The excitement of the hustings has now died away. The metaphorical ballot boxes have been collected and the process has been signed off by the Electoral Reform Society. The votes have been counted and the positions declared. The ELA Management Committee election is done.
Congratulations to the successful candidates, but also thanks must go to everyone who stood. It takes courage and commitment to put oneself forward for examination and the possibility of not winning. ELA and its members rely upon people to give their time, skills and experience to make the organisation one that serves its members’ interests and one we can be proud of. Thanks must also go to those that have served and have stepped down.
I said last month that the curious smell of reform was in the air. That smell may also sweep through ELA as our new Chair, Gareth Brahams, steps into Bronwyn McKenna’s shoes. Please read his introduction over the page and respond.
The editorial board is also going to undergo some change. I stood as editor – again – and said that I would review the composition of the editorial board. This is in part about providing an opportunity for those who want to get involved; in part to allow those who want to step down to do so; and also to see if we can better reflect the changing membership of ELA. For example, the number of in-house employment lawyers has grown steadily over recent years and they bring a different and valuable perspective to what we report and discuss in the law.
Being on the editorial board does require some commitment. It involves reading and reviewing the content that is sent in; providing meaningful and insightful constructive criticism for authors; sourcing content from authors; and occasionally writing too. We have 10 meetings each year and attendance can be by telephone.
If you are interested in joining please email me at alock [at] dacbeachcroft.com (alock[at]dacbeachcroft[dot]com) with a short note setting out why and something of your experience. We welcome applications from in-house lawyers.
In the meantime, it seems other change has been put on hold, pending the outcome of the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union. The Queen’s Speech was short, at under 1,000 words, and contained little that would disturb an employment lawyer. No need to draft that client alert (or article for ELA Briefing) setting out the Government’s programme for employers and employees.
We are still waiting for the publication of the review of employment tribunal fees. A cynic would say that one should not expect to see anything this side of 23 June, as there is an embargo on anything being said or done that might distract, or offend, stirring up anti-Government feeling that may manifest itself in a ‘leave’ vote.
Some indication as to what the review will conclude might be taken from the proposals put forward in relation to immigration tribunal fees. The Ministry of Justice has proposed increasing the basic fee for an application for a decision on the papers only, from £80 to £490. Fees for a full tribunal hearing are proposed to rise from £140 to £800. These are increases of more than 500%.
The justification for these increases is that it was ‘no longer reasonable to expect the taxpayer to fund around 75% of the cost’. That is what we heard in relation to employment tribunal fees.
Alex Lock, DAC Beachcroft LLP