Most workers do not reach tribunal because they are eager to litigate. They get there because earlier safeguards have failed: the workplace, management, HR, grievance, appeal, Acas, and finally the tribunal process.

The worker does not begin with litigation

The ordinary worker usually begins by trying to preserve the job. They speak to a manager. They email HR. They ask payroll to correct the figures. They explain why they need an adjustment. They raise concerns informally because they do not want to be labelled difficult.

That stage matters. The worker is not yet thinking like a claimant. They are thinking like someone trying to survive inside an employment relationship.

The employer, however, usually controls most of the important material: the documents, policies, payroll records, HR file, investigation process, witnesses, rota, internal messages, and often the narrative.

If the employer deals with the issue properly, the dispute may never reach tribunal. A fair investigation, prompt disclosure, corrected pay, proper adjustments, an apology, or sensible settlement can stop a case becoming litigation.

But if the employer responds defensively, the dispute hardens. The worker may be ignored, blamed, moved, performance-managed, signed off sick, disciplined, dismissed, or told there is “no evidence”. They may then submit a grievance or appeal, expecting the employer to look properly at what happened. Too often, that is where trust finally breaks.

The grievance is often the turning point

A grievance should be an opportunity to repair the damage. In practice, many workers experience it as the employer marking its own homework.

The complaint is narrowed. The uncomfortable documents are not provided. The witness questions are controlled. The worker’s concerns are reframed as communication issues, personality clashes, management discretion, or misunderstanding.

The outcome letter may look formal. It may cite a policy. It may say the complaint is “not upheld”. But the worker is left with the sense that the substance has never really been addressed.

This is one reason tribunal claims become entrenched. The worker is not just challenging the original act. They are challenging the employer’s entire handling of the problem.

By that stage, the worker may be out of work, short of money, unwell, unsupported, and trying to understand a legal system designed around professional users.

Acas is a gateway, not a remedy

Before most employment tribunal claims, the worker must notify Acas. Early conciliation is designed to give both sides a chance to resolve the dispute before formal tribunal proceedings begin. That is sensible in principle. Early settlement can save time, cost and stress.

But Acas is not a judge. It is not the worker’s representative. It does not decide who is right.

Acas says it cannot represent either side, take sides, help prepare the tribunal case, say whether the worker has a valid claim, or give legal advice. That distinction matters.

A worker may think they have entered a justice process. In reality, they have entered a conciliation process. Acas can help the parties settle, but it cannot fix a poor grievance investigation. It cannot compel disclosure. It cannot force the employer to engage meaningfully. It cannot correct the imbalance of power by itself.

And the clock still matters. GOV.UK states that a worker usually has to make an employment tribunal claim within three months of the employment ending or the problem happening, and that they will usually need an Acas early conciliation certificate for each respondent before making the claim.

That is a hard lesson for litigants in person. They are encouraged to use internal processes. They must usually go through Acas. They must preserve limitation. They must identify the correct respondent. They must complete the ET1. They must translate what happened into legal claims.

The worker knows the story. The system demands the legal category.

The ET1 is where the worker’s story becomes a legal case

The ET1 is not just a form. It is the point where lived experience must become litigation.

A worker may know exactly what happened to them, but not know whether the claim is unfair dismissal, discrimination, whistleblowing detriment, automatic unfair dismissal, victimisation, harassment, failure to make reasonable adjustments, unlawful deduction from wages, holiday pay, breach of contract, or something else.

That translation is where many litigants in person struggle.

The employer may then file a professionally drafted response. It may deny the facts. It may challenge jurisdiction. It may argue the claim is out of time. It may say the worker has named the wrong respondent. It may seek strike-out or a deposit order. It may use procedure tactically.

Some of those arguments may be legitimate. But the practical effect is obvious. The employer is often a repeat player. The worker is usually learning the system while living through the consequences.

Mediation is not a sticking plaster

This is why “mediation first” cannot be treated as the answer. There is already an early resolution stage. It is called Acas early conciliation.

The real question is why early resolution sometimes fails.

