Cable to cap unfair dismissal payouts

 

Vince Cable: "Small companies want the confidence to hire, but we don't want fear in the workforce"

Related Stories

Business Secretary Vince Cable has proposed a cut in how much workers can claim for unfair dismissal at employment tribunals.

He will consult on plans to cut the limit on compensation payouts to a maximum of 12 months' salary.

He also wants to bring in settlement agreements, in which staff agree to leave without being able to go to a tribunal, but get a pay-off in return.

Proposals to make it easier simply to fire workers will not be made law.

The suggested changes come on top of others made in April, which limited unfair dismissal claims to workers who had been in a job for two years, rather than one as before.

'Reduced burden'

Mr Cable said: "Our starting point is that Britain already has very flexible labour markets.

Start Quote

It is not clear how much of an impact the reduction in the limits to payouts for unfair dismissal will have”

End Quote Mike Emmott CIPD

"But we acknowledge that more can be done to help small companies by reducing the burden of employment tribunals, which we are reforming, and moving to less confrontational dispute resolutions through settlement agreements."

Sarah Veale from the TUC told the BBC that the proposals were still wrong.

"The clue is in the term 'unfair dismissal'," she said.

"If people have been unfairly dismissed, this means the employer has done something wrong and it's right that the tribunal should then decide what sort of compensation the person deserves," she said.

But John Walker, of the Federation of Small Businesses, welcomed the altered proposals.

"Too many small firms don't take on staff because they fear being taken to an employment tribunal," he said.

"Other firms fear facing an expensive and lengthy dismissal process," he added.

Shadow Business Secretary, Chuka Umunna: Cable is 'watering down the rights at work'

The current limit on a tribunal claim for unfair dismissal is £72,300, but very few successful claimants are awarded sums anywhere near that.

The average successful claim leads to an award of £9,000, according to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD).

"It is not clear how much of an impact the reduction in the limits to payouts for unfair dismissal will have," said Mike Emmott of the CIPD.

"Furthermore, employers need to be aware that this cap will not apply to claims brought against them in discrimination cases, where the cap on payouts is unlimited."

Settlement agreements

The original suggestion for a new "no-fault dismissal" regulation was controversial among Liberal Democrats.

Mr Cable himself opposed it, while the idea had the backing of many Conservative MPs and business groups such as the British Chambers of Commerce.

The recommendations were first made in a report, commissioned by Prime Minister David Cameron and compiled by venture capitalist Adrian Beecroft.

The Liberal Democrat minister said the government instead supports making it quicker and easier to dismiss staff by using a new settlement agreement.

This would act as an alternative to going to an employment tribunal, which can be costly and time-consuming, and, according to businesses, make bosses less inclined to hire new people.

The general secretary of the RMT union, Bob Crow, said: "Once again this is Vince Cable and the ConDem government siding with the bosses against the workers and sending out a message that rogue employers can fire staff unfairly in the knowledge that any compensation will be peanuts. "

 

More on This Story

Related Stories

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    +7

    Comment number 426.

    I don't think tribunals worlk very well anyway. Many companies get rid of people by paying them off. If this is likely to be more than they would get at a tribunal for unfair dismissal then they will not bother pursuing unfair dismissal. Therin lies the answer - ensure dismissed people get a decent pay off and they will not go to a tribunal in the first place.

  • rate this
    -4

    Comment number 420.

    It is vital workers have rights but workers who are under-perfoming in a small business can drive it out of business and risk making others redundant in the process. We need a sensible balance here and I think Vince Cable has it about right.

  • rate this
    +16

    Comment number 364.

    I'm surprised at the comments about rogue employees and how the system encourages tribunals and a complaints culture. It is neither easy nor pleasant as an individual to take part in the tribunal process and contrary to what some people believe you cannot simply walk into an employment tribunal because you have a complaint. This is what pre-tribunal hearings are for...

  • rate this
    +25

    Comment number 323.

    I`ll give you an example of bad management. The company of a friends son had 4 employees who were due to retire, one of whom had been there 30 years.The company closed down 6 weeks before their retirement and reopened under a different name thus avoiding paying out thousands to the 4 who were retiring. Now companies are being told by Cable that even if they`re wrong they`re right.

  • rate this
    +34

    Comment number 153.

    I'm a long term fan of yours Vince, but I'm afraid you are barking up the wrong tree with this one. Please leave this sort of thing to the nasty party.

    The key words are "Unfair Dismissal".

    Why should an employer's liability be limited to max 12 months pay if a worker has been unfairly dismissed? Surely it is for an employment tribunual to decide on what is a fair rate of compensation.

 

Comments 5 of 9

 

More Business stories

RSS

Features & Analysis

Elsewhere on the BBC

  • SleepSleep on it

    Is it possible to strengthen your brain's synapses while you slumber?

Programmes

  • A man holds a sign which reads Bring Back Our GirlsHARDtalk Watch

    Why there is still hope and optimism for the rescue of Nigeria’s kidnapped schoolgirls

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.