B1549 – Employment Tribunal Bill 2020. Watch

This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#1
B1549 – Employment Tribunal Bill 2020, TSR Government







Employment Tribunal Bill 2020

A Bill to change the eligibility for tribunal claims.


BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1. The minimum length of service that is required before a claim to an Employment Tribunal shall be 12 months, regardless of when employment commenced.
2. Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (as amended by the The Unfair Dismissal and Statement of Reasons for Dismissal (Variation of Qualifying Period) Order 2012 (S.I. 2012/989) shall be amended accordingly.

Title, Commencement and Extent
3. This Bill shall be known as the Employment Tribunal Bill 2020
4. This Bill shall apply to England and Wales
5. This Bill shall take effect from Royal Assent.

Note
The current minimum period is two years for those who commenced employment after 2012, one year otherwise.
The legislation can be found at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/108
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 weeks ago
#2
Why?
0
SankaraInBloom
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 weeks ago
#3
I see absolutely zero merit to changing the minimum time period eligibility for employment tribunals. Two years is the earliest you can judge long term worth and service, a calendar year is not enough as sometimes it falls in the middle of a tax year and you can't accurately pinpoint whether an action has been unfair. Two years allows for a full working year to always be undertaken and means that everyone who leaves a company after a year because things don't work out (as many people do) aren't about to start filing tribunal requests, left right and centre.
0
The Mogg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by SankaraInBloom)
I see absolutely zero merit to changing the minimum time period eligibility for employment tribunals. Two years is the earliest you can judge long term worth and service, a calendar year is not enough as sometimes it falls in the middle of a tax year and you can't accurately pinpoint whether an action has been unfair. Two years allows for a full working year to always be undertaken and means that everyone who leaves a company after a year because things don't work out (as many people do) aren't about to start filing tribunal requests, left right and centre.
Hear hear.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 weeks ago
#5
Based on the notes the author has no idea why this should happen
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 weeks ago
#6
What a completely useless Bill.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 weeks ago
#7
So from what I can gather, currently an employee has the right not to be unfairly dismissed by his employer if they have been continuously employed for a period of not less than two years ending with the effective date of termination.

This bill reduces this to one year.

I would like to ask the author for some statistics on the matter, and for some good justification of this bill's contents. Why do we need this change, and why this specific change and not other possible changes?
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Based on the notes the author has no idea why this should happen
Hear hear.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 weeks ago
#9
Having read the bill it looks like most of the time an employee is protected as there are numerous exemptions to subsection (1). I'm actually not sure what it is that does get the whole two years protection.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by Aph)
Having read the bill it looks like most of the time an employee is protected as there are numerous exemptions to subsection (1). I'm actually not sure what it is that does get the whole two years protection.
The link given shows it refers to the right not to be unfairly dismissed.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
The link given shows it refers to the right not to be unfairly dismissed.
Yes, but there are many unfair dismissals that apply immediately or after only one month.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by Aph)
Yes, but there are many unfair dismissals that apply immediately or after only one month.
Can you link them?

The author has really not done their homework it seems.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Can you link them?

The author has really not done their homework it seems.
Give me a few mins, just making a brew.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Can you link them?

The author has really not done their homework it seems.
From what I can see you have one month if you are dismissed for illness.

And absolute protection if you are fired because:
  • you had to attend jury service
  • of maternity/paternity/adoption leave.
  • you needed to look after a child.
  • you needed to attend a funeral
  • If you or your SO are pregnant and need to attend ante-natal appointments.
  • If you take time off to attend adoption appointments
  • you refused to work in a dangerous situation or took measures to avert danger but were against your employer's wishes.
  • you refused to work on a Sunday (This should probably be extended to other sabbeths)
  • you refused to work longer than the working time directives allow and refused to waive your rights under them.
  • of any action you take as a trustee of an employee pension scheme;
  • of any action you take as a trade union representative;
  • you made a protected disclosure.
  • of revenge for applying to the courts to enforce your statutory rights.
  • enforcing or attempting to enforce your right to a minimum wage.
  • enforcing your rights to tax credits
  • you tried to exercise your right to contract renegotiation.
  • Lots of other enforcements of your employment rights stuff.
  • you requested further training from your employer or tried to enforce your rights to training from your employer.
  • you were made redundant whilst others in the same or similar positions were not.
  • you refused to become an employee-stakeholder.
  • where there is no apparent reason for your firing
  • of your political beliefs.
  • of your position as an army reserve.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 weeks ago
#15
Aye. At a time when leaving the EU opens up the possibility of employment protection being weakened, anything to increase it should be welcomed. Or as it is, returning it to the level before Chris Grayling reduced it (and tried to impose higher tribunal fees which he had to reverse after court action).
0
Joleee
Badges: 18
#16
Report 4 weeks ago
#16
it makes no sense that an employer would have the right to unfairly dismiss an employee who has passed their probationary period. if it were me, i would've amended the bill that way.

