Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.644760
Title: Are UK employment tribunals a barrier to justice
Author: Lord, J. D.
ISNI:       0000 0004 5357 7997
Awarding Body: University of Salford
Current Institution: University of Salford
Date of Award: 2014
Availability of Full Text:
Access through EThOS:
Access through Institution:
Abstract:
The UK Employment Tribunal System (ETS) is broken and in need of reform according to the British Chamber of Commerce (BCC) (2011) and the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) (2011). Both organisations, that represent and lobby in the interests of employers, have carried out research which purports to show tribunals are too alacritous in accepting spurious claims and that the cost to defend a claim is higher than settling. In contrast the Trades Union Congress (TUC) (2011) and ETS commentators have consistently argued that the tribunal system favours employers through its judgments and ability to compensate, and needs to be reformed to address this lack of fairness, specifically the remedies awarded to claimants can be minimal in terms of potential career earnings, and the psychological impact of the tribunal process can be very damaging. Focusing on three areas of social justice identified by Rawls (2005) and Cropanzano, Stein and Nadisic (2011) this study argues that although the ETS is an important mechanism for adjudicating workplace disputes, there are major concerns regarding the inclination to defend cases and the willingness to follow a claim to a full tribunal hearing. Implications are drawn from these superficially similar viewpoints as to how the government can continually monitor, evaluate and reform the tribunal system. The study considers the proposition that tribunals should favour employees, as they have more to lose from the process, and it implies that if justice is both carried out and also perceived to be administered, the ETS has to be continually modernised to meet the expectations of those involved with the process. The law is stated as at October 2013.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Salford Business School
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.644760  DOI: Not available
Share: