Resolving workplace disputes The Advice Services Alliance s response to the consultation by the Department for Business Innovation & Skills

Transcription

1 Resolving workplace disputes The Advice Services Alliance s response to the consultation by the Department for Business Innovation & Skills April 2011

2 1 1 About ASA 1.1 ASA is the umbrella body for independent advice networks in the UK. Full membership of ASA is open to national networks of independent advice services. 1.2 Our current full members are: AdviceUK Age UK Citizens Advice DIAL UK (part of Scope) Law Centres Federation Shelter Shelter Cymru Youth Access 1.3 A draft copy of this submission has been sent to those of our members whose members regularly provide employment advice for their comments. However, we are aware that individual members are responding separately. Therefore, please note that this response does not necessarily represent any individual member's views. 2 Introduction 2.1 We are concerned to note that these proposals appear to reflect primarily the concerns of respondents about the difficulties they face, and the costs they incur, in dealing with tribunal claims that they consider to be unwarranted or pursued unreasonably. 2.2 No consideration appears to have been given to the difficulties faced by employees, and especially the majority of employees who are not members of trade unions, in obtaining advice about their employment rights (and responsibilities), the remedies potentially available to them, and the results that they may reasonably expect to obtain should they bring proceedings in the Employment Tribunal. 2.3 Employment law is extremely far-reaching, detailed, and often complex. Discrimination law is even more complex. Many of the problems alluded to in the consultation paper could be avoided if employees had access to good quality advice. Such advice can play a key role in advising employees as to their rights, as to the merits or otherwise of their case, as to the results which they may reasonable expect to achieve and as to how this may be done. Advisers can often help to resolve disputes either before or after proceedings are issued in the Employment Tribunal. 2.4 At the moment there is a widespread shortage of good quality employment advice that is accessible and/or affordable to most employees involved in disputes at work. Specialist advice is currently available in some areas where specialist services exist, much of which is available through the legal aid scheme. Legally aided advice however is available only to persons who are financially eligible, which excludes most people who are actually in employment at the time they seek advice.

3 2 2.5 Unfortunately, the availability of good quality, accessible, employment advice is likely to reduce, rather than increase. The Ministry of Justice has proposed that legal aid be withdrawn altogether in employment law, with the exception of discrimination cases. Advice agencies are also facing cuts in funding from other sources, notably local authorities, which are already having an impact on the services that they are able to provide, which will inevitably include their ability to provide employment advice. 2.6 It is our view that increased access to good quality employment advice would provide the most effective, and the fairest, solution to the problems referred to in the consultation paper. 2.7 The availability of such advice would also be necessary if any changes are to be made along the lines suggested in the consultation paper. 2.8 Our response to the individual consultation questions is as follows. CHAPTER I: Resolving disputes in the workplace Mediation Q 1. To what extent is early workplace mediation used? We do not have any evidence of this. Q 2. Are there particular kinds of issues where mediation is especially helpful or where it is not likely to be helpful? We do not have any information about this. Q 3. In your experience, what are the costs of mediation? We do not have any information about this. Q 4. What do you consider to be the advantages and disadvantages of mediation? It is our view that mediation can only work well when steps are taken to minimise the imbalance of power that exists in employment relationships. One important element of this is accurate knowledge of one s legal position, and the strength and weaknesses of one s own case. Such knowledge is most likely to be gained by obtaining good quality independent advice. Some evidence of the advantages and disadvantages of workplace mediation is provided by the ACAS small firms mediation pilot, which was reported in A summary of the research, and a link to the report, is available on ASA s ADRnow website at

4 3 Notably: Mediation agreements were made up of explanations and apologies; changes in behaviour; changes to working practices, procedures and policies The key positive feature of mediation was identified by the parties as the external mediator, whose role in enabling parties to put their case to each other and to find a way to reach agreement was seen as invaluable Other positive features of mediation included being obliged to spend time with the other party, listening, explaining, negotiating and also the process of composing the agreement. Negative experiences were about the length and stress of the meetings, the problems of confronting the other party, and the feeling of some participants that they were not as skilled as the other party at setting out their case and acting in their own interests In some cases parties, especially employees, would have preferred some form of investigation of the dispute, and imposed solution, rather than a facilitated agreement process Agreement to take part was not always wholeheartedly given by some employees. Some felt that refusal to take part would not be in their interests, even though they would have preferred an adjudication of some sort. Q 5. What barriers are there to use and what ways are there to overcome them? We refer to our answer to Q4 above. Q 6. Which providers of mediation for workplace disputes are you aware of? (We are interested in private/voluntary/social enterprises please specify) We are not aware of any mediation providers that specialise in workplace disputes. Q 7. What are your views or experiences of in-house mediation schemes? (We are interested in advantages and disadvantages) We have no direct knowledge or experience of such schemes, or of the extent to which they are seen as objective or independent by employees who use them. Compromise agreements Q 8. To what extent are compromise agreements used? We believe that they are quite widely used but we do not have any actual figures.

