Will the Government’s proposal to extend the qualifying period for unfair dismissal ‘give employers, especially smaller ones, more confidence to hire’ (CBI) or be ‘a charter for bad bosses’ (TUC)? It seems that people are already forecasting that it will fall foul of the law of unintended consequences – there will be more claims that do not require a qualifying period of service.
Not just more discrimination claims but more claims for asserting a statutory right (eg making a protected disclosure (whistleblowing), raising concerns about health and safety, applying for flexible working, even pursuing the statutory right to raise a grievance. And when claim fees are introduced in April 2013, the costs of settling disputes could well be higher as claimants seek to recover their claim fees!
The 2 year qualifying period could be interpreted as indirectly discriminating against women and young people who tend to have shorter service than adult males. When the qualifying period was last raised to 2 years, it was challenged in a famous case that ran throughout the nineties (Seymour Smith case).
Finally the ECJ held that 2 years was discriminatory but objectively justifiable on social policy grounds. It remains to be seen whether this would be the case over 10 years later.
For more information visit: www.hrdept.co.uk/se_london.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment