Seventy of the UK’s universities spent a total of nearly £19 million
over four years on settling employment disputes, with a lawyer warning
that higher education was spending more than employers in many other
sectors in defending claims.
Figures obtained by Times Higher Education
under the Freedom of Information Act show that, in addition, 50
universities spent £10.4 million over four years on external lawyers’
fees to fight employment claims.
THE asked 125 UK
universities how many employment disputes and tribunals they had been
involved in between 2010 and 2013, and how much they had paid to settle
or fight those cases. The 75 universities that provided figures on
dispute numbers had been involved in a total of 1,331 disputes and 210
tribunals across the four years: an average of 4.3 disputes and 0.7
tribunal cases per institution per year.
The 70 universities that
provided figures on the cost of settling claims, either before or after a
tribunal hearing, had paid a total of £18.6 million: an average of
£66,400 per institution per year. The average payout was £15,600 per
case.
Cranfield University paid out the largest total amount over
the four years: £1.44 million. It also had the fourth highest number of
disputes – 52. The university declined to comment when contacted by THE.
The
University of Gloucestershire paid out £1.17 million, including
£707,000 in 2012 alone. A spokesman for the university said: “This was a
period of restructuring. The majority of the [payments] related to
contractual redundancy and pay in lieu of notice entitlements.” Three institutions were not involved in any disputes, and five paid out no compensation. The
University of Oxford was involved in the largest number of disputes –
67 – but just one employment tribunal. Its total settlement payment of
£210,000 was only the 29th highest. Loughborough University was involved in the most tribunal cases, 15, but paid out only £5,000 in total.
Rob
Cuthbert, emeritus professor of higher education management at the
University of the West of England and chair of the Improving Dispute
Resolution Advisory Service for Further and Higher Education (Idras),
cautioned that those institutions reporting the highest numbers might
just be “the most assiduous” about classifying “disputes”.
“In
particular, I would want to know more about the large institutions
reporting little or no spending, which seems improbable,” he said.
THE
also asked universities how much employment disputes had cost them in
terms of the time of legal and human resources staff. No university was
able to provide an internal breakdown, but 50 reported spending on
external lawyers totalling £10.4 million. The average spending was
£12,200 per case, although four institutions did not spend anything on
lawyers’ fees.
The highest average cost per case – £69,200 – was
incurred by Royal Holloway, University of London. Manchester
Metropolitan University spent the highest total amount on lawyers: £1.84
million, amounting to £41,700 per case.
Helen Scott, executive
officer of Universities HR, the professional organisation for
universities’ human resources staff, said: “The level of disputes and
payouts remains low compared with many other sectors. The higher
education sector accounted for only 0.06 per cent of employment tribunal
cases in the past four years.”
But Christopher Mordue, a partner
at Pinsent Masons and head of its university employment team, said the
statistics suggested that the average total cost of employment disputes
within higher education was greater than in other sectors.
He
noted that the average total cost per dispute – including both
settlement and legal fees – was in excess of £25,000. “That looks on the
high side…and is certainly much higher than the median awards made by
tribunals even in discrimination cases,” he said.
He suggested
this may be a result of the complexity of higher education claims –
which frequently involve various categories of discrimination – and the
fact that many occur while the claimant is still employed. These were
often settled by the employee agreeing to resign, requiring “a higher
settlement figure than would be needed simply to settle the claim in
isolation”.
Mr Mordue also noted that the proportion of dispute
cases in higher education that proceed to a tribunal – 16 per cent – is
significantly lower than the 27 per cent figure for all tribunal cases
in 2011-12: “That could indicate that universities are more risk-averse
than other employers…However, it is just as likely that [it] reflects
the fact that…the cost of defending the claim is often disproportionate
to what is really at stake if you lose, making it more cost-effective to
settle.”
But he added that there are “cases where, despite the
cost, the right thing to do is to fight the claim – for example, on a
point of principle, or to defend the managers involved or to avoid
creating a claims culture”.
He advised universities to decide
early on a fixed total of how much they were willing to spend defending
claims and make a “robust assessment of the likely outcome of the case”,
including how much compensation might be awarded.
He also noted
that the total cost of disputes fell significantly in 2013, and he
expected that trend to continue given recent changes to the tribunal
system, such as the introduction of fees for claimants.
Gill
Evans, emeritus professor of medieval theology and intellectual history
at the University of Cambridge and chief executive of Idras, said
lodging a tribunal case had previously been the standard negotiating
tactic for disgruntled staff, but the new administration fee and the
risk that they might become liable for costs if they lost – which was
the most common outcome – no longer made it advisable.
“There is
not much correlation between what the employee ‘deserves’ and what
happens to them,” she said. “The ones who win and stay [employed] are
the few with a lot of resilience and some supportive advice.”
From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
---------------------------
At last somebody exposed the extent of the waste. Note that the above refers only to the period between 2010 and 2013, and only to 75 universities in the UK. What would the figure be if all universities declared what happened the last ten years? What did the union ever do about it? What will the government do about it?
Suggestion: Protect from legal action all those who signed a compromise agreement and let them state openly a) the conditions under which they were victimised, and b) what they were paid for compensation.
We are truly only looking at the tip of the iceberg...
2 comments:
A 5 year study would be good to undertake focusing on the Russell Group of Universities and how many cases have been in the employment tribunals. A study on the rise of stress in the Academic environment in the UK would also be a good to undertake.
Compromise agreements are for all intents and purposes unenforceable. The employer has to prove a specific nexus between the disclosure and financial damage. They can only collect the amount of their actual damage, which may be substantially less than the amount of the compromise agreement payout, or more likely, no damages whatsoever.
Post a Comment