Compromise agreements, which are a vital tool in dispute resolution, come with some sensible safeguards. To be valid in compromising employment rights they must be in writing, set out the claims which are being compromised, and the employee must have received advice on the agreement’s terms and effect. The advice must come from (presently) a solicitor, barrister, Legal Executive, TU rep or advice centre worker. The advisor must be insured for the advice, and be independent from the employer. The proposal is to extend this to CIPD members, or in other words, qualified HR professionals. This is interesting, as one immediately wonders when this is likely to happen in practice. Some solicitors (for whom this can be profitable work they want to protect) have sneered that this could perhaps be a Saturday job. In truth, this suggested change is to be lauded and is ahead of its time. It’s no coincidence that CIPD have pushed for this change soon after MoJ regulation effectively endorses non-lawyer Claimant representatives in the tribunal.
The long-term future of most employment law provision to Claimants is not through firms of solicitors, but instead (as I’ve blogged before) through multi-disciplinary teams owned more likely than not by insurance / bank backed teams. In organisations like this, a CIPD practitioner will frequently be indistinguishable from any other qualified representative. It’s an unpalatable truth for some, but is certainly the way forward, as anyone who has worked for the Croner / First Assist / Peninsula / Mentor type company can attest.
The full consultation document is here. It also covers some tribunal changes which I’ll blog about shortly.
I don’t think I was sneering, more a light hearted quip and leg pull aimed at our HR readers.
What you don’t deal with is whether HR practioners will be perceived as independent by would be clients?
Non lawyers have always been able to represent at Tribunal, now they have to be regulated but don’t let the truth get in the way of your blog.This may be a problem for a non regulated CIPD member who is advising on a compromise agreement.
I agree with you that the future is for bigger players to come in and buy out smaller players, but there will always be room for smaller players.
I ‘m sure most HR practitioners would want to distinguish themselves from Solicitors and vice versa.
Sneering was putting it a bit far - sorry about that. Given I choose to act behind a (fairly easily pierced) veil of anonymity I shouldn’t abuse it by being unkind.
I’ve worked in environments with CIPD people alongside solicitors, and what they are sensitive about is being perceived as somehow lesser to their legal colleagues. In truth, their training when applied to analysis of a Claimant’s situation can be vital in identifying HR-related failures such as inadequate investigation or policies. They also tend to have a much stronger feel as to structural failings in employers.
So far as your other point goes, I think HR practitioners may be perceived as independent if they’re advising in the right context. The requirement to be insured means that advisers in these circumstances will be holding out and marketing as providing independent advice. If I work for Smith Ltd, get given a compromise agreement by an HR officer and am simply told to take it to their other HR officer friend at Jones Ltd, then yes I have concerns about the independence and strength of my advice. If I go to TescoEmploymentClaims and see someone who tells me at the start they’re a chartered HR professional who works for Claimants then I’m probably satisfied.
One of the benefits of a multi-disciplinary approach is the range of talents brought to the table. This approach will bring huge benefits to Claimant-representing organisations - and not just the bigger boys. Enabling the CIPD qualified rep to sign off the agreement reinforces this while maintaining safeguards for the employee.
Oh, and as for the MoJ regulation, I think I AM being accurate when I say that it’s an endorsement. They addressed unqualified Claimant reps and decided that they were to be allowed to continue subject to regulation.
Fair points- I may be was being a bit over sensitive. If you met me though I am the least sneery person imaginable.