Get outside help to avoid industrial action or expensive tribunals

The involvement of an impartial outsider, such as Acas, can be crucial in resolving workplace disputes. This is the message to employers who want to avoid the potential cost of tribunal settlements or the threat of industrial action, according to research launched today (2 August) in IRS Employment Review, published by LexisNexis.

Almost two-thirds of employers surveyed have been involved in the process of individual conciliation with Acas when faced with an actual or potential tribunal claim - although few had experienced collective conciliation.

The results are available in the new issue (804) of IRS Employment Review (

KEY POINTS

Around two-thirds of employers surveyed,who had used the services of Acas for individual conciliation, believed that it had helped in ìimproving communicationî between parties.

More than half - 53% - believed that Acas conciliation helps applicants to see the weaknesses of their case.

Four in 10 (44%) think that the procedure helps the employer to see any weaknesses of their own case.

Four in 10 (44%) believed that the involvement of Acas increases the chance that applicants will settle, compared with less than 5% who believed that it increased the chance that applicants would continue to pursue the case.

Six in 10 (60%) employers believed that Acas plays a useful role in passing on an offer of settlement, while 55% believe that Acas helps to ìrubber stampî or formalise agreements that are reached between the parties.

74% of cases involving conciliation were for dismissal. Almost a quarter of those using Acas were for cases involving race discrimination claims, followed by breach of contract, sex discrimination and Wages Act.

Almost nine in 10 (88%) of employers reported that a settlement was the outcome of at least one claim they had faced recently. Almost a quarter (23%) of employers reported cases where the applicant withdrew the claim. And, one in five (20%) organisations, there was at least one case where conciliation had failed and the claim had proceeded to a tribunal.

The majority of employers - almost three quarters (74%) with experience of
agreeing conciliated settlements - reported that legal costs were a factor encouraging them to reach a settlement. This was even higher than the proportion of employers who mentioned concern over the potential cost of settlement - a fear for 51%.

More than half of those involved in conciliation, have settled because they were concerned about the additional burden of loss of staff time when cases proceed to tribunals

A desire to avoid adverse publicity was a factor for just over a third (37%) of employers that had agreed settlements.

Three in 10 employers (30%) reported that one reason for agreeing to settle at the conciliation stage was their concern that claims might succeed because of line managersí failings in this respect. By contrast, in 41% of cases - where organisations have refused a conciliated settlement - the main factor is a sense of confidence that the claim is likely to fail because line managers have adhered to appropriate disciplinary procedures.

Almost a third (32%) of employers refused a settlement because they wished to deter other employees from making what they perceived to be ìfrivolousî applications.

The same number (32%) said that they had been unwilling to agree to an applicantís specific demands for settlement.

A fifth of employers would not settle because managers did not want to concede a principle, while 13% cited a desire to avoid precedent that may lead to other claims.

Just 11% of employers said that one reason for settling was a belief that a conciliated settlement was likely to be higher than a tribunal award.

A quarter of employers surveyed (25%) operate agreements or policies that specifically provide for recourse to an independent third party for conciliation, mediation or arbitration to settle or avoid collective disputes between the employer and employees.

A total of 14% of organisations name Acas as the third-party body in the agreement/policies.

Almost a fifth (19%) of organisations have recently made changes to their procedures or practices on individual or collective conciliation, arbitration or mediation in the past five years, while less than one in 10 are currently planning modifications.

Almost four in 10 employers (38%) have made changes in light of the forthcoming dispute Regulations, with several others planning changes.


IRS Employment Review managing editor, Mark Crail said:

ìResolution of workplace disputes is a critical issue for employers, whether they are seeking to avoid the prospect of potentially costly tribunal action arising from an individual dispute or, possibly, industrial action involving a group of employees.

ìOne key factor for many employers surveyed was the prospect of potentially high costs if taken to a tribunal. If conciliation does not take place, or fails to reach a solution - there can be high costs for legal advice and the potential tribunal award. Both of these factors figured prominently among organisations with experience of agreeing conciliated settlements.

ìThe IRS research found that a significant amount of activity had been prompted by the experience of a conciliated settlement in terms of the development of policies and procedures. A relatively common reaction following the experience of conciliation was for employers either to amend or clarify policies and procedures. Where employers have been involved in disputes, they seem to welcome the involvement of a third party.î