At the time of its introduction last April,there was much speculation about what the impact of the Acas disciplinary code would be. Well, more than a year on, I think we have the answer: not a lot.
Figures from the Tribunal Service earlier this month reveal a steep rise in the number of claims brought against employers in England, Scotland and Wales. In the 12 months to the end of March 2010, 236,100 claims were brought in the employment tribunals, a large rise from the 151,000 claims last year.
These included 57,400 claims of unfair dismissal compared to 52,700 in the previous year and 40,941 in the 12 months to the end of March 2008. The new code was targeted at unfair dismissals and did not include redundancies.
This is hardly what was hoped for when The Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures was ushered in by the Employment Act in April 2009.
Where did it all go wrong?
What the figures indicate is that many in HR have ignored the new-ish procedures altogether and that they were never going to make much difference anyway.
My view is though that the old three stage process is so well-embedded, especially at larger employers with sizeable HR departments, that many employers and their HR directors have pretty much ignored the 2009 Acas code and kept to the old ways. It’s what they know.
As for the overall surge in claims this may indicate that many in HR are not handling redundancies, especially large scale ones as well as they should. Also, employees generally are more aware of their rights. Older workers, for example, are more aware of ageism as a ground for bringing a complaint before the tribunal.
And many in HR will not apply redundancy procedures as they should leaving their employers wide open to action on the grounds of unfair dismissal etc..
Employers are far too trusting in the skills and knowledge of their HR department and would be well-advised, when there are relatively widespread lay-offs, to get an employment lawyer to oversee matters. It may mean shelling out more shekels than they’d like in the short term but should save time and money in the longer term as employees would – hopefully – have been given fewer grounds to take action at tribunal.
Sad to say many in HR, in my experience, just can’t cut the mustard when it comes to handling redundancies and dismissals and often provide dismissed employees with all the grounds they need to take action at tribunal.
Ralph Savage
Tim Evershed