5 4 Q 9. What are the costs of these agreements? (Note: it would be helpful if you could provide the typical cost of the agreements, highlighting the element that is the employee s legal costs) We do not have any figures. Q 10. What are the advantages and disadvantages of compromise agreements? Do these vary by type of case and, if so, why? They provide a mechanism for bringing a dispute to a conclusive end. The employer has the security of knowing that a Tribunal claim will not be brought. Hopefully the employee will have received something significant in return for giving up the right to go to a tribunal. They can include non-financial terms, such as agreement as to the reason for the termination of employment, or a reference. Employees may feel that they have been railroaded into agreeing terms that are less satisfactory than those that could have been achieved at a tribunal. Q 11. What barriers are there to use and what ways are there to overcome them? We do not have any views on this issue. Early Conciliation Q 12. We believe that this proposal for early conciliation will be an effective way of resolving more disputes before they reach an employment tribunal. Do you agree? If not, please explain why and provide alternative suggestions for achieving these objectives. Whether this will be effective will depend to a significant extent on the additional resources available to ACAS. Effective conciliation may require a number of conversations with both parties involved. Merely asking each party once whether they would be prepared to settle the case, and, if so, on what terms, and communicating that to the other party, is unlikely to be sufficient in most cases. It needs to be very clear that ACAS cannot give advice to the parties as to the merits of any proposals being made to settle disputes. The effectiveness of this proposal will also depend on the ability of the parties to obtain good quality legal advice as to the merits of their case and the terms on which it might reasonably be settled. ACAS officers should advise the parties of the desirability of obtaining such advice, should record that they have done so, whether such advice has been obtained, and if not, why not. We would hope that the evidence so obtained, suitably anonymised, could then be made publicly available, to assist in further policy deliberations concerning the need for such advice. The proposals in relation to the Employment Tribunal time limit clock need to be

6 5 clarified, and we consider that the employee should have a minimum period of, say, one month to submit an ET1 once ACAS have stated that early conciliation has failed. We do not consider that early conciliation should be mandatory in all cases. We consider that ACAS or the Tribunal should have the power to say that it is not necessary in individual, or specified classes of, cases. Q 13. Do you consider that early conciliation is likely to be more useful in some jurisdictions than others? Please say which you believe these to be, and why. It is possible that early conciliation will be more useful in cases involving relatively simple issues of entitlement, e.g. in relation to unpaid wages, holiday or notice pay, where one of the parties has failed to understand the statutory provisions. Q 14. Do you consider Acas current power to provide pre-claim conciliation should be changed to a duty? Please explain why? If the proposal for early conciliation is implemented then ACAS s role will have to become a duty. Otherwise claims could become stuck and unable to proceed. Q 15. Do you consider Acas duty to offer post-claim conciliation should be changed to a power? If not, please explain why. No The fact that early conciliation has failed does not mean that later conciliation will also fail, once the employer realises that the employee intends to proceed with the claim and more information (and possibly evidence) about the nature and strength of the claim has become available. ACAS should therefore remain under a duty to offer post-claim conciliation. Q 16. Whilst we believe that this proposal for early conciliation will be an effective way of resolving more individual, and small multiple, disputes before they reach an employment tribunal we are not convinced that it will be equally as effective in large multiple claims. Do you agree? If not, please explain why. Yes The same may also apply in relation to small multiple disputes. Q 17. We would welcome views on: the contents of the shortened form We do not have any particular views. Q 18. We would welcome views on: the factors likely to have an effect on the success of early conciliation in complex claims We refer to our comments above under Q12 in relation to the additional resources that will need to be available to enable ACAS to perform this role.

