'EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL'-YOU'LL WISH YOU WEREN'T HERE?

ACAS FIGURES REVEAL HUNDREDS OF THAMES VALLEY FIRMS FACE TRIBUNAL CASES IN 2006

Around 3,000 businesses each year in the Reading and Oxford area waste time, money and suffer loss of reputation through needless employment tribunal cases according to Acas (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service).

And recent experience suggests 2006 will be no different unless companies take steps to improve their handling of employee relations.

Recent research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) has shown that: * The average cost associated with an employment tribunal claim that employers face is £7,484 (not including managers' time) * On average preparing for an employment tribunal takes about 16.4 days of management time (including Human Resources time)

Keith Ledgerwood, Senior Adviser at Acas, said: "Each year in our area we talk to dozens of companies prior to tribunal cases who tell us they wish they weren't here and had handled things differently. Through our work we have gained a clear insight into how some good companies end up facing huge legal bills and loss of reputation by ending up in tribunal cases they could have avoided. More often than not their fate is sealed because all along they thought it would not happen to them!

"It's realistic for any firm to expect an employment dispute at some point and failure to deal with it usually comes down to lack of preparation. That's why we're offering companies the benefit of our experience and providing the opportunity to experience something that hopefully will never happen to them."

Acas are now helping companies to better understand the tribunal process by arranging a special training programme aimed at businesses in the Reading and Oxford area.

Keith Ledgerwood added: "The course will walk companies through the tribunal process step by step with the focus very much on avoiding costly and damaging legal cases. We will show companies how they can avoid this through more amicable handling of the situation at an early stage. If you are in any doubt about the need for the course we could highlight numerous cases such as the one with doorman at a club, who despite falling asleep at work, actually won a case for unfair dismissal because the employer failed to follow correct procedures."

The course at the Four Pillars, Abingdon, on Thursday, 16 February, will include a mock tribunal run by an Employment Tribunal Chairman together with employment lawyers and ACAS staff.

Hundreds of businesses who have attended earlier Acas courses have found them useful. Nadine Grant, Head of HR Services at Ordnance Survey said: "The 'Industrial Tribunal' role play was excellent and proved a good way of learning and understanding the process. "

Notes to Editors

1. Acas' aim is to improve organisations and working life through better employment relations. It provides information, advice, training and a range of services working with employers and employees to prevent or resolve problems and improve performance. It is an independent statutory body governed by a Council consisting of the Acas Chair and employer, trade union and independent members.

2. The day course runs from 10am to 4pm and costs £150. Those interested should contact Linda Rowe or Anita Stone on 01252 816650

3. The following case studies are taken from real ACAS cases.

Case 1: A company in the southern part of the area. A parts manager, by prior arrangement, he took a long lunch break during which time he had to sign a document at his solicitors. On his way back to work he called in to a pub for a glass of one and a baguette for his lunch. A wine merchant happened to visit the pub with the intention of offering some wine tasting to the Landlord. The landlord was busy in the kitchen and therefore he offered the opportunity to taste some wines to the claimant and a barmaid. When the claimant returned to his place of work his absence had been noticed by the Office Administrator who asked him, in a hostile manner, where he had been. The claimant answered, in a joking tone, that he had been to the pub where he had been wine tasting and that he was drunk. These perhaps foolish words were reported to one of the Joint Managing Directors who had a quiet word the next day during which the claimant was able to reassure him that he had not been drinking all through the long lunch hour, that he had been to his solicitors and that he had not been drunk.

The claimant was not best pleased that he had been "dropped in it" and told the Office Administrator so. A disagreement followed which was overheard by the other Joint Managing Director who intervened and later suspended the claimant and gave notice of a disciplinary hearing to take place the next day. Statements of witnesses were read out to the claimant, who had none of his own. The hearing was terminated and ten minutes later the claimant was told that he was dismissed.

The Employment Tribunal felt that procedures, as laid down in the ACAS code of practice which Tribunals use as their guidance in such matters, were not followed and consequently this was an unfair dismissal. The Tribunal also considered that the punishment, even if accepted that what the claimant had done was wrong, was too severe taking account his unblemished career. The award made to the claimant totalled a little over £25,000. This included compensation for loss of pensions and BUPA protection as well as the more "normal" Basic Award and Compensatory Award. Of course there would be the additional cost of about 14 days additional time (and money) spent as well.

Case 2: A company in the North East of the area. An Assistant Steward of a club was dismissed for falling asleep on duty. He had opened up the bar before 6.00 pm as usual but shortly after 6.00pm club members found him fast asleep, sprawled over a bench seat with his shoes kicked off. They woke him up and he went back to work without any fuss. The matter was reported and following a period of suspension and a disciplinary hearing he was dismissed as the incident could have put the club's insurance at risk despite the fact the club is entered by members using a combination lock.

The claimant lodged an appeal but after hearing nothing for some time he contacted the club to find out what was happening. The club secretary replied saying the grounds given were inadmissible. She went on to say that since some time had elapsed before an "acceptable appeal" had been lodged the employer had concluded that an appeal was not going to be lodged.

The tribunal accepted that sleeping on duty may potentially be a fair reason for a dismissal. The next test was to decide whether the employer had acted reasonably or unreasonably for dismissing for that reason. The rules of natural justice require not merely that an employee should have a chance to state his own case in detail. Fairness requires that someone accused of misconduct should know in advance of the hearing the case they have to meet. They should also have the chance to criticize or dispute the employer's case. They also have the right to appeal on whatever ground.

The respondent refused to entertain an appeal to which the claimant was contractually entitled. This denied the claimant the opportunity of showing that, in all the circumstances, the Respondent's reason for dismissing him could not reasonably be treated as sufficient. The claimant, who had worked there without any problems for over thirteen years, was awarded a total award of £4,397 which was reduced by 25% as the Tribunal considered that he had contributed to his dismissal by his conduct. Total cost to the company was £3,298 plus the days spent in preparing the case and issuing letters.

Issued on behalf of ACAS by Government News Network (GNN)

Client ref ACAS/SE/01/01/06