Charging Fees in Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal
Consultation Paper
Secondly, a significant majority of the population will never use employment
tribunals but all taxpayers are being asked to provide financial support for
parties who settle a workplace dispute in this way. Moreover, the taxpayer fully
funds conciliation offered by Acas for those involved in employment disputes
which can be accessed before or after the making of a claim. This currently
offers users two different forms of dispute resolution without being required to
make any financial contribution towards the cost of providing either service. At
a time of tight financial pressures, it is not possible to sustain this and
introducing fees in employment tribunals will reduce the financial burden on
the taxpayer as well as bringing the tribunals into line with Government policy
on fee-charging generally.
Thirdly, as set out in the Resolving Workplace Disputes
6
consultation, it is
recognised that fees can influence the behaviour of those who might become
involved in employment tribunal proceedings by encouraging them to resolve
their dispute by other means (e.g. within the workplace, via mediation or
conciliation) or, if a claim is made, earlier in the tribunal proceedings. Ensuring
that tribunals, along with courts, are seen as an option of last resort is
essential to improving the way disputes are resolved and encouraging
reasonable behaviour. Consequently, we believe it is right that fees are
charged for using these tribunals.
However, our fee proposals will mean that taxpayers continue to subsidise
part of the cost of administering employment tribunals and the Employment
Appeal Tribunal. Under the proposals contained within this consultation paper
it is intended that (at commencement) most fees will be set below the full cost
i.e. the fee charged will not cover the actual cost of running the tribunals. In
addition it is an integral part of our proposals that the taxpayer will fund the
employment tribunals for any individual who cannot afford to pay the fee via
the remission system which offers full or part fee waiver. It is important when
considering our proposals that the fee proposals and remissions are
considered together as part of the overall package of measures.
Developing a cost-effective fee structure which obtains a reasonable financial
contribution from users but does not act as a barrier to justice is a challenging
task. As a starting point initial views have been sought from external groups
during the Resolving Workplace Disputes stakeholder engagement, as well as
from the senior judiciary and HM Courts & Tribunals Service operational staff.
Any proposed fee structure should comply with HM Treasury policy on
charging fees.
7
A further key contextual component is the administration of the
fee structure by HM Courts & Tribunals Service, which already charges fees
for the services provided and proceedings issued in the civil courts in England
and Wales. Given that considerable savings could be made by adopting or
6
http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/employment-matters/docs/r/11-511-resolving-
workplace-disputes-consultation.pdf
7
See chapter 6 of HMT’s “Managing Public Money” (http://www.hm-
treasury.gov.uk/psr_managingpublicmoney_publication.htm)
12