7 6 Q 19. Do you consider that the period of one calendar month is sufficient to allow early resolution of the potential claim? If not, please explain why. Yes CHAPTER II: Modernising our Tribunals Part A : Tackling weaker cases - power to strike out Q 21. What benefits or risks do you see from a power to strike out a claim or response (or part of a claim or response) being exercisable at hearings other than pre-hearing reviews? Please explain your answer. We have not seen any evidence to suggest that this extended power is necessary or appropriate. The power to strike out a claim or response should be limited to hearings where the possibility of such an order being made has been clearly flagged up. Although the power to strike out can be properly used as a sanction for procedural failures by a party, its role in tackling weaker cases is limited. Individual cases have to be considered on their merits. This will usually require consideration of the evidence. The Court of Appeal and the House of Lords have made it clear that cases are generally unsuited to early determination on their merits where the facts are in dispute. Q 22. What benefits or risks do you see from a power to strike out a claim or response (or part of a claim or response) being exercisable without hearing the parties or giving them the opportunity to make representations? Please explain your answer. We cannot see any benefit to this proposal, for the reasons given above. Q 23. If you agree that the power to strike out a claim or response (or part of a claim or response) should be exercisable without hearing the parties or giving them the opportunity to make representations, do you agree that the review provisions should be amended as suggested, or in some other way? See our answer to Q22. Q 24. We have proposed that respondents should, if they are of the view that the claim contains insufficient information, be able request the provision of further information before completing the ET3 fully. We would welcome views on: the frequency at which respondents find that there is a lack of information on claim forms We have no information about this. Q 24 a. We have proposed that respondents should, if they are of the view that the claim contains insufficient information, be able request the provision of further information before completing the ET3 fully. We would welcome views on: the type/nature of the information which is frequently found to be lacking We have no information about this.

8 7 Q 24b. We have proposed that respondents should, if they are of the view that the claim contains insufficient information, be able request the provision of further information before completing the ET3 fully. We would welcome views on: the proposal that unless orders might be a suitable vehicle for obtaining this information. We do not consider that this is appropriate. There are many reasons why applicants, especially those who do not have access to good quality advice, may not have pleaded their case as well as respondents, or their advisers, may wish. Unless orders should be quite unnecessary at this stage of the proceedings. Q 24c. We have proposed that respondents should, if they are of the view that the claim contains insufficient information, be able request the provision of further information before completing the ET3 fully. We would welcome views on: the potential benefits of adopting this process We do not see any benefits. Respondents can already apply for an extension of time and seek further and better particulars, and obtain permission to amend an ET3 after receiving such particulars. Q 24d. We have proposed that respondents should, if they are of the view that the claim contains insufficient information, be able request the provision of further information before completing the ET3 fully. We would welcome views on: the disadvantages of adopting this process This could easily be exploited by employers to put pressure on claimants, especially those who do not have access to good quality advice. Q 24e. We have proposed that respondents should, if they are of the view that the claim contains insufficient information, be able request the provision of further information before completing the ET3 fully. We would welcome views on: what safeguards, should be built in to the tribunal process to ensure that respondents do not abuse the process, and The only obvious safeguard would be to require all such requests to be vetted and approved by a tribunal chairman before they are sent to the claimant. Q 24f. We have proposed that respondents should, if they are of the view that the claim contains insufficient information, be able request the provision of further information before completing the ET3 fully. We would welcome views on: what safeguards/sanctions should be available to ensure respondents do not abuse the process? The only obvious safeguard would be to require all such requests to be vetted and approved by a tribunal chairman before they are sent to the claimant. Part A : Tackling weaker cases deposit orders Q 25. Do you agree that employment judges should have the power to make deposit orders at hearings other than pre-hearing reviews? If not, please explain why. We have not seen any evidence to suggest that this extended power is necessary or appropriate. The power to make deposit orders should be limited to hearings where the possibility of such an order being made has been clearly flagged up.

