We need your help with a new investigation. 

Every year, UK employers rob employees of billions of pounds in wages and holiday pay. More than eight million people face workplace discrimination. And in just a single year, there are as many as 400,000 injuries at work.

I struggled to get my head around these numbers, but that’s the reality for many workers in the UK today. This endemic exploitation makes a mockery of the country’s image of itself as a “world leader” in the fight against modern slavery.

Clearly, the system protecting people’s rights in the workplace is very broken. I was surprised by the scale of it, but I did know there were serious problems. After all, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) has exposed huge exploitation cases. Just as Deliveroo was about to list on the London stock exchange, we revealed that riders working for the £2bn company were systematically paid below the minimum wage. We exposed how workers from other countries who pick fruit for supermarkets or provide care for our vulnerable loved ones are routinely abused and have nowhere to go for help. 

A government report in 2018 estimated that the sluggish rate of minimum wage inspections meant that the average UK company is effectively subject to one every 500 years. When wrongdoing is identified, government agencies lack the powers to enforce many workers’ rights and, even when they do, the fines they impose are smaller than those in other countries.

So, if your employment rights are being trampled, who do you turn to? How is justice upheld? 

An employment tribunal might seem the obvious answer (or collective action if, like TBIJ, your workplace is unionised). But the tribunal system is coming apart at the seams. Legal aid cuts mean that proper advice or representation are ever harder to get.  

That’s why we’ve decided to investigate whether employment tribunals are delivering justice for workers – and this is where we need your help.

If you have an experience of going through an employment tribunal or helping someone through this process, we want to hear from you. You can email us at [email protected] or message on WhatsApp or Signal on +447869158504. 

You can also sign up to receive email updates on this project. The team is particularly interested in hearing about unpaid awards and settlements, unreasonable non-disclosure agreements, going to court without representation, long delays to your case, or any other issue which might have prevented you from getting justice.

And if you haven’t gone through a tribunal process, but you have expertise that could help us with this investigation, please get in touch. Whether you are (or were) a frontline support worker, a lawyer, a tribunal judge, part of a support group or union, or involved in tribunals with other specialist knowledge, the team wants to hear from you to build the fullest possible picture.  

Doing this investigation is going to take time, diligent reporting, sensitive source work, careful fact-checking and review by external lawyers. All of that costs a lot and every bit of support we get will make our investigation stronger and will help bring about greater accountability. If you believe in this work to hold the powerful to account and protect justice, you can also become a Bureau Insider and regularly support us. 

Our justice system can be stronger with your help. 

Factchecked!

Each week we reveal a fascinating fact from our reporting…

Did you know?

TikTok moderators risk losing their breaks if they see a psychologist for job-related distress. They work grueling eight- to nine-hour shifts, some overnight, with limited breaks and low pay.

Find out more

We uncovered how moderators working for TikTok via outsourcing companies are pushed to meet unrealistic performance standards while juggling long hours. Some workers have reported that seeing a company psychologist meant their wellness breaks were cut off.

Read more here.

Kicking ‘bogus’ experts out of family courts

Our reporting on the cases being heard in family courts has prompted some real-world change. The committee that sets the rules in England and Wales has proposed tighter restrictions that may ban unregulated experts from influencing custody decisions.

TBIJ has the UK’s only full-time family courts reporter. In her stories, our reporter Hannah Summers has been highlighting the problematic role these unregulated “expert” witnesses play.

In particular, she’s repeatedly reported on unregulated psychologists diagnosing something called “parental alienation”, a disputed concept that describes a child’s rejection of one parent because they have been manipulated by the other. Parental alienation had been brought up in cases where mothers have alleged rape or abuse by the father – including when the court has found the allegation to be true. 

Now the Family Procedure Rules Committee, a government-appointed body, has proposed changes to the rules regarding experts acting in cases involving children. The change would mean an expert must either be regulated by a UK statutory body – which for psychologists would be the Health and Care Professions Council – or be on a register accredited by the Professional Standards Authority. 

This would be a significant change, and would help ensure that the arm of the justice system tasked with protecting our children has the right controls and standards in place. There has been growing concern about the role these experts play in delivering psychological assessments and diagnoses they are not qualified to make. Part of the issue is that anyone can call themselves a “psychologist” – it is not a protected title.

Earlier this year an undercover investigation by TBIJ and Tortoise Media exposed the controversial views of one unregulated expert, Melanie Gill, whose advice has been instrumental in the removal of at least a dozen children from their mothers.

However, the true number is likely to be far higher. Gill has, by her own estimate, given evidence in up to 200 such cases.

It’s been a long road for TBIJ and for Hannah. We supported efforts to open up the family courts to journalists so that you could learn about the social issues that are aired there. Hannah has made many applications in court to make sure there is greater transparency, including successfully asking a court to name a serial rapist who had been granted unsupervised contact with his young child.

So this result has been a big deal for us. Still, we can’t spend too much time celebrating: there’s much more reporting to get on with.