Deputy prime minister and justice minister David Lammy is the latest minister to draw the short straw of being tasked with announcing another government U-turn. This one was the proposed the re-introduction of charges for workers taking a case to an employment tribunal.
The story first appeared on 1 October in The Guardian, which reported that Lammy was, “reviewing his department’s policies before a decision is made”.
TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak immediately described the decision as a “gimmick”, “kite flying” and “a disaster”. The Campaign for Trade Union Freedom issued a statement on 2 October, saying that the government was “dusting off the Tory playbook” and warning Labour that it was a “non-runner – no ifs or buts”.
History repeats itself
It seems to have gone unnoticed by ministers and civil servants that Unison had brought a case to the supreme court – which it won. The court ruled that the Conservative government’s introduction of fees for taking a case to a tribunal was unlawful because it restricted access to justice and the number of claims had dropped sharply.
Consequently, then-PM Rishi Sunak was forced to drop the charges. Back to the present, and unions including Unison and Unite quickly reminded the government not to proceed with what they pointed out was a very bad idea. The TUC also issued a detailed explanation of why tribunal charges do not work, arguing that they would undermine the government’s own plan to “make work pay”.
Unions further warned that re-introducing charges could trigger another sizeable backbench rebellion – and even more chaos.
Who was behind it?
The Campaign for Trade Union Freedom attempted to uncover who had floated the idea. MPs, ministers and members of the House of Lords who were contacted said that they were baffled – it was such an obviously poor proposal.
There were suggestions that over-eager civil servants, many of whom had spent the past 14 years serving under the Tories, were influenced by employers still fighting a rearguard action to weaken the forthcoming employment rights bill. They were reportedly spreading fears that the already overstretched tribunal system would be swamped by claims from workers on issues such as zero-hours contracts, union recognition, fire and rehire, and employment rights from day one.
Comments by the new CEO of the government conciliation service, ACAS, also fuelled controversy. Speaking in August about using AI to handle disputes, he remarked: “Wouldn’t it be lovely if the two parties [in a dispute] could submit their claims against each other in writing and the machine made the decision?”
Lammy pulls the plug
As the storm clouds gathered, the Ministry of Justice initially stonewalled, saying only that, “decision-making about the department’s spending and fees for the next few years following this summer’s spending review is ongoing”.
But mounting pressure from unions and members of Labour’s Trade Union Group of MPs forced Lammy to announce:
“It’s a fundamental principle that everyone, no matter their income, should be able to get access to justice to challenge unfair behaviour at work. It’s not just a basic right, it’s also fundamental to this government’s plan to make work pay. That’s why it will remain free to bring a case to an employment tribunal, ensuring everyone, no matter their means, can stand up for their rights at work.”
With a backlog of 45,000 open cases as of March 2025, the government has begun recruiting 36 new employment tribunal judges, with plans to hire another 50 in 2026.
A simpler solution
Yet, as both the Campaign for Trade Union Freedom and the Institute of Employment Rights have repeatedly pointed out, there is a far simpler solution: re-introduce collective bargaining across the entire economy. Litigation, they suggest, is no substitute for negotiation.
The employment tribunal system was originally part of a 1970s settlement with trade unions, designed to provide an effective and simple way for workers and unions to secure workplace justice without recourse to costly legal action. A stronger trade union presence – with local lay reps and professional officials representing workers – would greatly reduce the demand for tribunal cases in the first place.
