In the space of a few weeks there have been two consultation documents on the reform of employment tribunals issued by government departments -- the DTI (Route to Resolution), which has administrative responsibility, and the Lord Chancellor's Department (The Leggatt Report), which many believe should have the function.The reasons for the focus on Employment Tribunals (ETs) can be traced back to the Confederation of British Industry raising concerns that the burden on business in coping with a three-fold increase in employment claims over the past decade was becoming unbearable.

The fact that a significant proportion of employment legislation over the past five years can be attributed to trade union demands for workers' rights -- and not the UK's belated acceptance of the social chapter provisions of the Maastricht Treaty -- strengthened the CBI's hand.Faced with claims that the UK labour market was over-re gulated and unattractive for inward investment, the government had to respond.

The Leggatt Report had a wider remit and looked at the whole tribunal system, not just at employment tribunals.

Nevertheless, the section on ETs had much in common with the DTI's document and there appears to be a broad consensus on the areas requiring reform.The CBI has consistently complained over the past decade that the costs of defending claims were spiralling out of control.

Both consultations focused on this issue, even though ETs were given increased powers last month to award costs and strike out misconceived claims.

Leggatt is against the introduction of a costs regime as exists in the courts, without further research into the potential repercussions.

The DTI document recommends a presumption in favour of a costs award in 'weak' cases and an obligation to give reasons when costs are not awarded.However, it combines this with a far more controversial suggestion -- that a fee (£60 to £200 has been mooted) be paid to launch a tribunal action with exemptions for individuals on benefit.

It is this aspect of the DTI consultation that has attracted criticism from the unions, which accuse the government of pandering to the CBI and preventing fair and open access to justice.

The media predict acrimonious debate at the autumn conferences of the Trades Union Congress and the Labour party.To make matters worse, or perhaps as a clever ploy, the press are reporting a separate announcement that the Employment Tribunal service plans to publish the names of all 250,000 who have taken action since 1998 on its Web site.

There will be an inevitable challenge under the Human Rights Act 1998 if the government presses ahead on the basis that the right to a fair hearing is being undermined.

Perhaps the unions will argue that the principle of equal treatment requires that fees are also paid by employers to defend claims.Nevertheless, the very notion of fees in ETs could be seen as eroding the concept of a cheap, informal and expeditious forum for the resolution of employment disputes.

Leggatt endorses these principles, since he is against the creation of employment courts.

Indeed he makes the far-reaching recommendation that the tribunal jurisdiction should be extended to become a 'one-stop shop' for all employment-related claims, for example, personal injury sustained at work.The jurisdiction of ETs has increased far beyond the remit originally envisaged.

This combined with the perception of a litigious culture among workers inevitably lead the government to consider alternatives to litigation.

Consequently, the DTI consultation highlights the benefits of dispute resolution procedures in the workplace.

It is suggested that tribunal awards could be reduced if workers fail to take advantage of internal procedures and likewise increased if procedures are not made available by the employer.Furthermore, to discourage the use of litigation as a first resort, the document suggests that claims might not be accepted while the internal process is still in play, and that time limits should be adjusted accordingly.One cause of frustration with the ET system, reported to Leggatt, is the lack of resources and priority given to it by the DTI.

Unions have also expressed concern about the impartiality of a department, which is primarily promoting the interest of business.

These concerns go some way to explain Leggatt's recommendation that custodianship of ETs should move to the LCD.

Moreover, he is clear that greater resources need to be allocated to improve the service t o users.The lack of confidence on the part of users is caused in part by the inability of tribunal chairmen to engage in proactive case management in the same way as judges in the civil courts.

The inconsistency in approach between different regions vividly illustrates this point.Moreover, there appears to be an acceptance of the doctrine that individuals deserves their day in court irrespective of the cost to the employer.

Workers' representatives will be dismayed by Leggatt's failure to accept that one of the major causes of inefficiencies in ETs is the inability of workers to appreciate the merits, or lack of them, of their claim.

Too many cases are brought by litigants with no expert advice, resulting in a system clogged with misconceived claims.It would be far better for employers if such individuals had access to sound legal advice.

In Scotland, legal aid is now available for difficult cases.

In England and Wales, individuals who may be acting out of a sense of injustice will face costs penalties.

The reality for employers is that costs awards are usually not worth the paper they are written on.

It does no good to an employer's reputation to chase after ex-employees in the vain hope of recovering costs, however justified they might be.

If legal aid was made available employers would at least have the opportunity to look to the Legal Services Commission to recover costs.Unless Leggatt's proposals are taken on board by the government, there is little prospect of a reduction in the rising number of applications.

The most positive proposal in both consultations involves giving the president of the ETs the power to issue practice directions -- that is to say, recommended guidance -- to ensure greater consistency among tribunals.As with the civil courts, practice directions may provide the mechanism to bring about change in the short term.

If the president can direct tribunals to be more consistent, we may begin to detect a reduction in the number of weak claims and hopeless defences that litter the tribunal system, only to be unearthed on the day of the full hearing.Lawyers will welcome Leggatt's proposals that non-lawyers engaged in tribunal representation ought to be subject to a regulatory licence system or other appropriate safeguards to ensure that standards of advice are consistent and professional.

Ironically the interests of employers are better served by a professionally advised worker than one chasing windfall settlements and advised by no win no fee consultants.

The availability of legal aid remains a major issue and it may now be time to bite the bullet and adopt the Scottish model.

The future of an efficient, transparent and modern employment tribunal system depends on a more enlightened strategy on the part of the government.

At the moment the likelihood of change looks slim unless the message is hammered home from all sides of the industrial relations divide.