Wednesday, 2 October 2013

James, 18, is owed £98 wages. He can't afford justice & won't get his money

When James was doing his A levels, he got himself a part-time job in a fast-food outlet you will have heard of.

He's now left his job and home, and has gone to University.

Unfortunately, his ex-boss still owes him £98.

So James sent a polite email.  That didn't work.
He went in to have a quiet word.  That didn't work either.
His Dad advised him to ring ACAS.  James then found out that the law was not able to help him.

For a Tribunal claim for unpaid wages there is an issue fee (paid at the start of the claim) of £160

Later, there is a hearing fee (paid at part way through the case) of £230.

James does not have £390 to get his £98.

Luckily, James does have a Nan.  And yes, she has written a letter. Fingers crossed.

There is also the option of the small claims court. But how do they work for unpaid wages? Assuming the claim is below the small claims limit (now £10,000), and that the claim is submitted online, the issue fee is between £25 and £210 and the hearing fee is between £25 and £325. There might also be an allocation fee of £40. The precise fee depends on how much you are claiming.

If you win at a small claims court, great. But what if James ex-boss refuses the order to pay? James would then have to pay the court £100 to begin enforcement action.  Then he'd get his £98.

There's no reply yet to the letter from Nan.

Realistically, it's James last and only hope.

The introduction of fees into our Tribunal system is robbing people of justice.....and hardly anybody knows about it because our media do not discuss "employment rights".  People might not care about "employment rights"...but they care about fairness...they care about being paid what they are owed. So of course, people do care about employment rights....

So what does the future hold for James?

I wish him better luck with his next employer.  Unfortunately, he must wait until he's been in the job for two years until he has employment rights. During that time, he will not be allowed to bring any claims before a Tribunal, unless it is regarding discrimination.  This assumes the best - that there is a standard contract of employment, not a zero-hour or Agency type.

If he is unfairly dismissed after 23 months in the job, he will have nothing he can do about it.

If he is sacked after two years or more, he will need to find over £1260 to get his case to a hearing.

Three years from now, he will also owe £27,000 in course fees.  But then, that change was brought in at beginning of this term of parliament....and we're all supposed to have forgotten about that now, are we not?

Middle and low wage individuals are being systematically priced out of justice.  The only people who can get justice now (without having to stump up large fees) are Trade Union members.




Monday, 2 September 2013

Secret Cabinet papers from May 1983 - discussions about "how to prevent or deter strikes"

SECRET

THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT

COpy NO 27

CABINET


LIMITED CIRCULATION ANNEX CC(83) 17th Conclusions, Minute 4
Tuesday 10 May 1983 at 11.00 am


The Cabinet considered a memorandum by the Secretary of State for
Employment (C(83) 16) on trade union legislation.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EMPLOYMENT said that the Ministerial Committee on Economic Strategy had agreed at its meeting on 28 April 1983
(E(83) 4th Meeting) on proposals relating to trade union elections and
pre-strike ballots but had left over for further consideration what action should be taken in relation to trade unions' political funds and political
levies and to deter or prevent strikes in essential services.  So far as pOlitical funds were concerned, he proposed that any such fund established by a trade union must be authorised by a ballot of members not simply on
a once-for-all basis as under present legislation but every ten years.
In relation to the other outstanding matters, there had been a discussion with other Ministers closely concerned under the Prime Minister's
chairmanship and proposals had been worked out for approval by the Cabinet.

In the case of the political levy it was proposed that the Government's position should be made known on the following lines: that consultations on the Green Paper had confirmed that there was widespread disquiet about how the right of individual trade union members not to pay the political levy operated in practice through the system of contracting out; he therefore intended to invite the Trades Union Congress to discuss the steps which the trade unions themselves could take to ensure that individual members were freel, and effectively able to decide for themselves whether or not to pay the political levy. In the event that
the trade unions were not willing to take such steps, the Government would
be prepared to introduce measures to guarantee the free and effective right of choice.

In the case of strikes in essential services he proposed that the Government's attitude should be made known on the following lines: that essential services would be affected by the proposal to remove immunity
in the absence of pre-strike ballots~ and that the Government would consult further about the need for industrial relations in specified essential services to be governed by adequate procedural agreements, breach of
which would deprive industrial action of immunity.


1


SECRET
I  t

THE PRIME MINISTER, summing up the discussion, said that the Cabinet agreed that the Government's policy relating to trade unions' political funds and political levies, and to strikes in essential services should be made known, in the course of the General Election campaign, on the lines set out by the Secretary of State for Employment.  If in relation to the political levy the question was raised whether the statement of
·policymeant that the Government would, if necessary, be prepared in
the next Parliament to replace contracting out by contracting in, the
answer should be in the affirmative. The policy statement had been formulated in such a way that it would not be possible for the Opposition
in the next Parliament to argue that the incoming Government did not have
a mandate, if it so wished, to put an end to the system of contracting out.

The Cabinet -

Took note with approval of the Prime Minister's summing up of their discussion.














Cabinet Office

12 May 1983