This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40727400
The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Employment tribunal fees unlawful, Supreme Court rules | Employment tribunal fees unlawful, Supreme Court rules |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Fees for those bringing employment tribunal claims have been ruled unlawful, and the government will now have to repay up to £32m to claimants. | Fees for those bringing employment tribunal claims have been ruled unlawful, and the government will now have to repay up to £32m to claimants. |
| The government introduced fees in 2013 to reduce the number of malicious and weak cases, but that led to a 79% reduction over three years. | The government introduced fees in 2013 to reduce the number of malicious and weak cases, but that led to a 79% reduction over three years. |
| Trade union Unison argued that the fees prevented workers getting access to justice. | Trade union Unison argued that the fees prevented workers getting access to justice. |
| The Supreme Court also found fees were indirectly discriminatory to women. | The Supreme Court also found fees were indirectly discriminatory to women. |
| It ruled the government was acting unlawfully and unconstitutionally when it introduced the fees. | |
| Unison general secretary Dave Prentis said: "This is absolutely a tremendous victory, it's probably the biggest victory of employment rights in this country." | Unison general secretary Dave Prentis said: "This is absolutely a tremendous victory, it's probably the biggest victory of employment rights in this country." |
| Fees ranged between £390 and £1,200 to get a case heard at a hearing. Discrimination cases cost more for claimants because of the complexity and time hearings took. | Fees ranged between £390 and £1,200 to get a case heard at a hearing. Discrimination cases cost more for claimants because of the complexity and time hearings took. |
| The Supreme Court found this was indirectly discriminatory because a higher proportion of women would bring discrimination cases. | The Supreme Court found this was indirectly discriminatory because a higher proportion of women would bring discrimination cases. |
| It also said that some people would not bring cases to employment tribunals because paying the fees would render any financial reward pointless. | |
| The court's summary added claimants in low or middle income household could not afford the fees "without sacrificing ordinary and reasonable expenditure for substantial periods of time". |