Transparency data

South-east region Reading User Group meeting minutes 6 November 2019

Published 25 February 2020

1. Attendees

Name	Role
Richard Byrne (RB)	Regional Employment Judge
Andrew Gumbiti-Zimuto (AGZ)	Employment Judge Reading
Emma Hawksworth (EH)	Employment Judge Reading
Lawrence Anstis (LA)	Employment Judge Reading
Claire Wilson	Venue Manager & Team Leader – Reading Tribunal
Ricardo Bruno	BDP Pitmans LLP
Jonathan West	Pearce West Solicitors
Carla O’Neill	Osbourne Clark LLP
Jonathan Naylor	Shoosmiths LLP
Greg Clark	BP Collins
Catrina Flanagan	Herrington Carmichael LLP
Kate Knapp	Doyle Clayton
Owen Dear	Crossland Employment Solicitors

2. Matters arising from previous meeting

The minutes of the previous meeting were circulated and there were no matters arising.

3. National developments

RB made reference to the Employment Lawyers Association review survey which had been carried out in June 2019, looking at the effects on the administration of Employment Tribunal matter following the abolition of fees in 2017. There were several concerning figures quoted:

Over 66% of respondents experienced an increase in the time tribunals are taking to deal with the service of claims (this is down from 75% last year):

• 75% of respondents said that responses to written correspondence/applications are taking longer than a year ago
• 51% of respondents, report delays in telephone calls being answered (slightly less than the 53% last year)
• Over 60% of respondents are experiencing delays in receiving orders, and judgments (including reserved judgments) (this is slightly up from last year)
• Over 63% of respondents said that urgent applications are taking longer than the previous year while 73% of respondents said that they also experience delays with all other applications
• Over 77% of respondents said that final hearings were being listed over a year after the issue of a claim
• A third of all respondents said that they had been involved in a case where the hearing was transferred to another tribunal centre (other than at the request of the parties) and 15% of respondents said that the hearing was transferred to another tribunal centre significantly far from the original location

Particular tribunals seem to be most affected, such as those in London (London central, London south) south-east (Watford, Reading) and Wales (Cardiff).

It is acknowledged that this is a critical report where many concerns have been raised.

4. Regional picture, listing timeline and work levels

RB took the group through various local stats from June 2019 (taken from ‘Tribunal Statistics Quarterly’)

Single claim receipts had substantially compared with the same period last year.

Multiple claims are substantial in this region and overall case numbers can spike up or down depending on what multiples are received or disposed of.

4.1 Disposals

April to June 2019 – 9000 cases (a 20% reduction on the same period last year).

4.2 Breakdown

25% ACAS conciliated settlements
22% withdrawn
13% struck out (not at hearing)
9% successful

Most common head of claim are Wages Act/holiday pay claims.

RB took the opportunity to explain how the region is coping with the increased workload. Reading has 2 new salaried judges, in post since July 2019. We are slowly seeing the benefit of this filtering through. Nationally there were a total of 58 new salaried judges appointed.

However, there is a reduced number of panel members and there is a need for more. The good news is that a recruitment campaign has taken place and appointments are shortly to be made. Training is likely to take place in February 2020 and sitting days will be allocated from March 2020.

A campaign for more fee paid judiciary is also in progress, with appointments anticipated in spring 2020. There is a good budget in place to enable a large number of fee paid judiciary to support our salaried judges.

Hearing rooms: In Reading there are 4 Employment Tribunal rooms and 1 room used for SSCS. Judicial security works are in progress. There is addition resource in Amersham. The rooms there are ideal for Judicial Mediation and ET cases. Additional admin staff have been appointed in Watford. Overtime is being worked every weekend.

As explained previously the move to Windows 10 causes many issues with the case management system (ETHOS). It is planned to introduce a new system in November.

RB confirmed the policy is to list almost three days work against each salaried judge, given the statistical rate of withdrawals and settlements that normally occur. Of the cases that remain listed, the oldest is always given priority. Listing teams do call parties to check if cases are standing up or whether they are likely to be resolved before hearing. If a case is part heard then it is relisted as a priority, on the earliest available date. If a case is relisted following a postponement due to an unavailable judge/panel, then it is relisted as a fixture that must be heard. It is helpful for parties to inform us of other matters that may impact on cases not proceeding, such as witnesses travelling from overseas.

RB advised that ACAS have had some resource issues with a new IT system but this was now successfully up and running.

5. Any other business/issues raised by those in attendance

Q: Some cases that I have issued recently have been acknowledged and served but with no hearing date or directions automatically issued – why is that?

RB: Apologies, you should have received a letter to explain. This is a temporary measure in place (since the start of October 2019) to improve the resilience of the existing system while we are still experiencing some outages of the existing ET case management system. We anticipate that we will be reverting back to the issuing listing date and directions soon, unless the type of case requires a PHR to be listed, in which case a date from this hearing will be issued.

Q: The standard directions issued are quite front loaded. The quick time limit for some of the directions (e.g.: witness statements) can lead to increased fees being incurred by parties?

RB: I accept the point. We have a conference next week for all of the salaried judges and this is something that I can bring up then.

AGZ: Can I ask what would be preferred in terms of compliance dates?

(Suggestion made for witness statements and disclosure 4 weeks before hearing)

AGZ: It is a standard template and we have the ability to amend it if agreed.

RB: I am keen that disclosure takes place sooner rather than later, along with the schedule of loss. It’s important to know the value of the claim earlier rather than later.

Q: We seem to be always asking for a longer hearing for UDL claims (currently listed as one-day judge alone as standard). Will you be continuing with one-day listings for these cases?

RB: It is often possible to extend the listing of these without relisting the existing date, but adding an additional day.

AGZ: To confirm that the listing of these UDL cases is an automatic function at service. Judiciary do not review the files until after the ET3 has come in.

RB: If the parties have agreed sensible directions then you just need to write and notify us (Rule 64 ETRP)

AGZ: When you ask for a longer time allocation, do you get a re-listing of an extension to the date already set? (response – both – the re-listing will usually be several months later).

LA: Having just left private practice and become an ET judge I can confirm that a fair proportion of UDL cases are presented by unrepresented claimants and therefore a one-day listing is appropriate. Lawyers are more likely to see the more complex cases where a multi- day listing is required. I do confirm also that if you do agree sensible directions, this is likely to be turned around with no issue.

Q: We are seeing up to a 2-3-month delay in response to application by the admin team at Watford.

RB: I accept that there are some examples of delays . I work closely with the administration to explain the importance of turning work around swiftly. We do prioritise work where appropriate. It is helpful to put the hearing date in the title line of any enquiry email.

AGZ: Please remember that admin won’t analyse the file as we do. Also, please hold off sending chase letters as this can create more work.

LA: Please also make sure that Rule 92 is complied with when sending requests/application in. Also make sure you are clear in what you want from us.

AGZ: Yes. This may mean the difference between getting a swift response to your request, or instead a listing for a CPH.

RB: Yes, important to have clarity.

Q: Can I mention a simple discrimination case I have been dealing with recently (a Reading case – all parties Reading based) that was listed for a two-hour hearing in person in Cambridge? Should have been suitable for a telephone hearing.

RB: We do have to be mindful of unrepresented parties and where a there is a need for a face to face hearing to ensure equality of arms rather than a telephone hearing.

RB thanked the Reading staff for their hard work and their effective service to users attending hearings at Reading. There being no other questions REJ Byrne thanked everyone for attending.

Next meeting: Reading 13 May 2020, 4:30pm start.