Government right to rule out unfair tribunal fees – says Britain’s largest union.

Unison praises government clarification against the reintroduction of tribunal fees.

10 Oct 2025| News

Last week trade unions sounded the alarm over reports from The Guardian that the Government may be considering a reintroduction of Employment Tribunal Fees. They said that a source close to the government states that a plan was agreed in Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s June spending review, as part of efforts to find savings in the Ministry of Justice budget, in a drive to recover some of the costs of running the service.

The Justice Secretary, David Lammy, who last week declined to deny the reports, has now explicitly ruled out a return to tribunal fees, saying:

It’s a fundamental principle that everyone, no matter their income, should be able to get access to justice to challenge unfair behaviour at work.

It’s not just a basic right, it’s also fundamental to this government’s plan to make work pay. That’s why it will remain free to bring a case to an employment tribunal, ensuring everyone, no matter their means, can stand up for their rights at work.

The Tory-Lib Dem coalition government tried to price workers out of justice with tribunal fees. Let me be clear, we will not.

Tribunal fees (introduced in 2013) were withdrawn in July 2017, after trade union Unison successfully argued before the Supreme Court that the fees prevented thousands of employees, particularly people on low incomes, from securing justice. General Secretary, Christina McAnea, said:

Tribunal fees would have completely undermined the positive changes in the Employment Rights Bill and only benefited unscrupulous bosses.

The bill is designed to make work fairer. But the new rights would be meaningless if workers can’t afford to enforce them if employers ignore the law.

Tribunal fees are unfair and would deny low-income workers access to justice. That’s why UNISON went to court and got them scrapped.

Ministers are right to rule out bringing them back. Their return shouldn’t have been under consideration though