§ Mr. Dodsworthasked the Secretary of State for Employment what action he proposes to take in the light of the recent House of Lords judgment in the case of Nothman v. London borough of Barnet which gave an authoritative interpretation of the provisions relating to the upper age limit for unfair dismissal claims; and if he intends any further legislation in this area.
§ Mr. Harold WalkerI refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on 1 February.—[Vol. 961, c.514–15.] My Department's studies on this question have not yet been completed.
§ Mr. Dodsworthasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will investigate the number of applications for unfair dismissal which have been barred by the statutory upper age limit; and, pursuant to his reply of 30 January, how many claimants were so affected.
§ Mr. Harold WalkerI regret that this information is not available, and I can add656W nothing to my previous reply.—[Vol. 961, c. 514.]
§ Mr. Dodsworthasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will examine the operation of section 64 of the Employment Protection Consolidation Act 1978 with a view to reviewing the qualification period before an unfair dismissal claim can be pursued.
§ Mr. Harold WalkerNo. I am satisfied that the 26 weeks qualifying period is right.
§ Mr. Dodsworthasked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the purpose behind the inclusion of a qualifying period of 26 weeks for unfair dismissal claims in the employment protection legislation; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Harold WalkerThe hon. Member will know that the qualifying period has been progressively reduced since 1972. We consider, however, that the qualifying period of 26 weeks is necessary to give an employee time to establish himself in his job. It is also sufficient time generally for an employer to assess an employee's suitability and capability for the job.
§ Mr. Dodsworthasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will undertake a study into the practice whereby employers are able to employ workers for periods of up to 26 weeks and then dismiss them without there being any recourse for the employee to an industrial tribunal for an unfair dismissal claim; how widespread he estimates this practice is; in what trades or areas of employment it occurs most; and what action he proposes to take to prevent such occurrences.
§ Mr. Harold WalkerI have no knowledge other than that available in the press and brought to my attention by hon. Members. It would not be right for me to examine the terms and conditions of employment contracts, but I deplore any practice the intention of which is to evade the provisions of the Employment Protection Act.
§ Mr. Dodsworthasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many valid claims for unfair dismissal scheduled to be heard by industrial tribunals failed 657W because of the fact that the complainant had been employed for less than 26 weeks.
§ Mr. Harold WalkerI regret that this information is not available.
§ Mr. Dodsworthasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing the number of unfair dismissal claims coming before tribunals in the past 12 months where the complainants had worked from six to 12 months, 12 months to two years and over two years.
§ Mr. Harold WalkerThis information is available only for a 10 per cent. sample of the cases in 1978. It is as follows:
UNFAIR DISMISSAL CASES 1978 Length of Service Number of applicants Per cent 6–12 months 813 24 1–2 years 1155 34 Over 2 years 1230 36 The total does not add up to 100 per cent., because there is a small number of applications which can be brought if the length of service is under six months, i.e. applications alleging dismissal on grounds of trade union activities.