街头法律-协助就业审裁处诉诸司法:实务报告

Sarah Saunders
{"title":"街头法律-协助就业审裁处诉诸司法:实务报告","authors":"Sarah Saunders","doi":"10.19164/IJPLE.V3I1.834","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"If you have not yet read the judgment of Lord Reed in the Supreme Court decision of Unison v The Lord Chancellor, please allow yourself a little time over the coming weeks to enjoy a clear and evidence-based statement on access to justice in the employment tribunals of England and Wales. The case was brought by Unison, the UK public workers union, and challenged the introduction in July 2013 of the requirement to pay a fee to lodge an employment tribunal claim. Having reviewed some of the key common law authorities and quoting from the Magna Carta and Donoghue v Stevenson no less, Lord Reed concluded that the fee regime was unlawful “because it has the effect of preventing access to justice”. This landmark decision in July 2017 brought an immediate end to the fee regime. Time will tell whether the UK Government will attempt another fee scheme in the future, but there are other more pressing issues occupying Whitehall at the moment.The four-year fee regime and the Unison challenge brought access to justice in employment tribunals very much into the public eye. Other barriers to access were also widely discussed and reported, including the lack of legal aid and legal representation for claimants in employment law matters. A number of law clinics and pro bono schemes operate to give guidance and advice to the public, in addition to the essential work of ACAS (the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service). The purpose of this paper is to share with you my experience of a university student Streetlaw project at the Cardiff Employment Tribunal providing guidance to unrepresented claimants about tribunal practice and procedure.The concept of Streetlaw is familiar to readers of this Journal as a form of public legal education aimed at helping members of the public to understand their rights. It is also frequently referred to as “legal literacy”, the importance of which Richard Grimes explains in a previous edition of this Journal. The key aim of our Streetlaw project is to educate potential claimants about what to expect in the run up to their employment tribunal hearing and what happens on the day. As I shall explain, however, there are a number of secondary aims and several other beneficial outcomes.","PeriodicalId":332351,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Public Legal Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Streetlaw – assisting access to justice in the Employment Tribunal: A practice report\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Saunders\",\"doi\":\"10.19164/IJPLE.V3I1.834\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"If you have not yet read the judgment of Lord Reed in the Supreme Court decision of Unison v The Lord Chancellor, please allow yourself a little time over the coming weeks to enjoy a clear and evidence-based statement on access to justice in the employment tribunals of England and Wales. The case was brought by Unison, the UK public workers union, and challenged the introduction in July 2013 of the requirement to pay a fee to lodge an employment tribunal claim. Having reviewed some of the key common law authorities and quoting from the Magna Carta and Donoghue v Stevenson no less, Lord Reed concluded that the fee regime was unlawful “because it has the effect of preventing access to justice”. This landmark decision in July 2017 brought an immediate end to the fee regime. Time will tell whether the UK Government will attempt another fee scheme in the future, but there are other more pressing issues occupying Whitehall at the moment.The four-year fee regime and the Unison challenge brought access to justice in employment tribunals very much into the public eye. Other barriers to access were also widely discussed and reported, including the lack of legal aid and legal representation for claimants in employment law matters. A number of law clinics and pro bono schemes operate to give guidance and advice to the public, in addition to the essential work of ACAS (the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service). The purpose of this paper is to share with you my experience of a university student Streetlaw project at the Cardiff Employment Tribunal providing guidance to unrepresented claimants about tribunal practice and procedure.The concept of Streetlaw is familiar to readers of this Journal as a form