9 8 Q 26. Do you agree that employment judges should have the power to make deposit orders otherwise than at a hearing? If not, please explain why. We do not agree. A party should have the right to be heard before a deposit order is made against them. Q 27. Do you think that the test to be met before a deposit order can be made should be amended beyond the current little reasonable prospect of success test? If yes, in what way should it be amended? No. The present test should remain. Q 28. Do you agree with the proposal to increase the current level of the deposit which may be ordered from the current maximum of 500 to 1000? If not, please explain why. We have seen no evidence to suggest that the present maximum is ineffective or inappropriate. Q 29. Do you agree that the principle of deposit orders should be introduced into the EAT? If not please explain why. No. The EAT already vets appeals to establish if they should be allowed to proceed, and holds preliminary hearings (involving the appellant only) where it considers it to be necessary. Part A : Tackling weaker cases the costs regime Q 30. Do you agree with the proposal to increase the current cap on the level of costs that may be awarded from 10,000 to 20,000? If not, please explain why. We do not agree with this proposal. We understand that the vast majority of costs awards are for less than 4,000, and that the median award is 1,000. We have seen no evidence to suggest that the cap needs to be increased. There is already strong evidence that employer representatives threaten claimants, especially unadvised claimants, with cost sanctions if they proceed with claims. Raising the limit to 20,000 would only strengthen the hand of such representatives. The present position is already a determinant of the need for proper advice. Raising the cap would only increase the need for advice. Q 31. Anecdotal evidence suggests that in many cases, where the claimant is unrepresented, respondents or their representatives use the threat of cost sanctions as a means of putting undue pressure on their opponents to withdraw from the tribunal process. We would welcome views on this and any evidence of aggressive litigation.

10 9 Evidence of such behaviour was provided in a CAB Evidence report in March 2004 Employment tribunals: the intimidatory use of costs threats by employers legal representatives. We refer also to the response to this question from the Law Centres Federation. Q 32. Should there be sanctions against organisations which place undue pressure on parties, particularly where they are unrepresented? If yes, we would welcome views on: what evidence will be necessary before those sanctions are applied Yes Claimants should be able to refer any such approaches to a Tribunal Chairman. If Yes, please explain why: Such undue pressure must be discouraged. Q 32a. Should there be sanctions against organisations which place undue pressure on parties, particularly where they are unrepresented? If yes, we would welcome views on: what those sanctions should be, and The Tribunal could order the guilty party to retract any threats made and apologise and/or to pay a financial penalty. Q 32b. Should there be sanctions against organisations which place undue pressure on parties, particularly where they are unrepresented? If yes, we would welcome views on: who should be responsible for imposing them, and for monitoring compliance for example regulatory bodies like the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Claims Management Regulator, or employment tribunals themselves. See above. 33. Currently employment tribunals can only order that a party pay the costs incurred by another party. It cannot order a party to pay the expenses incurred by the tribunal itself. Should these provisions be changed? Please explain why you have adopted the view taken. No If No, please explain why: The consultation paper is silent as to the rationale for such a proposal. There is a danger that parties could be deterred from taking certain actions, such as late requests for adjournments, for fear that they might be ordered to pay costs.

11 10 Part B : Encouraging settlements Provision of information Q 34. Would respondents and/or their representatives find the provision of an initial statement of loss (albeit that it could be subsequently amended) in the ET1 form of benefit? We cannot speak for respondents or their representatives. Q 35. If yes, what would those benefits be? We cannot speak for respondents or their representatives. Q 36. Should there be a mandatory requirement for the claimant to provide a statement of loss in the ET1 be mandatory? No. Although some claims are for specific sums of money that can be quantified, a statement or schedule of loss is more appropriate to claims that are more open-ended, such as claims for unfair dismissal or discrimination. Such a statement is difficult for a claimant to provide unless they receive good quality advice. A statement of loss is also likely to be more accurate the later it is produced. It can be requested by the tribunal where necessary, and is generally requested, where appropriate, at the directions stage. Q 37. Are there other types of information or evidence which should be required at the outset of proceedings? We have no views on this. Q 38. How could the ET1 Claim Form be amended so as to help claimants provide as helpful information as possible? We do not have any specific proposals to make at this stage, but we would urge the Department to consult the advice sector if it decides to pursue this issue. Part B : Encouraging settlements - Formalising offers to settle Q 39. Do you agree that this proposal, if introduced, will lead to an increase in the number of reasonable settlement offers being made? While this proposal may lead to an increase in the number of settlement offers being made, it is impossible to say whether they are more or less likely to be reasonable. One result is likely to be an increase in the number of low offers being made, accompanied by warnings of costs sanctions if the offers are not accepted.

