut your losses and try and move on with your life, rather than ‘stir up trouble’ with an employer no matter how badly a situation has affected you.

Jo Swinson, the employment Minster in 2013 commented that the UK has one of the most flexible labour markets in the world and stated that we need to make sure necessary protections are in place for businesses. So how do we do this? We become less flexible with our freedom of speech and we put measures in place to stop those who need it, getting the justice they require.

Citizens Advice reported in December that four out of five people are deterred by employment tribunal fees. Does that mean those 4 people did not have a real case against their employer, or maybe that they are just trouble makers. Claims lodged over a three month period last year have fallen by 81% in comparison to a year ago and no evidence has been found of false claims. According to the findings, just under half of people with an employment issue would have to save for 6 months to pay the fee. Surely I am not the only one who believes this is not right.

On the 7^th January 2015, the government was called upon by trade unionists, lawyers and academics to abolish the fees. They state that this is denying workers access to justice, and it is. And while we wait to hear, I like to think that we at Box Legal are doing all we can to help those who need it, get the justice they require. For more information see out website www.tribunalfees.co.uk

One cannot help noticing that the Ministry of Justice is keeping busy organising (amongst other things) the introduction of the new personal injury protocol for workplace and public liability claims, which must now be channeled through what was previously the electronic portal for road accidents. They are coming under much criticism for not having published the rules due to come into effect on 31 July.

Similarly one cannot turn on the news without noticing that Unison is keeping busy trying to decide how much it should contribute towards the Labour party by way of annual levy and considering whether to change links with the Labour Party going back 100 years.

They both seem to have found time however to engage in a High Court battle over whether the Employment Tribunal fees due to be introduced on the 29th July are lawful.

Unison argues that the high level of fees prevents proper access to European Community employment rights and that it is discriminatory because women (who are generally paid less) are less able to meet the fees than men. In addition they point out that most of the other UK first level Tribunals do not have a fee.

The argument that the new fees present a barrier to justice appears attractive. The need to pay a substantial fee just when claimants can least afford it, must inevitably prevent some claims being made, and the problem the government has is that this is their stated intention!

On the other hand, most people will scrape together at least £250 if they know that they have an entitlement to a much higher sum. Whether the same is true for the much more substantial hearing fee of up to £950 remain to be seen, but the availability of the FeeSafe policy and hearing fee loan may be relevant to the legal argument!

Sadly the general consensus is that the Unison challenge is probably unlikely to succeed, but the political point will have been made!