Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act 1998
Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.
Change 1
11 Settlements of redundancy cases.
(1) In section 18(1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (which specifies the proceedings in relation to which the provisions about conciliation apply), in paragraph (d) (proceedings under the Employment Rights Act 1996), for “or 92,” substitute “ , 92 or 135, ”. (2) In section 166(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (which defines “employer’s payment” for the purposes of the provisions requiring the Secretary of State to make a payment to an employee whose employer is liable to pay him an employer’s payment), after paragraph (a) insert— (aa) a payment which his employer is liable to make to him under an agreement to refrain from instituting or continuing proceedings for a contravention or alleged contravention of section 135 which has effect by virtue of section 203(2)(e) or (f), or . (3) In section 168(1) of that Act (which specifies the amount which the Secretary of State is required to pay in respect of an employer’s payment), after paragraph (a) insert— (aa) where the employer’s payment to which the employee’s application under section 166 relates is a payment which his employer is liable to make to him under an agreement having effect by virtue of section 203(2)(e) or (f), is a sum equal to the amount of the employer’s payment or of any redundancy payment which the employer would have been liable to pay to the employee but for the agreement, whichever is less, and .
11 Settlements of redundancy cases.
(1) In section 18(1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (which specifies the proceedings in relation to which the provisions about conciliation apply), in paragraph (d) (proceedings under the Employment Rights Act 1996), for “or 92,” substitute “ , 92 or 135, ”. (2) In section 166(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (which defines “employer’s payment” for the purposes of the provisions requiring the Secretary of State to make a payment to an employee whose employer is liable to pay him an employer’s payment), after paragraph (a) insert— (aa) a payment which his employer is liable to make to him under an agreement to refrain from instituting or continuing proceedings for a contravention or alleged contravention of section 135 which has effect by virtue of section 203(2)(e) or (f), or . (3) In section 168(1) of that Act (which specifies the amount which the Secretary of State is required to pay in respect of an employer’s payment), after paragraph (a) insert— (aa) where the employer’s payment to which the employee’s application under section 166 relates is a payment which his employer is liable to make to him under an agreement having effect by virtue of section 203(2)(e) or (f), is a sum equal to the amount of the employer’s payment or of any redundancy payment which the employer would have been liable to pay to the employee but for the agreement, whichever is less, and .
One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".
Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.
A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.
Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.
Sign in to file itThink it through
Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.