Report comment

Anon at 13 Dec 15:03 - You're wrong because.....
Employment rights are unique things which require, as a prerequisite to their use, the financial insecurity of the individual. If you had not either lost your income, or had the potential to lose it, then you would not need to rely on the rights.
It is the constant threat of litigation that ensures small employers don't ditch pregnant women, that ensures disabled people are permitted to partake in meaningful employment even though the employer could perhaps get someone slightly faster for the same money.
It is not only their use but the possibility of their use, that is useful. And how might an individual who is owed their last month's wages obtain them, if they have to pay an ET fee plus costs insurance? But now you say... fee remission right? No, cos this person has just got another job paying 1400 per month so they have squeezed in above the fee help level, and they need to pay rent and eat because they weren't paid from last month which really sucks because now their car has just broken down too perhaps.
No employee would bring a case if they thought they would be liable for costs if losing. And then society would all lose out from the steady erosion of employment rights.
The cost of proceedings must ensure accessibility, other wise the rules are toothless and the object defeated. They're not perfect but they must stand alone in terms of litigation costs and practice boundaries.