If it aint broke......

The Queen’s speech has been accused of being light in terms of content by both MP’s and the Press; however, from my point of view it looks as though there will be plenty of interest for employment solicitors in the form of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill. One of the aims of the bill is to streamline the Employment Tribunal System leading to claims being resolved more quickly than they are at present. One way the government hopes to speed things up is to require all claimants to lodge details of their claim with ACAS and be required to take part in conciliation before the Tribunal proceedings start to kick in.

Early involvement of ACAS means that both parties will potentially start talking to each other about settlement at an early stage leading to an early settlement and costs being saved on both sides. ACAS can also help unrepresented parties get a realistic idea of what they may achieve either as a settlement or at Tribunal. A simple example of this is the ACAS officer explaining to a claimant who is claiming unfair dismissal that they cannot claim monies for injury to feelings as their claim is not one of discrimination.

However, will this actually improve things? ACAS are already involved in tribunal proceedings at a fairly early stage. They are sent a copy of both the tribunal claim and response at the outset of the proceedings and from personal experience I have found that the ACAS officers try to get in touch very early on in proceedings to see if settlement is possible. Arguably, they do a reasonably well with 29% of all Tribunal cases in 2010-2011 being settled through ACAS.

I would suggest that the reality is that ACAS officers are already doing good work in trying to find a resolution to tribunal claims and that parties cannot be forced into an early settlement if they don’t want to. Not everybody can be persuaded to come to an agreement early on due to the emotions involved. It is often the case that attitudes to settlement start to soften later in proceedings often only when the parties are within sight of the Employment Tribunal door and realising that they are actually going to have to give evidence at the hearing.  Sometimes giving the parties time to draw breath is a good way to eventually reach a settlement.

This does not mean that the representatives of the parties should not advise on early settlement. When I advise clients on the prospects of successfully defending a claim I will also discuss the option of early settlement with them and how much they should consider paying to make the matter go away, taking into account the prospects of success and the costs that they may incur. It has however regularly been the case that either my client has not been minded to settle at that stage or the claimant is completely unwilling to consider settlement in any event.

The reality is there is only so much that can be done to encourage early settlement. I think that if ACAS officers and employment lawyers do their jobs properly then claims will be settled in good time. I feel that these proposals are more a case of the government wanting to be seen to be doing something rather than actually coming up with genuinely new way of settling tribunal claims.

Bad Management of Football Managers is Bad Financial Management

The administrators at Portsmouth Football Club have published their report this week. It states that Portsmouth have debts in the region of £58 million. There are plenty of other football clubs who have found themselves in administration including Portsmouth’s local rivals Southampton FC, Plymouth Argyle (my team!) and most recently Glasgow Rangers. So how have these clubs got themselves into such trouble?

The cost of dismissing the manager is one contributing factor. It is often very likely that if a sacked football manager was to make a claim of unfair dismissal they would probably have very good prospects of success. This means that more often than not they will be paid off by the club.

Football managers are very well paid and are usually on contracts for a fixed term of 3 to 5 years. If the club decides to dismiss a manager after only a short period they are potentially liable to pay the manager the balance of his contract. They can argue that the manager should try and minimise his losses by finding alternative employment and there is usually horse trading between the club and the manager as to how much the settlement should be but it is the case that such a settlement can run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. It is arguable that dismissing the manager can actually be doing the club more harm financially than keeping him on.

What is also often forgotten is that when a manager is dismissed the rest of the coaching staff (who have often come with the manager) will often be dismissed as well meaning that there will be potentially more compromise agreements being handed out. This means that a club with a lot of outgoing managers will quickly find that a lot of money is leaving with them.  

Since Harry Redknapp left Portsmouth in 2008 there have been ten managers at the club and since he left Southampton in 2005 there have been eight managers. This cannot have helped the either club’s finances. There are other reasons for clubs going into administration such as players’ wages and general financial mismanagement; however, having a high turnover of managers cannot have helped both for footballing and financial reasons.