of public legal education aimed at helping members of the public to understand their rights. It is also frequently referred to as “legal literacy”, the importance of which Richard Grimes explains in a previous edition of this Journal. The key aim of our Streetlaw project is to educate potential claimants about what to expect in the run up to their employment tribunal hearing and what happens on the day. As I shall explain, however, there are a number of secondary aims and several other beneficial outcomes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":332351,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Public Legal Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Public Legal Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.19164/IJPLE.V3I1.834\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Public Legal Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19164/IJPLE.V3I1.834","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

如果你还没有读里德勋爵在最高法院对Unison诉大法官一案的判决,请在接下来的几周内给自己一点时间来欣赏一份关于英格兰和威尔士就业法庭诉诸司法的清晰且基于证据的声明。这起案件是由英国公共工人工会Unison提起的,它对2013年7月出台的向就业法庭提出索赔必须支付费用的规定提出了质疑。在审查了一些重要的普通法权威,并引用了《大宪章》(Magna Carta)和多诺霍诉史蒂文森案(Donoghue v Stevenson)的内容后,里德勋爵得出结论称,收费制度是非法的,“因为它具有阻碍诉诸司法的效果”。2017年7月,这一具有里程碑意义的决定立即结束了收费制度。时间会告诉我们英国政府是否会在未来尝试另一项收费计划,但目前白厅还有其他更紧迫的问题。为期四年的收费制度和Unison的挑战,使在就业法庭上诉诸司法的机会在很大程度上进入了公众的视野。人们还广泛讨论和报告了其他障碍,包括在就业法事项方面缺乏法律援助和索赔人的法律代理。除了咨询、调解和仲裁处的基本工作外,还有一些法律诊所和公益计划向公众提供指导和咨询意见。本文的目的是与您分享我在卡迪夫就业法庭的大学生街头法项目的经验,该项目为无代表的索赔人提供有关法庭实践和程序的指导。《华尔街日报》的读者对Streetlaw的概念很熟悉,它是一种旨在帮助公众了解自己权利的公共法律教育形式。它也经常被称为“法律素养”,理查德·格莱姆斯在本刊上一版中解释了其重要性。我们的Streetlaw项目的主要目的是教育潜在的索赔人,让他们知道在就业法庭听证会之前会发生什么,以及当天会发生什么。然而,正如我将解释的那样,有一些次要目标和其他一些有益的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Streetlaw – assisting access to justice in the Employment Tribunal: A practice report
If you have not yet read the judgment of Lord Reed in the Supreme Court decision of Unison v The Lord Chancellor, please allow yourself a little time over the coming weeks to enjoy a clear and evidence-based statement on access to justice in the employment tribunals of England and Wales. The case was brought by Unison, the UK public workers union, and challenged the introduction in July 2013 of the requirement to pay a fee to lodge an employment tribunal claim. Having reviewed some of the key common law authorities and quoting from the Magna Carta and Donoghue v Stevenson no less, Lord Reed concluded that the fee regime was unlawful “because it has the effect of preventing access to justice”. This landmark decision in July 2017 brought an immediate end to the fee regime. Time will tell whether the UK Government will attempt another fee scheme in the future, but there are other more pressing issues occupying Whitehall at the moment.The four-year fee regime and the Unison challenge brought access to justice in employment tribunals very much into the public eye. Other barriers to access were also widely discussed and reported, including the lack of legal aid and legal representation for claimants in employment law matters. A number of law clinics and pro bono schemes operate to give guidance and advice to the public, in addition to the essential work of ACAS (the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service). The purpose of this paper is to share with you my experience of a university student Streetlaw project at the Cardiff Employment Tribunal providing guidance to unrepresented claimants about tribunal practice and procedure.The concept of Streetlaw is familiar to readers of this Journal as a form of public legal education aimed at helping members of the public to understand their rights. It is also frequently referred to as “legal literacy”, the importance of which Richard Grimes explains in a previous edition of this Journal. The key aim of our Streetlaw project is to educate potential claimants about what to expect in the run up to their employment tribunal hearing and what happens on the day. As I shall explain, however, there are a number of secondary aims and several other beneficial outcomes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
UK and Ireland Street Law Conference 2022 Review The Art of Adapting Open Educational Resources for Street Law: Copyright the Card Game a Case Study The Journey To Legal Capability: Challenges for Public Law from Public Legal Education From the Field: Law-Related Education as a Branch of Civics Education in the United States The Power of Teaching Police through the Prism of Human Rights
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1