Pictured: Sonia Mangat
Moves to make it easier for firms to sack so-called lazy workers
would be "dangerous", Sonia Mangat, a member of the employment team
at Lodders Solicitors in Stratford-upon-Avon, has warned.
She cautioned it could lead to dislocation in the workforce and
said the system should retain an emphasis on fairness.
Her comments followed a leaked Government report - commissioned
by the Prime Minister and written by Adrian Beecroft, a venture
capitalist and Conservative Party donor - criticising current rules
under which, it is suggested, workers are allowed to "coast along"
with some proving impossible to get rid of.
The argument is that more capable people would replace those
sacked, boosting economic growth.
Currently, workers who feel they were unfairly dismissed can
make a claim after 12 months in a job. However, Chancellor George
Osborne recently announced new measures aimed at restricting the
number of unfair dismissal claims whereby an applicant must have
been in their job for at least two years before being able to
proceed.
Mrs Mangat said: "There has been legitimate concern for a long
time amongst employers at the cost and distraction of dealing with
unfair dismissal claims.
"But, Mr Beecroft's report goes further - calling for an end to
unfair dismissal.
"This would strike at the heart of Britain's reputation for
fairness and could provoke anger and disruption in the workforce.
The danger is that the pendulum moves too far in the other
direction.
"The Government already has plans to tighten up procedures,
including the charging of a fee to bring a case. To go further and
abolish unfair dismissal claims altogether may well be seen as a
step too far. After all, while the vast majority of companies value
their staff and seek to treat them correctly, there are some who
don't, indulging in bullying and victimisation and ruling by
fear.
"In such circumstances it is hard to argue that workers should
not receive any protection at all.
"While a considerable number of companies are wary of taking on
new people because of red tape and employment laws, instead
boosting production via overtime and the use of temporary staff,
reduced job security and a resentful less loyal and less committed
workforce could easily re-bound on business, damaging productivity
rather than, as this report claims, improving performance.
"The Government needs to tread carefully on this one and seems
to be doing so. It would be counter-productive to throw baby out
with the bathwater.
"Taking away a right is dangerous territory - surely increasing
the qualifying period from one to two years should be an adequate
measure to safeguard an employer against terminating a contract for
incapability reasons. An employer ought to be able to assess
whether or not an employee is unproductive before the qualifying
period ends.
"The extent of the global economic crisis and the resultant cost
of living increases appear to be hitting employees hard.
Consequently, it is probably not a great time to risk further
reducing morale."
The report maintains that current rules both make it difficult
to prove that someone deserves to be dismissed, and demand a
process for doing so which is so lengthy and complex that it is
hard to implement.
But critics maintain efficiency issues revolve more around
under-investment, inadequate training and skills, and poor
management.
In 2010-11 the cost to the taxpayer of running employment
tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal in England, Wales and
Scotland was more than £84 million, according to the Ministry
of Justice.
The Treasury said that more than 80 per cent of applications
made to employment tribunals did not result in a full hearing, with
almost 40 per cent being withdrawn.
For more information about Lodders, please visit their website
here: www.lodders.co.uk