Britain’s ‘terrible’ unfair dismissal laws
Cats: Legislation, Policy |
Tags: Unfair dismissal law
October 31st, 2011
A report by the government adviser and venture capitalist, Adrian Beecroft was leaked last week.
It follows on from recent government proposals to reform the current laws on unfair dismissal, in particular, increasing the qualifying period from one year’s continuous employment to two years.
The Report
The report highlights the government’s concern about the amount of ‘red tape’, which is said to burden small and medium sized businesses, particularly those who do not have the expertise to deal with complex employment matters.
Amongst those targeted are lazy workers. The report centres on workers who are allowed to “coast along” by employers fearful of the legal consequences for taking any action.
The current law already allows employers to dismiss lazy workers. The employer is required to show that the employee is underperforming and acts fairly in response by giving the employee an opportunity to rectify the situation. In practice, the process can be lengthy and cumbersome for an employer of a small business to manage. The employer also runs the risk of an Employment Tribunal claim and significant compensation.
In contrast, the leaked Beecroft report recommends that employers should be given the right to sack underperforming workers without reason, and find more capable replacements.
Proposed reforms
The report advocates a replacement for incapability dismissal, namely, the Compensated No Fault Dismissal. This would enable employers to sack unproductive staff with basic redundancy pay and notice. One “downside” admitted by Mr Beecroft in relation to the proposed new scheme is that employers would be able to fire staff because they “did not like them”.
Mr Beecroft believes that this is a price worth paying in exchange for all the benefits that would result from his proposed reforms such as an increase in business growth which would prove a major boost for the job market.
Reaction
The proposed reforms have met strong resistance, in particular from trade unions. There is the feeling that if Mr Beecroft’s proposals are implemented, employees would be deprived of basic protection. Every single employee would be in a position where their employer could arbitrarily terminate their employment. Norman Lamb, chief advisor to Nick Clegg, said that “the impact that could have on consumer confidence and the fear of losing ones job, would be potentially very damaging”.
Comment
In my view, the Beecroft report is somewhat short sighted to single out workers for the inefficiency of business productivity. Other factors are likely to include poor investment, poor training and poor management.
There is nothing to suggest watering down employee rights would create any more jobs and it could be argued the job insecurity it would create would be bad for the economy. Whilst, the report focuses on lazy and underperforming employees, in practice, the proposed changes could also affect hardworking and competent employees.
Potentially, any employee could be dismissed and unless they could prove an element of discrimination (as legislation in this area is being left untouched) employees would have no entitlement to receive compensation for loss of earnings.
On the other hand, the Report recommends that an employer is obliged to pay a basic award (the equivalent of a statutory redundancy payment) for those employees who under current law it could fairly dismiss in certain circumstances.
By removing the traditional route for unfair dismissal claims, we could see a trend developing whereby employees file increasing numbers of discrimination claims through the backdoor.
There is also a risk that the proposed changes could encourage bad and lazy management. The proposed changes do not allow for the possibility that the employer may be at fault. Under the Compensated No Fault Dismissal, a manager or employer could shift the blame to its employee and recruit someone else.
Perhaps there are better ways to meet the Report’s aims, such as introducing fees (and / or costs penalties) for lodging Employment Tribunal claims, which should deter those claimants with weak claims.
It would be interesting to hear the comments of local businesses on the leaked report. Would you welcome the proposed changes?
Mark McKeating, solicitor at Hill Dickinson LLP, 0151 236 5400 or mark.mckeating@hilldickinson.com.
Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA)
Liverpool Chamber members are urged to attend an extremely important meeting on 21 October in the Council Chamber at Old Hall Street at 3pm.
Thursday 27 October, 6.15pm, Anglican Cathedral, Hope Street
The
Some of you may have picked up from the national press that there is currently a Government consultation open on High Speed Rail (also known as HS2). This is a new high speed line that would run from London to Birmingham.
7 July, Racquet Club
The Ministry of Justice has confirmed that the Bribery Act 2010 will come into force on 1st July 2011. The Act will replace the UK’s existing anti-bribery and corruption legislation, which has been criticised for being overly complex and, until recently, rarely enforced.
Thursday May 19th






