You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
You Cant Sack Me.
'You can't sack me - I'll sue': Farce of employment tribunals as a THIEF claims unfair dismissal, a detective launches thirteen failed complaints and a nurse says 'crack the whip' was racist
Delays have become so protracted that one centre, the London South Employment Tribunal, is - astonishingly - taking an average of six years to process claims, according to Her Majesty's Courts And Tribunal Service. Half of the new judges, though qualified lawyers, have never sat before. One former solicitor's only judging experience is of poetry competitions. Why the sudden need for all the new and inexperienced judges? Because employment has evolved to become one of the most complex areas in the legal system, covering everything from equality and discrimination to wages and unfair dismissal. Nobody wants to see workers mistreated, but experts increasingly believe employers are facing a system loaded against them. Even if companies win, there is usually no way to recover legal costs from the complainant - typically a disgruntled employee. Fees can soar to £1 million on both sides. Pictured: Leon Welling, 44, a van driver at Hallmark Catering Equipment Hire in London, texted Charmian Scott (left) to call her a 'f****** ugly bent-tooth pi key'. Right, DC Derrick Quarm saw his most recent case against the Metropolitan Police for race victimisation dismissed in July
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9276441/You-sack-Ill-sue-employment-hearings-ruinously-expensive.html
Delays have become so protracted that one centre, the London South Employment Tribunal, is - astonishingly - taking an average of six years to process claims, according to Her Majesty's Courts And Tribunal Service. Half of the new judges, though qualified lawyers, have never sat before. One former solicitor's only judging experience is of poetry competitions. Why the sudden need for all the new and inexperienced judges? Because employment has evolved to become one of the most complex areas in the legal system, covering everything from equality and discrimination to wages and unfair dismissal. Nobody wants to see workers mistreated, but experts increasingly believe employers are facing a system loaded against them. Even if companies win, there is usually no way to recover legal costs from the complainant - typically a disgruntled employee. Fees can soar to £1 million on both sides. Pictured: Leon Welling, 44, a van driver at Hallmark Catering Equipment Hire in London, texted Charmian Scott (left) to call her a 'f****** ugly bent-tooth pi key'. Right, DC Derrick Quarm saw his most recent case against the Metropolitan Police for race victimisation dismissed in July
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9276441/You-sack-Ill-sue-employment-hearings-ruinously-expensive.html
Comments
My first ever appearance in an Employment Tribunal was at London South. I remember it principally not because I won, but because the Claimant headbutted me. Charming woman
Why are there so few experienced ET Judges? Simple. Traditionally, experienced barristers became Judges because, although the pay was not great, it was employed as opposed to self-employed, and had a great Final Salary Pension Scheme. Which the Government scrapped, and Judges left in their droves. And announced that all Courts are expected to make a profit.
The system loaded against Employers? Hardly. Let me check. Who is most able to afford legal fees-multi-billion pound companies, or someone who has just lost their job? The rule presuming no costs is there to stop large companies threatening ex-employees with legal costs. Employees, as well as employers, do not normally get costs in Tribunals (unlike Courts).
Still-at least the Mail managed to sneak in a racial slur.