New
Clause
6Employment
tribunals: commencement ‘In
the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (c. 17) in section 6 (conduct of
hearings), after subsection (2) there is
inserted—
“(3) A person may only appear before an
employment tribunal where their claim to the employment tribunal has
been made within 3 months of the alleged incident which gave rise to
the claim.’.—[Mr.
Djanogly.] Brought
up, and read the First
time. 3.45
pm
Mr.
Djanogly: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time. I
shall be brief, as I have already used a lot of the evidence in support
of the new clause when speaking to the earlier new clauses. I want to
add some certainty to employment proceedings that I have been led to
believe does not currently exist. The employment tribunal service
covers 21 different jurisdictions, ranging from unfair dismissal, of
which there were 44,491 cases last year, to cases of discrimination on
the grounds of sexual orientation. In many of those different areas,
the various time limits for bringing claims vary, and what I propose
under the new clause is that the time limit is standardised when such
claims are dealt with by employment tribunals. I suggest that it should
be three months—the time limit that is attached to unfair
dismissal. The
new clause would have two benefits. On the one hand, companies could
accurately predict at what point likely proceedings would be brought
against them; while on the other hand, the employment tribunal process
would be unburdened of those cases that have become a dim memory for
those giving evidence, thereby ensuring that evidence is clear, concise
and factually relevant. The provision would also tie in well with the
tribunal procedural parts of the Bill, as people will have less excuse
to not know where they stand at any point in the
process.
John
Hemming: There would be a bit of difficulty with the new
clause. If it would bring in resolution processes after the incident
but prevent someone from going to an employment tribunal, I oppose
it.
Mr.
McFadden: The new clause would make the time limit for
bringing an employment tribunal three months from the date of the
alleged incident. The matter was dealt with in the Government’s
consultation paper, which was published in March 2007, alongside the
report of Michael Gibbons on dispute resolution. Under the current
system, the mandatory time limits for bringing claims are either three
months or six months, depending on the jurisdiction of the claim. The
six-month limit applies principally in statutory redundancy payments
and equal pay claims. Almost all time limits for claims can be extended
at the discretion of the tribunal under certain circumstances. The
position is complicated by the extensions to time limits that are
allowed to give parties time to follow statutory procedures, but we are
legislating to remove the statutory procedures, so the extensions will
fall away with the removal of those under the
Bill. The
Government consulted on whether time limits should be harmonised. Many
people consider that harmonisation is a good idea; but as members of
the Committee can imagine, when we asked whether the time limit should
be three months or six months, there were divergent views. Some people
argued strongly for three months, while others argued strongly for six
months.
Proponents of a three-month limit tended to argue that it was a long
enough period to consider bringing a case and that justice would be
better served when claims were made promptly, while proponents of a
six- month limit argued that a three-month time limit would force
potential claimants to submit claims before internal procedures had
been exhausted. We have talked about the value of settling disputes
before going down the tribunal route. Those who are perhaps preoccupied
with dealing with the consequences of an incident or who are seeking a
new job if the issue involved being sacked during pregnancy and whose
baby was born subsequently might not have enough time to bring a claim
within that
period. The
current system has different time limits, which are reasonably well
known in the system. They have been in place for some time, and the
likelihood of needing to take more time to decide to make a claim in
certain jurisdictions is recognised. We have consulted overall, and we
have considered the matter. Agreeing that uniformity would be good is
the easy part. Agreeing quite what form that uniformity should take is
more difficult. We concluded that we would leave the system as it was
with regard to the different jurisdictions and time limits. On that
basis, we cannot agree to the new
clause.
Mr.
Djanogly: The Minister has agreed that uniformity would be
good. The problem is therefore what should be the uniform length of
time. I will go away and think about what he has said and may come back
to this issue at a later date. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
motion. Motion
and clause, by leave,
withdrawn. Question
proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the
House.
Mr.
Djanogly: May I thank you, Mr. Caton, and
Mr. Bercow for your chairmanship of the Committee? The
proceedings happened speedily and were well chaired. We got through all
the business, having given due thought
to everything. It has been a pleasure to serve with the Minister again.
I also thank the Clerks, the police, the doorkeepers and everyone who
has made the Committee happen so
smoothly.
Mr.
McFadden: I echo the thanks to you, Mr. Caton,
and Mr. Bercow for guiding our proceedings so effectively. I
thank the hon. Member for Huntingdon for the spirit in which he has
conducted the debates and moved his amendments. Equally, the hon.
Member for Solihull, who is not with us today, has been part of this
regular DBERR team across the parties, if we can call it that. The same
goes for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley. I also thank all my
hon. Friends for their contributions, particularly my hon. Friend the
Member for Watford for her able assistance and my hon. Friend the
Member for Plymouth, Devonport. The Bill was extensively discussed in
the other place. As ever, those discussions added value to the
parliamentary process that has eased our proceedings. With that, I
thank members of the Committee once again for their help in these
proceedings.
John
Hemming: I echo the thanks to all who have watched these
proceedings, as well as yourself, Mr. Caton, and
Mr. Bercow. I thank the Minister, the hon. Member for
Huntingdon and my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull, who is not
present. The Bill started in the other House, where clearly a lot of
the issues were resolved, thus enabling us to finish with seven minutes
to spare in the first week. That is good
going.
The
Chairman: Before I put the question, I thank the Committee
for the good-natured way in which it has conducted itself in the main.
I give special thanks to the Clerk for her hard
work. Question
put and agreed
to. Bill,
as amended, to be
reported. Committee
rose at six minutes to Four
o’clock.
| 
