 No Claim, No Pain? The Privatization of Dispute Resolution in BritainTrevor Colling
Economic and Industrial Democracy, 2004, vol. 25, issue 4, 555-579 Abstract: This article explores current strains within the Employment Tribunal Service (ETS) in Britain. These should be seen as consequences of the ‘nationalization’ of employment rights; the assumption by the state of the principal roles and costs involved in dispute resolution, displacing joint regulation by employers and trade unions. The predominant policy response to the escalating demand for tribunal hearings can be characterized as ‘privatization’, in that dispute resolution is capped as far as possible at the level of the .rm and access to external adjudication is reduced. Where external adjudication proceeds, it does so in ‘private’; and roles are passed increasingly from public bodies and authorities to private organizations. Speci.cally, the article examines the ACAS Arbitration Scheme, the growth of privately provided alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and the provisions of the Employment Act 2002. Their likely consequences for the accessibility, formality, speed and expense of justice are considered. Keywords: disciplinary procedures; dispute resolution; employment law; employment tribunals; grievance procedures (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:ecoind:v:25:y:2004:i:4:p:555-579 Access Statistics for this article More articles in Economic and Industrial Democracy from Department of Economic History, Uppsala University, Sweden |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.