The Price of Justice : The Impact of Employment Tribunal fees on CAB clients in Scotland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report presents findings from a collaborative research project between the University of Strathclyde and Citizens Advice Scotland (CAS) into the views of Citizens Advice Bureaux (CAB) advisers within Scotland on the impact of Employment Tribunal (ET) fees. Fees payable by workers to take their case to the ET were introduced on 29 July 2013. These are charged at two levels depending on the nature of the claim and are payable at two stages—on lodging the claim and before the hearing itself. The total costs for going to full hearing are: Type A claims (including unpaid wages) £390 and Type B claims (including unfair dismissal and discrimination claims) £1,200. Remission from fees is available in limited circumstances. One year on from the introduction of fees, data from the Ministry of Justice reveals that there was an 81% decline in the number of cases lodged in the ET for the period January to March 2014 compared with that same quarter in 2013. We wanted to understand the ways in which the ET fees, and its associated fee remission system, have impacted on clients of CAB. To do this we sought the perspective of CAB advisers within Scotland, particularly those who focus on employment problems. We undertook an online survey of these advisers and two focus groups. This report details our findings. These relate, firstly, to CAB clients liable to pay full or partial ET fees and, secondly, to CAB clients eligible for fee remission.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".