The government has been forced into a humiliating overhaul of employment tribunal fees after the supreme court ruled they were inconsistent with access to justice.The highest UK court came clown in favour of the trade union Unison,which argued that fees of up to$1,200 were preventing workers-especially those on lower incomes-from getting justice.Unison's general secretary,Dave Prentis,said it was a major victory for employees."Unprincipled employers no longer have the upper hand,"he said.The general secretary of the Trades Union Congress,Frances O'Grady,said:"This is a massive win for working people.Too many low-paid workers couldn't afford to uphold their rights at work,even when they have faced harassment or have been sacked unfairly.Tribunal fees have been a bonanza for bad bosses,giving them free rein to mistreat staff.Any fees paid so far should be refunded as soon as possible."Prof Nicole Busby,the acting head of the law school at the University of Strathclyde,said it was"a very good day for access to justice".Business leaders expressed concern about the court ruling.Seamus Nevin,head of employment and Skills Policy at the Institute of Directors,said the judgement"opens the door to a rise in unreasonable or malicious claims".He said:"Since fees were introduced,the government has imposed crude and potentially misleading gender pay reporting requirements,and an immigration skills charge that incentivises recruitment based on place of birth.Both of these could lead to an increase in unjustified claims."Mike Spicer,director of Research at the British Chambers of Commerce,said the ruling would leave"employers concerned about a return to the past,when despite winning the majority of cases,companies would often settle to avoid a costly and lengthy process even when their case was strong".Gillian Guy,the chief executive of Citizens Advice,said:"Employment tribunal fees have been a huge barrier to justice,but they are not the only challenge people face.What your rights are,and how to go about getting compensation without resorting to an employment tribunal remains a very complicated picture,which is why we're calling on the government to create a single fair work authority to make it easier for people to get the rights they're entitled to by clamping down on unlawful business practice."Shoaib Khan.a human rights lawyer,said:"The government has wasted precious public funcls on implementing this unlawful,discriminatory regime,and all fees it has received will have to be refunded,at further public cost.A large amount will also have been spent defending this case all the way to the supreme court.If this cruel scheme was meant to be an additional source of revenue for the government,then ir has proved to be counterproductive in every way."Tim Forer,a partner in the employment law team at the national law firm Blake Morgan,said estimates of how much the government owed ranged from 27m t0 31m.He said the praciicalities of how the government planned to refund people"remain to be seen,and it is nor clear how much it witl cost".
Seamus Nevin worried that
A.employers no longer had an advantage over employees
B.the ruling could bring about an increase in unjustified laims
C.employment tribunal fees prevented many workers on lower incomes from defending their rights in the workplace
D.out that the apprenticeship levy did not work well and would deter the government from hitting its 2020 apprenticeship target
E.believed that apprentices were being treated as cheap labour and not getting quality training on the job
F.indicated that increased levy flexibility was vital for businesses to fund a wider range of training
G.companies would tend to settle to avoid going to court like they used to do