Wolf said;
>The only real changes I can remember in Employment following >1997 were the -
You miss the most fundamental shift in the tribunal process wrt sex or race discrimination - that the burden of proof has been reversed. It is now up to the employer to prove that he/she has not been discriminatory, essentialy creating a 'blaggers charter'. Our wise leaders thought this change was needed because 'discrimination is a very serious matter' - let's hope that they don't start taking things like murder seriously or any one of us could suddenly find that we're up before a court, assumed guilty and having to prove our innocence. Employers are now 'guilty until proved innocent'.
It's now an honest [silly?] employee who doesn't launch an action for discrimination against their employer if they decide they fancy a change of career and a 'leaving present'. Of course this option is generally only open to certain people.
Most employers are now sensibly advised to seek a financial settlement before a claim reaches tribunal, whatever its apparent merits, or lack of. They are expensive to defend, awards are unlimited, and even if the vexatious claims are thrown out it is virtually unheard of for costs to be awarded [<1%]. Combine this with the bad publicity such a case brings to a large employer, and the potentially ruinous time / money lost to a small employer, any lawyer who doesn't tell their client to 'just try to pay them off' is not advising them well. Goes some way to explaining the 30% annual growth in tribunal cases.
As for faith in tribunals, I've seen plenty of utterly bizzare decisions - truly jaw-dropping. The
Kamlesh Bahl case being one of the more recent. Fortunately the Appeal Tribunal overturned the original decision, but such lengthy battles to obtain justice are not always an option for many employers.