One year after the Supreme Court ruled Employment Tribunal fees unlawful, thousands of claimants are still awaiting outstanding fees for their Employment Tribunal claims. This is a major issue, as the Ministry of Justice announced that these claims are on the rise with 9,252 claimants filing complaints against their employees, which is more than double the amount between October 2013 and June 2017.  

Currently, only £6.6 million out of £33 million has been refunded, which means 80% costs are still outstanding, which does not align with the government’s intentions back in October 2017, where they vowed to repay all fees immediately through their official refund programme.

Commenting on the refund programme, a representative from HM Courts and Tribunals Service stated that:

The British Airways employee, Nadia Eweida, who won her claim against the airline for religious discrimination, has began a new employment tribunal claim against her employer for victimisation.

Back in 2006, the 69-year old BA employee, who is a Coptic Christian from South-West London, was told by her superiors at British Airways to hide her religious crucifix chain, whilst on the job. After losing an appeal, Ms Eweida took BA to the European Court of Human Rights, where they ruled that British Airways had violated their employee rights under Article 9 of European Convention on Human Rights. The article states that one of the “foundations” of democratic society is that of religious freedom, and because of this she was awarded £25,600 in costs and compensation.

 Over ten years later, she is now pursuing a fresh claim against British Airways, with accusations of victimisation and harassment, as a result of her claim against the company. Ms Eweida made a statement in relation to the new claim, stating:

The Equality Act 2010 sets out the rights and responsibilities of disabled workers, who are either mentally or physically disabled, protecting them against discrimination in the workplace.

To clarify, an employee can be categorised as disabled if they have a long-term physical or mental impairment, which hinders them from carrying out everyday tasks in the workplace, which could include: manual handling, Navigating a computer, colleague interaction, etc.

There are various types of disability discrimination, including:

The most recent Equality Act was enforced in 2010, replacing previous legislation including the Equal Pay Act 1970. The Equality Act 2010 covers the equality of terms provisions to ensure that all men and women should receive equal pay when in similar roles.

Currently, there are issues for employees when comparing salary pay, as in accordance with the Equality Act 2010, employees are prohibited from discussing differences in pay with each other.

However, employees can compare their contract of employment with a comparator, which means an employee of the opposite sex with a similar role and equivalent terms. The equivalent terms can include the following:

The impact on employers regarding Employment Tribunal fees ending.

As of July 26^th 2017, the Supreme Court ruled Employment Tribunal fees as unlawful, but what does this mean for employers?

The ruling has visibly increased the amount of Employment Tribunal cases, with the Ministry of Justice publishing Tribunal statistics from October to December 2017 showing a 90% increase in the number of single employment tribunal claims.

Transferred redundancy also known as bumping occurs when an employee is dismissed, as their job is taken over by another staff member who was originally made redundant.

The discussion surrounding transferred redundancy is problematic for employers, as there is evident uncertainty regarding whether or not bumping should be discussed with employees during a redundancy consultation, and whether or not the employer or the employee is the first to it up in conversation, there is not actually a legitimate set of language that is currently in place for such discussion.

In the case of Mirab v Mentor Graphics (UK) Ltd, the Employment Tribunal concluded that as the claimant employee did not discuss the idea of bumping or taking on a new role, they decided in favour of the employer.