| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Waiting Time for Discharge From Hospital
Dr. Andrew Murrison accordingly presented a Bill to provide an upper limit on the time that a person who is ready in all respects for discharge must wait before leaving an acute hospital: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 April, and to be printed [Bill 93].
Orders of the Day
Employment Bill
As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
New Clause 6
Complaints about grievances
'(1) This section applies to the jurisdictions listed in Schedule [Tribunal jurisdictions to which section [Complaints about grievances] applies].
(2) An employee shall not present a complaint to an employment tribunal under a jurisdiction to which this section applies if—
(a) it concerns a matter in relation to which the requirement in paragraph 6 or 9 of Schedule 2 applies, and
(b) the requirement has not been complied with.
(3) An employee shall not present a complaint to an employment tribunal under a jurisdiction to which this section applies if—
(a) it concerns a matter in relation to which the requirement in paragraph 6 or 9 of Schedule 2 has been complied with, and
(b) less than 28 days have passed since the day on which the requirement was complied with.
(4) An employee shall not present a complaint to an employment tribunal under a jurisdiction to which this section applies if—
(a) it concerns a matter in relation to which the requirement in paragraph 6 or 9 of Schedule 2 has been complied with, and
(b) the day on which the requirement was complied with was more than one month after the end of the original time limit for making the complaint.
(5) In such circumstances as the Secretary of State may specify by regulations, an employment tribunal may direct that subsection (4) shall not apply in relation to a particular matter.
(6) An employment tribunal shall be prevented from considering a complaint presented in breach of subsections (2) to (4), but only if—
(a) the breach is apparent to the tribunal from the information supplied to it by the employee in connection with the bringing of the proceedings, or
(b) the tribunal is satisfied of the breach as a result of his employer raising the issue of compliance with those provisions in accordance with regulations under section 7 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (c. 17) (employment tribunal procedure regulations).
(7) The Secretary of State may for the purposes of this section by regulations—
(a) make provision about the application of the procedures set out in Part 2 of Schedule 2;
(b) make provision about what constitutes compliance with paragraph 6 or 9 of that Schedule;
(c) make provision about circumstances in which a person is to be treated as having complied with paragraph 6 or 9 of that Schedule;
(d) make provision for paragraph 6 or 9 of that Schedule to have effect in such circumstances as may be specified by the regulations with such modifications as may be so specified.
(8) The Secretary of State may by order—
(a) amend, repeal or replace any of subsections (2) to (4);
(b) amend Schedule [Tribunal jurisdictions to which section [Complaints about grievances] applies];
(c) make provision for this section to apply, with or without modifications, as if—
(i) any individual of a description specified in the order who would not otherwise be an employee for the purposes of this section were an employee for those purposes, and
(ii) a person of a description specified in the order were, in the case of any such individual, the individual's employer for those purposes.
(9) Before making an order under subsection (8)(a), the Secretary of State must consult the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.
(10) In its application to orders under subsection (8)(a), section 51(1)(b) includes power to amend this section.'.—[Alan Johnson.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
3.41 pm
The Minister for Employment and the Regions (Alan Johnson): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, in line 43, leave out subsections (8) to (10).
Government amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 52.
Government new schedule 1—Tribunal jurisdictions to which section [Complaints about grievances] applies.
Alan Johnson: Clause 33 contains general powers for the Secretary of State to introduce regulations preventing complaints from being presented to tribunals before all or part of the relevant statutory procedures have been followed. It is an important clause that is designed to ensure that complaints are first raised internally before being taken to a tribunal. It also has implications for access to the tribunal system.
In Committee, I explained in detail how we planned to use these powers. I explained how we intended to set several simple criteria that tribunals would apply when deciding whether to admit a complaint. Given the issue's importance, I consider, on reflection, that there are advantages to providing more detail about the policy in primary legislation, which should narrow the role for secondary legislation. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate the benefits of including more detail in the Bill.
Let me proceed by describing how the new clause works. As I said, its main purpose is to set new admissibility criteria that tribunals will apply to certain categories of complaints brought by employees. The criteria are set out in subsections (2), (3) and (4) of the new clause. I should mention first that the criteria would apply only in relation to tribunal complaints arising out of grievances. They would have no application to complaints arising out of disciplinary action.
There are three criteria. First, the employee must have completed step one of the statutory grievance procedure. That means that the employee must have set out the grievance in writing and sent a copy to the employer. Secondly, 28 days or more must have passed since step one had been completed. That minimum 28-day period gives time for the parties to discuss the grievance and try to resolve the problem. The third criterion deals with the special case in which an employee may have failed to meet the other criteria with an initial application. For example, the employee may have failed to send the step one letter to the employer. We do not want to deny the
employee access to the tribunals in such circumstances. Instead, the employee would be given another chance to submit a valid application. That would often involve extending the normal period for making applications to tribunals, using the powers under clause 32.We want to ensure, however, that the grievance is quickly brought to the employer's attention during any extended period. That should ensure that recollection of the events surrounding the grievance remains fresh. We therefore stipulate in subsection (4) that the step one action must have been completed within a period of no more than a month after the normal period for making applications to tribunals has ended. For most jurisdictions, the normal period for bringing complaints is three months. For those jurisdictions, the third criterion means that the step one action needs to be taken within four months of the event that gave rise to the grievance.
New schedule 1 to the new clause lists the jurisdictions to which the admissibility regime was intended to apply. However, the criteria will not apply to unfair dismissal, other than to cases involving constructive dismissal, because dismissal is a disciplinary matter. We also think that with the exception of constructive dismissal, the criteria should not apply to ex-employees. That exclusion will be covered by regulations under subsection (7) of the new clause. The regulations will also define those particular cases—extreme bullying and the threat of violence—in which an employee should not be obliged to complete even step one of the grievance procedure.
Mr. Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge): Why is it unreasonable for an employee to complete step one even in such extreme cases? After all, it only involves writing a letter, which is hardly intimidating in any circumstances.
Alan Johnson: It depends on the circumstances. It would be wrong to insist that an employee write to an employer in cases involving, for instance, serious violence against an employee by an employer or racial or sexual harassment. We should not force the employee in those circumstances to open up a dialogue with the employer. However, that will be dealt with in regulations and those are subject to consultation.
The criteria are simple to understand and it should be relatively easy for tribunals and the parties to ascertain whether they have been met. There is limited scope for parties to dispute whether a case should be admitted. In most cases, there will be no need for tribunals to hold preliminary hearings to assess compliance.
Subsection (8) of the new clause gives the Secretary of State an order-making power to change the admissibility criteria if necessary. It is prudent to take that power in case experience shows that the criteria need to be amended. Subsection (9) requires the Secretary of State to consult the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service before exercising the power. The power also allows us to extend the regime to non-employees if necessary.
Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 deal with consequential matters. Amendment No. 47 ensures that clause 32, which is on time limits, includes a necessary reference to the new schedule. Amendment No. 48 deletes clause 33 and amendment No. 52 makes a consequential change to clause 51.
The group of amendments greatly improves the Bill and makes our intentions plain. It constructs a workable and sensible admissibility regime to ensure that most grievances are aired before they are taken to tribunals. The regulations will build in safeguards to ensure access to justice.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |