The number of employment tribunal claims lodged by staff against their company has plunged by more than half since fees were introduced in the summer. Leading law firm Hugh James said the total fell from 17,153 in July to fewer than 7,500 in August, a drop of more than 55 per cent. Since the end of July, employees who want to lodge a claim against their firm have to pay fees of up to £1,200 before their case can be heard. Lord Alan Sugar (left) branded ex-employee Stella English (right) a 'money-grabber' after she made a claim . It is the first time there has been a charge on workers since tribunals were introduced in the 1960s. Employees with relatively simple grievances such as a dispute over rates of pay must stump up £160 to launch a claim and a further £230 for a tribunal hearing. In claims for unfair dismissal, racial or sexual discrimination, or where employees say they have been sacked because of whistleblowing, they must hand over £250 to lodge the claim and a further £950 if the case goes ahead. These sums are repaid if the employee wins. The levies were introduced as part of measures announced by David Cameron to curb the estimated £1billion a year in payouts to those who claim to have been wrongly dismissed or to have suffered discrimination. They were brought in because of fears of a growing ‘claims culture’ of people going to tribunals in an attempt to extract large sums from their employers and threatening to smear their reputations. Lord Sugar has warned that employees have been able to exploit the rules in order to blackmail small businesses to settle claims because they are often afraid of losing and being ordered to pay huge damages. In April the peer launched a scathing attack on Apprentice winner Stella English after she lost a constructive dismissal case against him at the East London employment tribunal. John McCririck claimed unfair dismissal against Channel 4 after he was dismissed in favour of a younger presenting team headed by Clare Balding . He branded 34-year-old Miss English a ‘money-grabber’ and a ‘chancer’ and said the case was an ‘abuse of the tribunal system.’ Last month horse-racing pundit John McCririck lost his £3million age discrimination case against Channel 4 after a tribunal ruled that he was ‘unpalatable to a wider potential audience’. McCririck, 73, claimed he was sacked by the TV channel last year when it unveiled a new, younger presenting team headed by Clare Balding, 42. But the Central London employment tribunal panel said that in its judgment McCririck’s ‘arrogant and confrontational’ style put off many viewers. Emma Burns, head of employment law at Hugh James, said businesses spend ‘considerable time and money’ defending themselves in claims launched by employees. ‘Drawn out workplace disputes that reach the tribunal can have a crippling financial effect on both businesses and workers,’ she added. ‘Employees now need to consider more carefully whether the cost of launching a claim against their employer or ex-employer justifies the cost and risk of being unsuccessful. ‘It may no longer be a good idea to make a speculative attempt to get money out of their employer.’ Unison, one of the biggest unions, is challenging the fees with the backing of the Human Rights Commission. It says the charges are contrary to European Union law and will make it impossible for many workers to exercise their rights. Miss Burns warned that if it succeeds in having them overturned, there could be a ‘sharp rise in employees pursuing litigation against their employers’. Employers who lose a straightforward unfair dismissal case may have to pay a maximum of a year’s salary up to £74,000 but there is no limit in cases of racial or sexual discrimination or whistleblowing. The number of claims surged in July ahead of the introduction of charges. Unions said the drop in claims is ‘worrying’ and that workers may have been deterred from bringing valid claims against unscrupulous employers. Sarah Veale, head of employment rights at the TUC, said: ‘It is very worrying that this Christmas a number of employees who may have been appallingly treated at work won’t be able to have this tested in court because they can’t afford to risk paying the fee and not getting the money back if they lose.’
Tribunal cases have halved since charges were introduced in the summer .
Under new rules employees must pay up to £1,200 to make a claim .
Lord Sugar called Stella English 'money-grabber' after unfair dismissal claim .
John McCririck lost a £3million unfair dismissal case against Channel 4 .
The number of employment tribunal claims lodged by staff against their company has plunged by more than half since fees were introduced in the summer. Leading law firm Hugh James said the total fell from 17,153 in July to fewer than 7,500 in August, a drop of more than 55 per cent. Since the end of July, employees who want to lodge a claim against their firm have to pay fees of up to £1,200 before their case can be heard. Lord Alan Sugar (left) branded ex-employee Stella English (right) a 'money-grabber' after she made a claim . It is the first time there has been a charge on workers since tribunals were introduced in the 1960s. Employees with relatively simple grievances such as a dispute over rates of pay must stump up £160 to launch a claim and a further £230 for a tribunal hearing. In claims for unfair dismissal, racial or sexual discrimination, or where employees say they have been sacked because of whistleblowing, they must hand over £250 to lodge the claim and a further £950 if the case goes ahead. These sums are repaid if the employee wins. The levies were introduced as part of measures announced by David Cameron to curb the estimated £1billion a year in payouts to those who claim to have been wrongly dismissed or to have suffered discrimination. They were brought in because of fears of a growing ‘claims culture’ of people going to tribunals in an attempt to extract large sums from their employers and threatening to smear their reputations. Lord Sugar has warned that employees have been able to exploit the rules in order to blackmail small businesses to settle claims because they are often afraid of losing and being ordered to pay huge damages. In April the peer launched a scathing attack on Apprentice winner Stella English after she lost a constructive dismissal case against him at the East London employment tribunal. John McCririck claimed unfair dismissal against Channel 4 after he was dismissed in favour of a younger presenting team headed by Clare Balding . He branded 34-year-old Miss English a ‘money-grabber’ and a ‘chancer’ and said the case was an ‘abuse of the tribunal system.’ Last month horse-racing pundit John McCririck lost his £3million age discrimination case against Channel 4 after a tribunal ruled that he was ‘unpalatable to a wider potential audience’. McCririck, 73, claimed he was sacked by the TV channel last year when it unveiled a new, younger presenting team headed by Clare Balding, 42. But the Central London employment tribunal panel said that in its judgment McCririck’s ‘arrogant and confrontational’ style put off many viewers. Emma Burns, head of employment law at Hugh James, said businesses spend ‘considerable time and money’ defending themselves in claims launched by employees. ‘Drawn out workplace disputes that reach the tribunal can have a crippling financial effect on both businesses and workers,’ she added. ‘Employees now need to consider more carefully whether the cost of launching a claim against their employer or ex-employer justifies the cost and risk of being unsuccessful. ‘It may no longer be a good idea to make a speculative attempt to get money out of their employer.’ Unison, one of the biggest unions, is challenging the fees with the backing of the Human Rights Commission. It says the charges are contrary to European Union law and will make it impossible for many workers to exercise their rights. Miss Burns warned that if it succeeds in having them overturned, there could be a ‘sharp rise in employees pursuing litigation against their employers’. Employers who lose a straightforward unfair dismissal case may have to pay a maximum of a year’s salary up to £74,000 but there is no limit in cases of racial or sexual discrimination or whistleblowing. The number of claims surged in July ahead of the introduction of charges. Unions said the drop in claims is ‘worrying’ and that workers may have been deterred from bringing valid claims against unscrupulous employers. Sarah Veale, head of employment rights at the TUC, said: ‘It is very worrying that this Christmas a number of employees who may have been appallingly treated at work won’t be able to have this tested in court because they can’t afford to risk paying the fee and not getting the money back if they lose.’
than half since fees were introduced in the lodge a claim against their firm have to pay fees of up to £1,200 before their case can be heard. English (right) a 'money-grabber' after she made winner Stella English after she lost a claimed unfair dismissal against Channel 4 after horse-racing pundit John McCririck lost his £3million age discrimination case against Channel