When the Employment Rights Bill’s champion Angela Rayner quit, speculation grew that the government would dilute the legislation. Those concerns have diminished, but a related development also alarmed trade unions. It emerged last week that Labour has been mulling the resurrection of employment tribunal fees.
If the government was flying a kite, it soon ran into fierce crosswinds. Unison warned that the new rights ‘will be meaningless if workers can’t enforce them’. It was Unison, of course, which won the 2017 Supreme Court case that doomed Chris Grayling’s tribunal charges.
Unison’s fears appear to have been allayed. On Wednesday, justice secretary David Lammy tweeted that ‘it will remain free to bring a case, ensuring everyone, no matter their means, can stand up for their rights at work’. His timing was curious – and I am sceptical about those noble intentions. Could there have been a more prosaic reason for the rapid reverse ferret?
Let’s recap. When fees were first introduced by Grayling in 2013, straightforward disputes attracted issue and hearing fees totalling £390, while more complicated matters incurred charges of £1,200. Over the next 18 months, the number of cases slumped by 60%.
Labour would never have gone that high. It is understood that the government was contemplating proposals akin to those floated in 2024 by the last government, which ‘would ensure users are paying towards the running costs of tribunals’.
That consultation proposed much lower charges – a £55 issue fee payable on bringing a claim, remaining at £55 where a claim is brought by multiple claimants. Each judgment, direction, decision or order appealed to the EAT would have attracted a £55 fee. No hearing fees were planned.
Unions grumbled that even these modest fees would price out low-income workers, but it was telling that no fresh legal challenge emerged. A more compelling objection was – and is – that new fees at that level would not raise much cash anyway. Less than £2m a year towards the £80m annual cost of the tribunals. Lammy likely concluded there was little mileage in antagonising party paymasters for such a paltry return.
Perhaps the lord chancellor would now be better employed concerning himself with the three-quarters of workers who won at tribunal but have yet to see a penny.
No comments yet