12 11 Q 40. Do you agree that the impact of this proposal might lead to a decrease in the number of claims within the system which proceed to hearing The proposal might have this effect, but this might be because more unreasonable offers are accepted. Any gain to the tribunal system might be at the expense of justice. Q 41. Should the procedure be limited only to those cases in which both parties are legally represented, or open to all parties irrespective of the nature of representation? Please explain your answer. The proposal might be safer if restricted to cases where both parties are legally represented. Legally represented would have to be defined. One option would be to define it in the same terms as are used to define who can advise someone as to the signing of a compromise agreement. Q 42. Should the employment tribunal be either required or empowered to increase or decrease the amount of any financial compensation where a party has made an offer of settlement which has not been reasonably accepted? Please explain your answer. We do not consider that either proposal would be helpful. There are real difficulties in framing any kinds of rules to decide what offers should reasonably be accepted. Claimants may not have been able to obtain good quality advice as to the value of their claim. They may have been advised to proceed, or that they have a reasonable chance of beating the offer which has been made. Claimants may be seeking other remedies beside financial compensation. Claimants may be seeking to establish new legal principles, or highlight particular employment practices, and may reasonably wish the tribunal to hear the case and make a finding. Q 43. What are your views on the interpretation of what constitutes a reasonable offer of settlement, particularly in cases which do not centre on monetary awards? This question highlights the difficulties mentioned above. Q 44. We consider that the adoption of the Scottish Courts judicial tender model meets our needs under this proposal and would welcome views if this should be our preferred approach. We do not consider that any model would be appropriate, for the reasons set out above. Part C : Shortening tribunal hearings Witness statements taken as read Q 45. Anecdotal evidence from representatives is that employment tribunal hearings are often unnecessarily prolonged by witnesses having to read out their witness statements. Do you agree with that view? If yes, please provide examples of occasions when you consider that a hearing has been unnecessarily prolonged. If you do not agree, please explain why. We do not have sufficient evidence to form a view on this question.

13 12 Q 46. Do you agree with the proposal that, with the appropriate procedural safeguards, witness statements (where provided) should stand as the evidence of chief of the witness and that, in the normal course, they should be taken as read? not, please explain why. If We can see arguments for and against this proposal. We would suggest that the decision should be left to the tribunal hearing the case, after seeking the views of the parties. Q 47. What would you see as the advantages of taking witness statements as read? Time may be saved in the hearing itself, although the tribunal members will still have to read all the statements. Q 48. What are the disadvantages of taking witness statements as read? The tribunal may have to form a view as to the credibility of the witness, which may be assisted by hearing them read out some or all of their statement. Witnesses will usually need a degree of rehearsal of the evidence and of the act of giving evidence before they are cross examined. Part C : Shortening tribunal hearings Expenses of witnesses and parties Q 49. Employment tribunal proceedings are similar to civil court cases, insofar as they are between two sets of private parties. We think that the principle of entitlement to expenses in the civil courts should apply in ETs too. Do you agree? Please explain your answer. We do not agree. Employment Tribunals play an important role in regulating behaviour in the workplace and enforcing employment rights. This role is highlighted by the proposal set out below suggesting that tribunals should be able to impose financial penalties. They do not just adjudicate in private disputes. Both parties should feel able to call the witnesses that they consider are necessary. Removing the opportunity to claim witness expenses would discriminate against poor parties, who are more likely to be claimants, and especially those claimants who are unemployed at the time of the hearing. Q 50. Should the decision not to pay expenses to parties apply to all those attending employment tribunal hearings? If not, to whom and in what circumstances should expenses be paid? Expenses should be paid in all cases where the tribunal agrees that the witness was properly called and where the witness suffers a financial loss from attending the tribunal.

14 13 Q 51. The withdrawal of State-funded expenses should lead to a reduction in the duration of some hearings, as only witnesses that are strictly necessary will be called. Do you agree with this reasoning? Please explain why. We have seen no evidence to suggest that the existence of state-funded expenses has led to the calling of witnesses who are not strictly necessary. We are concerned that the withdrawal of expenses will inhibit the calling of some witnesses whose evidence is necessary. Part C : Shortening tribunal hearings Employment Judges sitting alone Q 52. We propose that, subject to the existing discretion, unfair dismissal cases should normally be heard by an employment judge sitting alone. Do you agree? If not, please explain why. We do not agree with this proposal. The Employment Tribunal has long been seen as an industrial jury, with wing members bringing their experience and views particularly on the question of what is reasonable in the context of good industrial practice. Q 53. Because appeals go to the EAT on a point of law, rather than with questions of fact to be determined, do you agree that the EAT should be constituted to hear appeals with a judge sitting alone, rather than with a panel, unless a judge orders otherwise? Please give reasons. We accept that the EAT is different, and that the role of the wing members is less important here. Q 54. What other categories of case, in the employment tribunals or the Employment Appeal Tribunal, would in your view be suitable for a judge to hear alone, subject to the general power to convene a full panel where appropriate? We consider that the present arrangements are appropriate. Part D : Maximising proportionality Legal officers Q 55. Do you agree that there is interlocutory work currently undertaken by employment judges that might be delegated elsewhere? If no, please explain why. We do not have strong views on this question. Q 56. We have proposed that some of the interlocutory work undertaken by the judiciary might be undertaken by suitably qualified legal officers. We would be grateful for your views on: the qualifications, skills, competences and experience we should seek in a legal officer, and We do not have strong views on this question, although we do consider that legal officers should be legally qualified and have experience of conducting employment cases. Ideally they should have experience of acting for both claimants and respondents.

