The provision of this right originally envisaged a move away from industrial action and into the Employment Tribunal to resolve employment disputes. There was no need for lawyers.

The Employment Tribunal itself was tasked with hearing complaints and making awards of compensation in cases of unfair dismissal. The system was designed to be user-friendly and afford unrepresented parties access to justice without the same costs or formality as would arise in ordinary civil litigation.

When we fast forward 50 years, the right to claim unfair dismissal is now well established in law. However, certain factors have created difficulties in the practical enforcement of that fundamental right.

William McParland is a senior employment law solicitor at Thompsons Scotland

The main difficulty for employees who have been dismissed is accessing legal advice on the merits of an unfair dismissal claim. That is against a background of a reduction in the availability of legal advice on employment matters.

Previously, an employee could seek the fee-free services of Citizens Advice Bureau and other advice centres, but these organisations have not been immune to funding cuts in recent years. The result is usually that services are stretched, and organisations restricted in what they can do to assist.

Access to legal advice and representation via legal aid is an option but rare in employment cases. Even if one is financially eligible to secure legal aid funding, the recoupment regulations kick in at the end which often leave a successful claimant with little or no compensatory award.

An employee must now have completed a qualifying period of two years’ service before they are entitled to the right to claim unfair dismissal. The claim itself must then be lodged within three months of the effective date of termination, which is rarely enough time to investigate the facts and circumstances of a case.

Proving unfair dismissal is also difficult. Claimants are often bemused that the question for the Employment Tribunal is not one of fairness but whether it was reasonable or unreasonable for the employer to dismiss for a fair reason.

These difficulties render the system inaccessible. The reality for many is that unless you are a member of a Trade Union then it is more likely than not that you will be unrepresented when you turn up at the Employment Tribunal.

Why does that matter when there is no requirement that a representative before an Employment Tribunal be legally qualified? The answer may be to some that it doesn’t – but the likelihood is that the employer will be legally represented.

That puts unrepresented claimants at an obvious disadvantage. What else can they do? There are virtually no specialist firms in Scotland, bar ourselves, which advise and represent employees on a “no win no fees” arrangement. That is despite a statutory attempt to make no win no fees in employment cases a viable option by allowing 35 per cent fees.

The reality is that few firms have the size, experience and or appetite to litigate these types of employment claim.

By contrast, firms of all sizes offer similar fees arrangements in other civil cases. The reason is perhaps due to the “loser pays” costs regime in the civil courts which is non-existent in the Employment Tribunal.

There is undoubtedly a need for reform. Perhaps the answer lies in developing a costs regime like that in other areas of law. That would be controversial – but it might incentivise more law firms to support employment claims for those unable to pay and allow employees to enforce such fundamental rights.

William McParland is a senior employment law solicitor at Thompsons Scotland

READ MORE

For a Scottish perspective on news, sport, business, lifestyle, food and drink and more from Scotland's national newspaper, go to www.scotsman.com

To subscribe go to www.scotsman.com/subscriptions

Undoubted need for reform of employment tribunal system - William McParland