Lindsay Edwards-Thatcher of TM Legal Services – a division of ThatcherMacKenzie Limited – says the two cases involved applicant submissions made outside of the timeframe permitted but which resulted in very different decisions.
“All cases brought to the tribunal need to be considered equally and on the same field of reference if employers and employees are to retain faith in the process. These judgments show a dangerous lack of awareness of previous decisions which exposes an absence of consistency that both will find baffling and concerning.”
In a decision 25 September made against the applicant, in favour of the Respondent Empire Catering Limited, the panel’s decision was based on the delay in making the submission to the tribunal. However, in a previous decision (dated 15 August ) Mrs Hughes vs State Street (Jersey) Limited, the applicant was given discretionary leave to proceed with their case.
Mrs Edwards-Thatcher said it appeared that no consideration was given to the first judgment in making the second.
“Small and medium sized businesses are already reticent to employ new staff in the face of crippling awards meted out by JET. This kind of incomprehensible inconsistency can only further undermine employers’ faith in the tribunal process and makes something of a mockery of the tribunal’s remit to pass judgment on the ever-growing list of spurious employee claims. They cost business and clog up the Tribunal for submissions that deserve independent and fair hearing,” she said.
“If employers are going to have faith in the tribunal process, that it will provide a fair and balanced hearing, the panel must prove that it can do its job. These two cases highlight a significant problem for the panel that will undermine employers’ faith and further restrain them from looking to expand their workforces.”