note this bill is about unfair dismissal - not any dismissal. to be unfairly dismissed it must pass certain tests. a fair dismissal is still lawful and especially for the following reasons:

  • you’re incapable of doing your job
  • you've behaved badly (misconduct or gross misconduct)
  • there’s a legal reason why your employer can’t keep you
  • your role is redundant
  • ‘some other substantial reason’ - this is the legal catchall. means an employer's right to prove it was fair beyond the scope of the other reasons.

for an easy read of what unfair dismissal actually is, read here. this bill isn't asking for the inability to be sacked, just that it's done fairly.
1
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by Aph)
From what I can see you have one month if you are dismissed for illness.

And absolute protection if you are fired because:
  • you had to attend jury service
  • of maternity/paternity/adoption leave.
  • you needed to look after a child.
  • you needed to attend a funeral
  • If you or your SO are pregnant and need to attend ante-natal appointments.
  • If you take time off to attend adoption appointments
  • you refused to work in a dangerous situation or took measures to avert danger but were against your employer's wishes.
  • you refused to work on a Sunday (This should probably be extended to other sabbeths)
  • you refused to work longer than the working time directives allow and refused to waive your rights under them.
  • of any action you take as a trustee of an employee pension scheme;
  • of any action you take as a trade union representative;
  • you made a protected disclosure.
  • of revenge for applying to the courts to enforce your statutory rights.
  • enforcing or attempting to enforce your right to a minimum wage.
  • enforcing your rights to tax credits
  • you tried to exercise your right to contract renegotiation.
  • Lots of other enforcements of your employment rights stuff.
  • you requested further training from your employer or tried to enforce your rights to training from your employer.
  • you were made redundant whilst others in the same or similar positions were not.
  • you refused to become an employee-stakeholder.
  • where there is no apparent reason for your firing
  • of your political beliefs.
  • of your position as an army reserve.
Yeah that was on there.

That's a pretty comprehensive list there. I now really want to hear what the author has to say on the matter.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 weeks ago
#18
This bill is an attack on businesses, I shall be voting against it Mr Speaker.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by Joleee)
it makes no sense that an employer would have the right to unfairly dismiss an employee who has passed their probationary period. if it were me, i would've amended the bill that way.

note this bill is about unfair dismissal - not any dismissal. to be unfairly dismissed it must pass certain tests. a fair dismissal is still lawful and especially for the following reasons:

  • you’re incapable of doing your job
  • you've behaved badly (misconduct or gross misconduct)
  • there’s a legal reason why your employer can’t keep you
  • your role is redundant
  • ‘some other substantial reason’ - this is the legal catchall. means an employer's right to prove it was fair beyond the scope of the other reasons.

for an easy read of what unfair dismissal actually is, read here. this bill isn't asking for the inability to be sacked, just that it's done fairly.
I'm just not sure what unfair reasons are left from the list of things you don't need to wait two years for...
0
Joleee
Badges: 18
#20
Report 4 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by Aph)
I'm just not sure what unfair reasons are left from the list of things you don't need to wait two years for...
i think we're in agreement. :- )

can't see a reason why unfair dismissal shouldn't apply to those who've been employed for 12 months. you indeed can be dismissed (as stated above) just not for unreasonable things like, 'i just don't like you'. like what other reason could there be(?).
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (532)
66.75%
No (265)
33.25%

Watched Threads

View All