15 14 Q 56a. We have proposed that some of the interlocutory work undertaken by the judiciary might be undertaken by suitably qualified legal officers. We would be grateful for your views on: the type of interlocutory work that might be delegated. We do not have strong views on this question. CHAPTER IV : Business taking on staff and meeting obligations Extending the qualification period for unfair dismissal Q 57. What effect, if any, do you think extending the length of the qualifying period for an employee to be able to bring a claim for unfair dismissal from one to two years would have on: employers The danger is that employers would feel less constrained by the need to act fairly and have proper procedures in place in respect of individual employees with less than two years service, and perhaps more generally if they have a high proportion of such employees (and possibly also a high turnover of employees). Q 57a. What effect, if any, do you think extending the length of the qualifying period for an employee to be able to bring a claim for unfair dismissal from one to two years would have on: employees Employees are likely to feel that they have less protection from being treated unfairly, and are likely to feel inhibited from raising any problems, or invoking any grievance or other procedures that may exist, if they can be dismissed without cause if employed for less than two years. Q 58. In the experience of employers, how important is the current one year qualifying period in weighing up whether to take on someone? Would extending this to two years make you more likely to offer employment? We cannot speak for employers. Q 59. In the experience of employees, does the one year qualifying period lead to early dismissals just before the one year deadline where there are no apparent fair reasons or procedures followed? We have seen anecdotal evidence of this. We do not know how widespread it is. Q 60. Do you believe that any minority groups or women likely to be disproportionately affected if the qualifying period is extended? In what ways and to what extent? We refer to the response by the Law Centres Federation to this question.

16 15 CHAPTER IV : Business taking on staff and meeting obligations Financial Penalties Q 61. We believe that a system of financial penalties for employers found to have breached employment rights will be an effective way of encouraging compliance and, ultimately, reducing the number of tribunal claims. Do you agree? If not, please explain why and provide alternative suggestions for achieving these objectives. We have some sympathy with this proposal. We would welcome any steps taken by the government to draw the attention of employers to their rights and responsibilities under employment legislation. We assume that a major government publicity drive would be necessary before such a proposal could be implemented. The consultation paper refers to this proposal as the power for Employment Tribunals to impose financial penalties but then proposes that the penalty would be automatic in all breaches. We do not consider that this would be fair or workable. We would however support the introduction of a power to enable Employment Tribunals to impose financial penalties, within a fixed band, in appropriate cases. Such a power could properly be used where the tribunal is satisfied that the employer has acted (or failed to act) in such a way as to merit such a penalty. Such a power might be particularly useful in dealing with repeat or serial offenders. Q 62. We consider that all employment rights are equally important and have suggested a level of financial penalties based on the total award made by the ET within a range of 100 to 5,000. Do you agree with this approach? If not, please explain and provide alternative suggestions. See our response to the previous question. Q 63. Do you agree that an automatic mechanism for up-rating tribunal awards and statutory redundancy payments should be retained? If yes : should the up-rating continue to be annual? We agree that the present system should be retained. Q 63a. Do you agree that an automatic mechanism for up-rating tribunal awards and statutory redundancy payments should be retained? If yes: should it continue to be rounded up to the nearest 10p, 10 and 100? We agree that the present system should be retained. Q 63b. Do you agree that an automatic mechanism for up-rating tribunal awards and statutory redundancy payments should be retained? If yes: should it be based on the Consumer Prices Index rather than, as at present, the Retail Prices Index? We support retention of the Retail Prices Index as the basis for up-rating. 6th Floor, 63 St Mary Axe, London EC3A 8AA The Advice Services Alliance is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England & Wales No , registered office as above. Charity no