The problem is the stories do look reasonable at a glance, mostly because people are generally of the opinion that they're only going after the "bad ones", and they won't be affected, which is all well and good until they are. What happens when someone feels they are unfairly treated? They now either can't afford to appeal to the ET, or indeed don't even have the right to appeal..
Employment Tribunals generally sit in judgement of unfair dismissals. The vast majority of employers will have Grievance Procedures, and in many instances these will be supported by membership of a Trade Union of some description. If not there are plenty of No Win No Fee practices out there who would take on such cases.
....What you're saying above can be summarised as "the company threatened and bullied the person out of making an ET claim by lying to them so they dropped their claim without having the benefit of professional advice". I'm struggling to see how lack of proper representation for the employee was the fault of the Labour Government.
If large numbers of genuine cases are dissuaded by this kind of argument from their employer, how is guaranteeing that there will be significant cost upfront regardless of outcome going to specifically dissuade "frivolous" cases and only allow "genuine" ones to proceed. Still, it's a good recruiting tool for the Unions, because now workers will find it even harder to find the funds to be able to afford an ET case themselves..
The Company did not bully the person and your interpretation of what are simple words is quite incorrect. The Company had the back up of financial clout, which my colleague did not. The ability to go to an ET without funds was severely reduced again by Labour, and the result of this is that you go there needing a large amount of money, which even if you are lucky and win, the money spent on your case can no longer be recovered from the losing side, neither may the ET award you costs. Indeed they cannot even award you anything above a set calculation (Labour again) and have had the ability to award punitive damages removed (Labour again).
Any money you do win will be reduced by the amount of money you have earned since being dismissed. Even this requires a demonstartion that you have actively sought ANY work, and not work simply within your field, so a Manager would be expected to take on any menial job by comparison, which would seriously hamper his/her chances of returning to a Managerial role in the future - Labour again by the way.
It was Peter Mandelson who took serious steps to emasculate the powers of the Tribunals. Very little fuss from the Trade Unions of course because it was a Labour not a Conservative Government who did this so it was OK in their eyes.
...You went on a training course on how to interview fairly, without structuring your interviews to disadvantage certain people unfairly? Eh? Were the examples given by the training company all from your company, or were they cherry picked absolute worst examples from a large number of companies? I have no doubt there are a few individuals that do the rounds looking for payouts, do the actions of a few invalidate all ET claims of all types where there is at very least a case for the employer to answer ?.
Again you misunderstand. The Company, along with most large responsible Companies, does not wish to see its name appearing at ETs.
Recruitment is now a minefield because of PC attitudes and Laws (most passed by Labour) which mean that even commenting on the tie someone is wearing can result in a claim for damages being brought in the event that the person is not offered a job. The Company Trainers gave very clear examples of cases brought and won by those who "do the rounds" and who are now known to most big Companies.
..Mine probably does too, except I have, so apologies for that.
Without this experience all a person has is a view which they cannot validate or support through personal experience.
That is all well and good but does not give them the ability to gainsay someone who does have this experience and sets out examples. That was my point
Absolute bullocks. Stress does result in physical manifestations and is by no means a pretend problem.
Quite correct old chap.
I have worked with people who have had stress and also suffered from PTSD. It is not very nice at all.
From a Manager's perspective it is also a problem, as you are running without your full contingent and you know that someone could fall down at short notice.
I have had people come into my office and ask to be reduced in the ranks, and I have had a devil of a job to persuade them to hang on. These are usually excellent people who are a credit to themselves. The problem is that when someone is off with stress you not only have their salary to pay, but also the additional costs of cover which generally is the engagement of a Contractor at some point in the organisation, which again increases cost.
No major employer wants stressed staff and only those who hold partisan views will not accept this and the fact that it is enormously costly.