Fire away

Was it only me who was reminded of 1984 and double-think by David Cameron's speech to his party conference? 'The most important right of all is to have a job in the first place,' he said, meaning: the government wants to make it easier to sack people.

The government has two plans to achieve this. First, they will double the qualifying period for the right to claim unfair dismissal. And, second, they will introduce fees for tribunal claims '“ not just unfair dismissal claims, but also claims for discrimination, unpaid wages, notice pay, redundancy pay, the lot.

As to doubling the qualifying period for unfair dismissal, I cannot see how that is justified. There is no evidence of any correlation between a longer qualifying period and more jobs. There was no drop in employment levels when Labour reduced the qualifying period from two years to one in 1999. And there is no business need for it '“ employers should be able to tell within 12 months whether new recruits are any good or not.

As for tribunal fees: the exact level of fees is to be the subject of a consultation, to take place before the end of November, but press reports suggest £250 to issue and £1,000 for a hearing, possibly more in claims for more than £30,000.

It is difficult to see how a fee of more than £1,090 could be justified when that is the hearing fee in the civil courts for all multi-track claims whatever their value. At the other end of the scale, it is difficult to see how it is fair to ask an issue fee of £250 for someone who simply wants to recover £100 in unpaid wages. Surely it would be fairer to charge something like the sliding scale in the county court, where for claims under £300 the issue fee is £35. And it may come to that.

However, if you look at the fees in the civil courts (https://bit.ly/olk4hN) and imagine that applying in tribunals, it is difficult to see how the introduction of fees won't have a chilling effect on claims.

Whether you see this as a good thing or a bad thing depends on your perspective. The unions and the left see it as an attack on access to justice. But the 'business/employer community''“ as BIS calls it '“ is delighted. The CBI says the increased period for unfair dismissal claims and the introduction of fees will 'give firms more confidence to hire' (don't they mean fire?) and 'prevent vexatious claims'.

The wrong target

But these proposals won't only affect vexatious claims. I have some experience of vexatious claimants and, believe me, they will be the last claimants standing. They think their claims are excellent. Nothing will stop them. But they are a minority.

The people who will be deterred will be those who are realistic, who do get legal advice, who are told by me or a CAB that their case could go either way, that they have a 60 per cent chance but if they lose they will lose the fees they had to pay to take their case to a hearing. Many people who have just lost their job don't feel they can afford to gamble with £1,250 '“ even if they have been done a real injustice.

As an employment barrister you might say I have an interest in opposing these proposals, and obviously I do. However, I also oppose them because I believe people who are badly treated by their employers should have a right to bring a case to tribunal. I believe we all have an interest in living in a society in which employers have to treat their employees with respect. The sad fact is that employers who can get away with treating people badly are more likely to do so.

The outcry in March about the Ministry of Defence's handling of redundancies is a good example. There was no consultation: soldiers serving on the frontline were simply told by email that they were to be made redundant. It's no accident that the MoD behaves like this when members of the armed forces have no right to claim unfair dismissal. The mainstream media was full of outrage but completely failed to pick up on that point.

If these proposals are implemented, they will put three million people in the same position as those soldiers, and make it significantly harder for those who do have rights to enforce them.