One woman recently received £30,000 compensation from her employer. Her case caught the public’s attention when her boss made national news by comparing her to Darth Vader. This case, while not unique, is one of many that highlight the absurdity and peculiarity of employment tribunal cases. Often, these clashes seem more ripped from the script of a daytime soap than a normal civil lawsuit.
The tribunal was more than a strange, if fitting, reference to the legendary Star Wars character. It contained several shout-outs to mistreatment at work. Employment tribunals have recently received a fair amount of attention for hearing cases including if being described as “messy” is harassment. These types of cases serve to highlight the complicated nature of workplace relationships and the inherently subjective nature of what employees experience.
In another notable instance, a tribunal ruled that calling a boss by an inappropriate name could be grounds for dismissal. Workplace conduct that once would have seemed completely appropriate, or at least harmless, has strayed into the realm of illegal harassment, especially in these #MeToo times. Cases involving younger employees who are deemed chatty may not always be interpreted as age harassment, reflecting the varying interpretations of workplace dynamics.
Since the abolition of legal aid for most employment tribunals in 2013, there has been a significant increase in individuals opting to represent themselves in these legal matters. This transition has led to tribunals being overwhelmed with high caseloads, sometimes waiting years before even getting to a hearing. While these brave men and women file claims that first appear to be minor, they call attention to important systemic and cultural problems facing workplaces today.
John Bowers KC, a prominent legal expert in employment law, commented on the current state of employment tribunals: “At present, the tribunals are deluged with work and cases are taking years to be heard.” While some of them seem frivolous on the face of it, all the claims are very carefully looked at.” “There are unusual facts in some employment tribunals but all of the cases are carefully considered and the facts weighed.”
The oddities of a few recently adjudicated cases before the tribunal are emblematic of the increasing shift towards bizarre claims. For instance, one judge ruled that an employer would not be violating employment law if they rejected a job application from an avid Tottenham Hotspur supporter due to the existing office culture dominated by Arsenal fans. Andrea London, a legal commentator, explained this decision, stating, “The team you support is not a protected characteristic…so, provided they’re sensible about it, employers are allowed to choose a candidate that they think would be the best fit among the other members of staff.”
Almost any quirky claim gets major media coverage. This focus risks overlooking the larger concerns, such as the unpaid overtime or hourly wage violations. As Bowers noted, “Frivolous cases are rooted out at a preliminary stage although this could be done more rigorously.” It just means the most crazy outlandish claims are what dominate the headlines. Yet the majority of claims brought in employment tribunals are for genuine and valid complaints.
Some argue that the standard to get a case to a tribunal is far too lenient. Legal experts are adamant that the system is still extremely strict and intensive. “Some people might consider it to be too easy now [to get a case before a tribunal] but that’s for the Ministry of Justice [to decide],” stated London. This shows that the conversations are continuing to make employment tribunals more efficient, yet more fair.
As dramatic as they may be, these employment tribunals play a vital role in the administration of workplace justice. Judges want to make sure they are being consistent with earlier rulings while following the law as dictated by higher courts. London remarked, “These tribunals do try to be consistent with other cases that come through at that level but generally precedents are set at the EAT (employment appeal tribunal) and court of appeal.”