Moves to make it easier for firms to sack so-called lazy workers would be “dangerous”, Sonia Mangat, a member of the employment team at Lodders Solicitors in Stratford-upon-Avon, has warned.
She cautioned it could lead to dislocation in the workforce and said the system should retain an emphasis on fairness.
Her comments followed a leaked Government report – commissioned by the Prime Minister and written by Adrian Beecroft, a venture capitalist and Conservative Party donor – criticising current rules under which, it is suggested, workers are allowed to “coast along” with some proving impossible to get rid of.
The argument is that more capable people would replace those sacked, boosting economic growth.
Currently, workers who feel they were unfairly dismissed can make a claim after 12 months in a job. However, Chancellor George Osborne recently announced new measures aimed at restricting the number of unfair dismissal claims whereby an applicant must have been in their job for at least two years before being able to proceed.
Mrs Mangat said: “There has been legitimate concern for a long time amongst employers at the cost and distraction of dealing with unfair dismissal claims.
“But, Mr Beecroft’s report goes further – calling for an end to unfair dismissal.
“This would strike at the heart of Britain’s reputation for fairness and could provoke anger and disruption in the workforce. The danger is that the pendulum moves too far in the other direction.
“The Government already has plans to tighten up procedures, including the charging of a fee to bring a case. To go further and abolish unfair dismissal claims altogether may well be seen as a step too far. After all, while the vast majority of companies value their staff and seek to treat them correctly, there are some who don’t, indulging in bullying and victimisation and ruling by fear.
“In such circumstances it is hard to argue that workers should not receive any protection at all.
“While a considerable number of companies are wary of taking on new people because of red tape and employment laws, instead boosting production via overtime and the use of temporary staff, reduced job security and a resentful less loyal and less committed workforce could easily re-bound on business, damaging productivity rather than, as this report claims, improving performance.
“The Government needs to tread carefully on this one and seems to be doing so. It would be counter-productive to throw baby out with the bathwater.
“Taking away a right is dangerous territory – surely increasing the qualifying period from one to two years should be an adequate measure to safeguard an employer against terminating a contract for incapability reasons. An employer ought to be able to assess whether or not an employee is unproductive before the qualifying period ends.
“The extent of the global economic crisis and the resultant cost of living increases appear to be hitting employees hard. Consequently, it is probably not a great time to risk further reducing morale.”
The report maintains that current rules both make it difficult to prove that someone deserves to be dismissed, and demand a process for doing so which is so lengthy and complex that it is hard to implement.
But critics maintain efficiency issues revolve more around under-investment, inadequate training and skills, and poor management.
In 2010-11 the cost to the taxpayer of running employment tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal in England, Wales and Scotland was more than £84 million, according to the Ministry of Justice.
The Treasury said that more than 80 per cent of applications made to employment tribunals did not result in a full hearing, with almost 40 per cent being withdrawn.