Manchester firms rebel against weekend courts

Manchester
Thursday 13 September 2012 by Jonathan Rayner

Manchester law firms are refusing to ask staff to attend magistrates’ courts at weekends because they say to do so would require a unilateral change to contracts of employment and invite claims of unfair dismissal.

The firms say that some staff could claim constructive dismissal on the grounds of religion and belief discrimination if forced to work on Saturdays and Sundays. Such a move would also have a disproportionate impact on women, who often have caring responsibilities at weekends, the firms say.

The government last month announced plans to pilot magistrates’ court sittings at weekends. Law Society president Lucy Scott-Moncrieff wrote to the justice secretary to protest that the plans had been introduced without consultation and that he could expect few volunteers because no extra payments were being offered.

Allan Maidment of Manchester firm Maidments Solicitors said: ‘Every criminal defence practice in Greater Manchester is of the same view: the government cannot expect us to impose seven-days-a-week terms on staff who signed contracts to work a five-day week.’

Describing the proposals as ‘madness’, Maidment added that there was no proven business case for magistrates’ courts sitting at weekends. ‘There will simply be an additional cost to the public purse of overtime payments to court officials and crown prosecutors. Meanwhile, solicitors are expected to work for nothing.’

Gordon Turner of London firm Gordon Turner Employment Lawyers, who is advising the Manchester firms, said that it is possible to dismiss an employee where they unreasonably refuse to sign up to a change in terms. But he added: ‘This is not a step that most law firms could reasonably consider.

‘They need employees and would face problems recruiting new ones. It would also be very disruptive to business to lay off good solicitors due to conditions imposed by third parties, in this instance the government.’

Comments

A pattern emerges....

Anyone else see a pattern ?

1. Government proposes half-baked scheme mainly based on tabloid prejudices to save money , usually focussing on those areas which produce no profit (like law) and which involve servicing the vulnerable; ideally a private contractor is brought in (G4S? ALS? Enron ?-might as well be)

2. Said scheme then encounters entirely foreseeable snags brought on by lack of consultation with anyone who actually has to do the work and knows the knock-on effects, or scheme offends basic tenets of constituional duty. Scheme descends into farce.

3. Said scheme gets abandoned or Ministers fall flat on their chinless faces trying to defend it.

Wasn`t it Einstein who said that his definition of stupidity is repeating actions that have repeatedly been shown not to work ?

Manchester solicitors

They might refuse to do the work themselves but I wonder if they'll sub it out to the very junior bar at the lowest rate possible (or on the understanding that chambers cover the work to ensure first dibs on better cases). The work gets done. Desperate barristers earn half a crust. The LSC are satisfied. Manchester solicitors maintain their solidarity with their brethren. Simples.