As predicted, since Camoron and his cronies decided to introduce huge fees for Tribunal claims, as well as extend the qualifying period of employment by 100% to 2 years, as well as allowing zero hours, the number of Tribunal claims has shockingly declined.

The official figures show that Claims dropped from well over 35,000 to a mere 6,019 between Jan-March 2014 - a staggering decline of 81%. It's not a blip. This follows on from the last quarter of 2013 where the year-on year fall in claims was 79%, compared with the last quarter of 2012.

The trade union Unison took out judicial review proceedings to challenge the introduction of tribunal fees but the court threw it out, on the strange (to me) basis that there was not any evidence to assess the impact of fees. Unison has got permission to appeal the JR. If these scandalous and shameful numbers don't persuade the appeal court then I will be amazed, but it will be cold comfort for the tens of thousands of people who have been priced out of pursuing tribunal claims in the meantime.

It would be interesting to see the results of the DWP's Impact Assessment on the law changes.

They did undertake an Impact Assessment didn't they?

I have never understood the point of Tribunals. If the employer wants to get rid of someone then it is untenable to be reinstated. Compensation used to be pretty limited (although did increase - which probably accounts for the short-term increase in cases). To me the aggrieved employees cause is almost always best served by agreeing to go quietly and getting another job asap. A tribunal just prejudices their future employment opportunities. Who in their right mind would employ someone they knew had taken a previous employer to Tribunal.

There may be extreme cases, where clearing of name could be an issue, that makes it worthwhile for employees but in most not.

There was a whole industry around employee Tribunals that was abusing the system and that abuse needed curtailing. I had direct experience of a case where an employee made a claim and the letter she utilised still had square brackets with spaces in. Presumably, someone had given her a script and she had forgotten to add details! Furthermore, it was pure fantasy including alleged remarks made to her by a former, retired owner (not even current) of the business in the sort of up market retail establishment she perceived he may have frequented. That despite the fact he lived out in the country and had been nowhere near London at the weekend in question! The case was dismissed by the Tribunal in no uncertain terms. But you could imagine on another day another Tribunal being taken in by such nonsense.

Major national banking corporations! My best mate took her employer to a tribunal years ago and it never once hindered her employment opportunities. She has just left a major bank, rising from bank manager to business manager to now being a mortgage adviser with all her exams passed.

In my opinion, what an employee wants more than anything from a tribunal is an admission of wrong doing from the employer. My ex employer was taken to a tribunal. He was a complete ar$e hole and deserved everything he got. He told a receptionist who was about to finish her contracted shift, that she would have to stay another 3 hours. When she said she had to pick up her 5 year old child from school and there was absolutely no one else to do that, he said tough thats not my problem, I'm the boss and if I say you are staying you are staying. She walked out the door there and then and never returned. Surely future employers wouldn't hold that against her?

Dally that's a load of cobblers. I took a former employer to tribunal and it didn't hamper me at all. I had colleagues queuing up to give me references.

It was hugely stressful though and I took some persuading to do it. If I had to pay I wouldn't have afforded it.

As it was I won the case.

Good employers very rarely end up at a tribunal. They have appropriate procedures in place to air grievances from their employees to stop things escalating to the point where a tribunal results.

It is the poorer employers who provide the worst working conditions / renumeration and who treat their staff with contempt who end up at tribunals. Unfortunately, due to poor pay these are the workers who will be most put off from going to tribunal due to the big fees now involved.

I hope Unison win their case as this is denying justice to the poorer members of our society. Hopefully a Labour win next year will see the fee lowered/removed and the restrictions on legal aid reduced.

Agreed.

There were far too many speculative and vexatious claims.

Fees are paid for other litigation and I don't see why it should be different with employment claims.

The most sense you have made all year mate.

Maybe, just maybe, there were previously large quantities of vexatious claims. And with no issue fees, and costs very rarely being awarded against a losing claimant, there was no real risk to the Claimant.

Law firms knew this and would issue any old rubbish. If they lost they wrote-off their costs. If they settled it they took 35% of the compo. If it went to trial, they often ditched it the day before, because the claim had no merit and was never going to win.

Vaxatious claims may possibly have made up a tiny minority of cases but surely you're not contending that 81% of the previous claims were vexatious?

How many is too many?

Don't worry, you don't need to answer because we all know when you posted the above you had not got a clue as to the figures one way or the other. Any amount of retrospective Googling won't change that.

I'm doing some research on this - can you point me in the direction of some examples?

Do your own research.

He'd better because yours usually consists of wiki quotes or personal fantasies

Stop making things up hey.

Maybe we can see this research in due course.....

There are actually official stats available online frmo HM Gov as to the level of successful claims at employment tribunals, just type in a search term and you'll find them. Of course the word "successful" is a bit ambiguous because any outcome is successful to one party, but still, the official stats don't show " too many speculative and vexatious claims" for if they did then a huge number of claims would be thrown out of the system rather than reaching an agreement between parties or a binding decision.