It may fail because the worker does not have the documents. They may not have advice. They may not know the value of the claim. They may be out of work. They may be under pressure. They may be facing an employer who has little incentive to disclose weakness early.

Mediation can help where both sides have information, advice and good faith. But mediation without safeguards risks becoming pressure without accountability.

If a worker has been dismissed, denied documents, put through a weak grievance process, and left financially exposed, another settlement stage may simply become another barrier before anyone with authority looks properly at the case.

Settlement is good when it is informed and fair. It is not good if it is just the worker being squeezed out.

Legal officers: administration, not courthouse control

There may be a role for legal officers in employment tribunals. Routine administration should not require a judge every time. Listing, correcting party details, chasing missing information, standard directions and routine extensions may be suitable for properly supervised legal officers.

But the line must be clear. Anything that affects whether a person gets a hearing needs judicial oversight.

Limitation, strike-out, deposit orders, discrimination, whistleblowing, employment status, credibility and merits are not mere administration.

Low value should never mean low importance.

A wages claim may be small because the worker was low paid. A holiday pay claim may look modest to an employer but matter deeply to the person bringing it. A dismissal claim may not have a high financial value but may affect a worker’s reputation, confidence and future employment.

If lower-value or worker-led claims are diverted away from judges, the system risks sending a dangerous message: that low-paid workers deserve less scrutiny.

The backlog starts before the tribunal

The employment tribunal backlog is not only a tribunal problem. It is also the product of disputes not being dealt with properly earlier.

Poor grievance handling creates claims. Weak internal investigations create claims. Refusal to disclose key documents creates claims. Defensive HR creates claims. Lack of early advice creates claims. Delay creates claims that become harder, not easier, to resolve.

By the time the tribunal becomes involved, the parties may already be entrenched.

That is why reform focused only on speed is inadequate. A faster unfair process is still unfair.

The answer is not to push workers through a faster maze. The answer is to make the maze fairer, clearer and harder to game.

What would actually help?

The solution is not one reform. It is a sequence of safeguards.

First, better workplace accountability. Employers should not be able to run poor grievance processes, ignore key documents, and then complain that workers have gone to tribunal.

Second, early disclosure of core documents. Early resolution only works if the worker has enough information to understand the case.

Third, funded early advice. Many workers do not need a lawyer for every step, but they do need early help with limitation, claim type, respondent identity, evidence and settlement value.

Fourth, plain-English tribunal management. The process should be intelligible to ordinary people, not just professional users.

Fifth, proper tribunal resourcing. Delay changes behaviour. Employers may hold out because the worker may not last. Workers may abandon good claims because the process is too slow.

Sixth, judicial oversight where rights are at stake. Efficiency must not remove scrutiny from the cases that need it most.

Reform must start before the tribunal door

Employment tribunal reform should not be measured only by how quickly cases can be moved through the system. It should be measured by whether ordinary people can use the system fairly.

That means asking harder questions.

Did the employer investigate properly? Were the key documents disclosed early? Did the worker have access to advice before the ET1? Was Acas being used for genuine settlement or tactical delay? Was the worker pressured to settle before understanding the case? Were procedural tools used to clarify the dispute or exhaust the litigant in person?

These are not side issues. They are the system.

Closing message

The public debate should not be framed as workers versus efficiency. Workers need efficiency. They also need fairness.

They need a system that resolves genuine disputes early, filters weak cases properly, and gives strong cases a fair route to be heard.

They need Acas to remain a meaningful conciliation stage, not a procedural hurdle.

They need mediation with safeguards, not mediation as a pressure valve.

They need legal officers for administration, not as a substitute for judges where rights, credibility and access to a hearing are at stake.

Above all, they need a system that recognises the simple truth at the heart of many employment disputes: the tribunal is not usually where the problem begins. It is where earlier failures arrive.

Three lines to carry forward

Source pointers

Acas early conciliation guidance: acas.org.uk/early-conciliation

GOV.UK employment tribunal claim guidance: gov.uk/employment-tribunals/make-a-claim