The Supreme Court Party

Werewolfs

Lost me with that one.

Bl4ckGryph0n

Let me make it simple....

Dismiss within the first 12 months - make certain there is no whiff of discrimination or whistleblowing. Ok the 12 months could be reduced by mutual agreement in the contract, and the employer shouldn't make it more than that. So stick to that and there are a lot less hoops. You know along the lines of; Oh we are sorry Mr Werewolf, it is time to let you go which will be sufficient. Instead of sorry Mr Werewolf the cats don't like you....No case of unfair dismissal as long as you (as an employer) stay away from discrimination and whistleblowing....

IronGiant

I think you missed out a necessary "not" in the earlier post which made it somewhat confusing.

Bl4ckGryph0n

In that one? Where is a not missing? It is possible but I can't see it

IronGiant

...if the reason is valid....   but if the reason is valid...

you are comparing the same thing

Ruperts slippers

This report deals with the specific issues in detail, https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjz-MmJt6zVAhXIB8AKHU8uATIQFgg1MAA&url=https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/consultation-response-review-introduction-of-fees-in-employment-tribunals.docx&usg=AFQjCNGX7yIsifjMpiQuWDhXkGqBgGsNWQ

The argument in summary 3 highlights just one of many issues surrounding the fees,
'The Commission considers that the introduction of ET fees of up to £1,200 (e.g. for a discrimination case to be heard) is compromising claimants’ rights under common law, Article 6 ECHR, and EU law. It is impairing the essence of the right to access the courts, and the Government has failed to show that the introduction of fees is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'.

The UK system of law is based on Common law, it's quite clear there is a conflict of interest, further conflicts occur between national judicial interpretations and Transnational ideals such as the UN's International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights, article 8 states.
'The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work which ensure, in particular:

(a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with:

(i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work;

(ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in accordance with the provisions of the present Covenant;

(b) Safe and healthy working conditions;
(c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his employment to an appropriate higher level, subject to no considerations other than those of seniority and competence;

(d ) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays'
OHCHR |          International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

The ruling by the Supreme Court brings the UK back into line with the ideals we as a nation have agreed to uphold, empowering those without power a voice through the Common law system we have in this country. It's quite pertinent that a number of the ideals above are the mainstay of many of the conflicts between employer and employee, so I for one congratulate the actions of the Supreme court on this decision. Those not wishing to fulfill the obligations of the Human Right act in this case must surely be viewed with suspicion and call into question their suitability as employers.

Bl4ckGryph0n

Aha yes, it should have been if the reason has been invalid.

I've added two letters

Bl4ckGryph0n

I'm probably missing something. I don't see what the fees have to do with points a-d.

tapzilla2k

You can probably argue that points A-D also cover discrimination in so much as it limits a person's ability to progress up a companies career ladder say if a Manager dislikes an employee for personal reasons, rather than for legitimate business reasons. But really all that matters here is Magna Carta, chapter 29 circa 1297. Either the coalition overlooked it or wilfully ignored it. Costing us all money in court fees. Somebody has to pick up the tab for the Governments legal bills and it won't be Chris Grayling.

Having worked as a cleaner (it drove me up the wall through the tedium of it, not knocking those who clean for a living. Somebody has got to do it and it's an unappreciated job by some), I've seen first hand how employment law is sometimes not adhered to properly and that employment tribunals are a key defence for workers rights. So I'm glad the courts have finally overturned another one of Grayling's dud reforms.

Ruperts slippers

The most common reason for employment tribunal hearings are as follows:
Equal pay
Unfair dismissal
Redundancy pay
Discrimination on the grounds of gender, gender reassignment, sexual orientation, marriage, civil Partnership, disability, race, age, religious belief or political opinion
Breach of contract
Working hours
Unauthorised deductions from wages
Written statement of terms and conditions
Failure to inform and consult in a redundancy or business transfer situation

From this information it is quite clear where the conflicts lie between the ECHR, ICESCR and access for employees when arguing these issues, the fees are and were quite clearly a tool to dissuade people from bringing grievances, whilst ultimately interfering with judicial process, which is for all.