Mediation v Employment Tribunals: why it’s best to avoid the courts

As any employer who has been involved in an employment dispute will know, cases that end up before an Employment Tribunal can be costly, time consuming and distracting to resolve. This is a key reason why more employers are looking to mediation as an alternative way of resolving disputes with employees.

Those that prefer to have their day in front of a judge can expect to pay dearly for the privilege. Solicitors can charge from £3500+VAT and disbursements to handle an unlawful deduction of wages or breach of contract claim, £8500+VAT and disbursements to deal with an unfair dismissal claim, and between £6500 to £9000+VAT and disbursements to defend a discrimination claim. On top of that is management time in pulling together a defence and any awards made in favour of the claimant.

But regrettably some do end up defending their actions in an Employment Tribunal. As searches on the government’s Employment Tribunal decisions website illustrate, there are numerous cases that make the point. (See panel).

The point of mediation

In describing the process Mali Smith, a legal director and mediator at Wright Hassall, says that it is voluntary, confidential and uses an independent third party to try to reach an agreed resolution.

As Smith outlines, mediators themselves are professionally trained individuals, many of whom are lawyers. She says that “mediators do not offer any opinions on the dispute; they are there purely to facilitate a solution by putting a positive interpretation on proceedings to help parties reach an agreement that works for all.” In her view, this is a far more constructive approach than adversarial court proceedings which seeks to find for one side only.

And the benefits of mediation for employers are substantial.

Firstly, costs are, generally, considerably lower than pursuing a tribunal claim. For instance, a day’s mediation can work out at a fraction of the cost of defending a tribunal claim.

Next, the process can be considerably faster – there is no tribunal backlog to negotiate and, depending on the matter being mediated, a dispute can be resolved within a short timeframe. And because mediation is a collaborative process, an experienced mediator can often get to the nub of problem very quickly and agree a more flexible remedy: a financial settlement is not always the only way to reach agreement.

Thirdly, and simply, mediation is confidential; the result is not made public.

Lastly, mediation can save a considerable amount of management time. According a CIPD survey, employers spend on average six days dealing with an individual disciplinary case, and five days with a grievance. Further, mediation has a good success rate.

The proceedings

With the benefits laid out Smith is keen to emphasise that a mediator will not advise either party within the mediation. As she says, “mediators are impartial and parties are encouraged to speak openly; the mediator will only disclose information to the other side if agreed.” She adds that “the mediator will also stress the importance of both parties taking legal advice to complement the mediation that takes place which is why most are accompanied by their legal advisers.” In essence, all need to understand the legal consequences of any agreement they make.

As to how the process works, parties are invited to provide a short summary of their case for the other side and for the mediator. They need to agree a suitable venue which must have at least three rooms and the mediator will circulate a mediation agreement, setting out the terms of the mediation including that of confidentiality. Each party will retire to their respective rooms and the mediator will move between them, questioning their cases and drawing out the salient facts.”

It should be noted that, as Smith points out, there are a number of ground rules that must be agreed to for mediation to work. These are confidentiality, that the parties have authority to settle, recognise that the mediator is impartial and independent and accept that the mediator will not offer legal advice or a resolution; that each party will need to provide a position statement and evidence, “will act in good faith, agree that costs are shared by the parties, and that the mediation can be terminated at any time by the parties or the mediator without giving reasons”; and recognise that “any agreement reached is binding once signed by both parties and is enforceable by the courts.”

A matter of openness

Because the mediator must remain neutral, any questions they ask will reflect the fact that they are impartial and independent. This means, as Smith explains, “that questions will be open and will not allow the mediator to offer a solution – any solution must come from the parties themselves with assistance of the mediator.”

In fact, she says that the technique used by many mediators is to invite parties to attend an open session – which is not compulsory – where they introduce themselves and their representatives. If the parties are comfortable with each other, the mediator would ask each of them in turn to explain what they think led to the mediation. After that, groups will break into individual sessions where the mediator will ask if there is anything else they want to disclose that did not come up in the opening session. Fundamentally, Smith says that “the mediator will try to focus parties minds on the best way forward while trying to preserve relationships.”

Preparation is key

No one in their right mind would walk into a courtroom unprepared and mediation is no different. So, Smith’s advice here is clear: “Parties should start their preparation with a position statement and evidence that outlines their case and which offers a solution that looks into the future.”

From her standpoint, the aim is to reach a resolution so that a compromise is inevitable. However, she knows from experience that not all mediation leads to a settlement or resolution, but at least “the parties at the end of the mediation should know, sometimes for the first time, each other’s position and how far they are willing to go in finding a settlement.” She continues: “Sometimes, after mediation parties will meet and sign a settlement agreement between themselves. Mediation can lead to ‘out of the box’ solutions being discussed at mediation that lead to a resolution.”

As to how to find a properly qualified mediator, Smith says to look for someone who has undertaken and passed a mediation course by a recognised provider. “There are,” she says, “a number of providers recognised by the Civil Mediation Council such as the Society of Mediators or CEDR.” They must have indemnity insurance.


Unlike tribunal proceedings, the mediation process is designed to be flexible, largely informal and something which can be convened at short notice. Mediation can be used at any stage of an employment relationship or even after it has been terminated. It could be instigated after a grievance has been raised, following a workplace conflict, before or after an employment tribunal claim has been issued.

In short, mediation should be, and is being, actively encouraged as a way of resolving employment disputes. It is cost-effective and can produce a better outcome if both parties fully commit to the process.

The sector has been affected

A simple search of the government’s Employment Tribunal decisions website shows a number of cases of interest. In particular, at the time of writing there were 942 decisions relating to garage, and 5 for motor factor, and 51 for car parts. (The keywords do return some unrelated cases where they’re mentioned in the judgment).

In September 2019, Mrs C Jenkins brought a claim against United Car Parts Limited alleging unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages. The claim was heard shortly after and in February 2020 the tribunal found that Jenkins was an employee, entitled to £405 in unpaid wages along and because she was found to have been unfairly dismissed, compensation of £8087.56 was also awarded. Notably, the respondent claimed that Jenkins had been self-employed, but this was denied and upheld by the tribunal.

It’s interesting that there are at least two more claims involving the same company where the claimants have won their cases – Joanne Griffiths in January 2019 (Case Number: 1402971/2018) and Mr B Duran (Case No 3333021/2018 in March 2020). In the former Griffiths was awarded £7100, and in the latter, Duran won £750.

Another case of note is that of Mr A Evans v Southgate (Park Garage) Limited in July 2019 that involved breach of contract, redundancy, and unlawful deduction from wages. In essence, the tribunal found for Evans and awarded £371.15 for deducted wages, £10577.78 for redundancy, £742.30 for breach of contract over notice, and another £742.30 for holiday entitlement.

How to find finance as cost of living crisis bites

One source of worry for many is how to keep the financial plates spinning. We talk to the experts

Read More

How tax funds can be used to improve your business

Understanding the tax implications of spending on improvements compared with renovations to allow you to maximise claims for relief

Read More

Why pothole damage is booming business for garages

It may be bad news for motorists, but it’s a golden opportunity for the repair trade as suspension faults account for almost a third of all MOT failures

Read More

How to tackle garages’ apprentice issue?

IGA tells CAT the aftermarket’s “dirty” perception is one of the key reasons for just 23% of UK garages hiring trainees

Read More

Batteries: why size is not an indicator of compatibility

Looking at the muddled world of the replacement battery market

Read More

Go to comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *