Low-paid workers are most vulnerable to labour market abuses but least likely to take their employers to court due in part to the legal costs involved and limited legal support, according to a report on the enforcement of employment rights.

Resolution Foundation, a thinktank focused on improving living standards for people on low incomes, says better state enforcement of rights would free up capacity in the employment tribunal to deal with complex disputes.

According to the foundation’s report, published today, only 12 out of every 10,000 low-paid workers made a tribunal application in 2012-13. Numbers fell significantly four years later, when the government’s controversial tribunal fees were in force.

A survey of 2,011 private sector employees found that only a quarter of workers would seek help from an outside body if they were worried their employer was breaching employment law, while 7% would contact Acas as a first step.

‘But an ET - the most serious action an individual can take against an abusive employer - is not a real option for all workers,’ the report says. ‘Lack of knowledge, limited legal advice, long backlogs and small (if any) gains at the end of the process mean very few cases of labour market violations make it to a tribunal.’

The report says it is unsurprising that low-income workers are less likely to take cases to a tribunal. ‘Even without ET fees, the legal costs of taking a case can be significant – and while legal support for those on low incomes does exist (for example, through law centres), the organisations providing such support do not have the resources to take on every viable case.

‘Given that ET awards are often linked to earnings, people in low-paid work also tend to have less to gain from going through the process. And in addition, these workers – as well as the youngest workers – may have less capacity to manage the non-financial costs of taking a case to an ET (such as time and stress).’

Half of tribunal awards go unpaid, researchers found.

‘There is a case for the ET system to be strengthened for those cases that need adjudication (discrimination cases being a prime example). But in most cases, the onus should fall on the state to provide robust enforcement of workers’ rights,’ the report says.

Recommendations include a single enforcement body to replace the currently ‘highly fragmented’ system of enforcing rights and tougher financial sanctions.

As well as expanding tribunal capacity, the three-month window for bringing a claim should be doubled, extra support should be given to low-income workers, and awards should be enforced.

 

This article is now closed for comment.