Glasgow - Compromise Agreement Challenge
The Employment Tribunal recently issued a written decision on the challenge to the Compromise Agreements used in Glasgow - the case of McWilliams and others v Glasgow City Council.
The news is disappointing because the employment judge found ultimately in favour of the council - and the claimants' case was not upheld.
The employment judge made some interesting comments on the case - here are a some extracts - that might be of interest to readers:
"Glasgow City Council will pay £1,000 plus VAT in respect of each adviser (to a maximum of 5) who attends and advises clients at 3 group advisory sessions (each approximately 2 hours duration) on the same day."
"Mr Bowers (for the council) submitted that advice is not an abstract concept. Here the agreement had been discussed and agreed with the unions."
"The claimants undeniably did not get the advice they wanted and had reasonably expected to get. However unfortunate and uncomfortable that maybe, it is not the question I have to address."
"Mr Mitchell (for the claimants) asks that I interpret that requirement (to give advice on the Compromise Agreement) to mean to give such advice as will allow the employee to make an informed decision. That is clearly desirable but with some reluctance I have concluded that that is not what section 77 requires."
"I say, with reluctance, as it seems to me that generally the point of getting legal advice is to get some guidance as to what course of action is in your best interests that this is what the claimants quite reasonably expected and they did not get it."
"I conclude that all that is required by section 77 is that the claimant is advised what the terms of the compromise agreement are and what they mean."
" If I am wrong in my conclusion that the presentation formed part of the advice, then I would have found that the individual sessions in isolation were not sufficient for the requirements of advice on the 'terms' of the compromise agreement and therefore the compromise agreements would not have fulfilled the requirements of section 77."
"Without the presentation, the individual meetings amounted to not much more than 'this is the amount on offer', 'you can take it or leave it, it's up to you but if you sign you won't be able to bring a claim.' That, I agree with Mr Mitchell is not advice on anything other than the effect of the agreement and that is not enough."
While the news is a big setback - Action 4 Equality Scotland will now consider if there are reasonable grounds to appeal the decision - to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
The news is disappointing because the employment judge found ultimately in favour of the council - and the claimants' case was not upheld.
The employment judge made some interesting comments on the case - here are a some extracts - that might be of interest to readers:
"Glasgow City Council will pay £1,000 plus VAT in respect of each adviser (to a maximum of 5) who attends and advises clients at 3 group advisory sessions (each approximately 2 hours duration) on the same day."
"Mr Bowers (for the council) submitted that advice is not an abstract concept. Here the agreement had been discussed and agreed with the unions."
"The claimants undeniably did not get the advice they wanted and had reasonably expected to get. However unfortunate and uncomfortable that maybe, it is not the question I have to address."
"Mr Mitchell (for the claimants) asks that I interpret that requirement (to give advice on the Compromise Agreement) to mean to give such advice as will allow the employee to make an informed decision. That is clearly desirable but with some reluctance I have concluded that that is not what section 77 requires."
"I say, with reluctance, as it seems to me that generally the point of getting legal advice is to get some guidance as to what course of action is in your best interests that this is what the claimants quite reasonably expected and they did not get it."
"I conclude that all that is required by section 77 is that the claimant is advised what the terms of the compromise agreement are and what they mean."
" If I am wrong in my conclusion that the presentation formed part of the advice, then I would have found that the individual sessions in isolation were not sufficient for the requirements of advice on the 'terms' of the compromise agreement and therefore the compromise agreements would not have fulfilled the requirements of section 77."
"Without the presentation, the individual meetings amounted to not much more than 'this is the amount on offer', 'you can take it or leave it, it's up to you but if you sign you won't be able to bring a claim.' That, I agree with Mr Mitchell is not advice on anything other than the effect of the agreement and that is not enough."
While the news is a big setback - Action 4 Equality Scotland will now consider if there are reasonable grounds to appeal the decision - to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
