WE ALWAYS hesitate to say we told you so, but sometimes it's unavoidable.

The introduction of charges for those seeking redress through employment tribunals has had a calamitous effect on workplace fairness.

Last summer, a year after the UK Government introduced fees of up to £1200 to raise cases before tribunals, we reported that, as predicted, the number of tribunals had fallen dramatically.

This was at the time of the boom in the culture of zero hours contracts and the fears of those in work that with the recession not yet over and employment still precarious, rocking the boat was ill-advised.

We have never supported frivolous cases, nor denied the need for reform of a cumbersome process, but we expressed strong concerns about the consequences of using the crude mechanism of fees to ration access to justice in the sphere of employment rights.

We agreed with the Law Society of Scotland at that time that, as we put it, "the suspicion must be that some of the employees who have not gone ahead with their cases in the last year included some who had good grounds for a tribunal but could not afford the fees."

Now we have research from Citizens Advice Scotland and Strathclyde University confirming all our greatest concern about the trends. That the central argument of The Price of Justice report, that the merit of a grievance is no longer the key driver in seeking redress through a tribunal, coincides with our own views is scant comfort to those involved.

Between January and April 2013 and the same period last year there was an 81% drop in the number of tribunal cases. Is anyone seriously suggesting that claimants became markedly less litigious or employers markedly more fair during that period? Fees were the driver, not the quality of justice, and that must be a concern to us all.

As university researcher Emily Rose put it: "At one time, you would have looked at the merits of the case but now people are having to make pragmatic decisions about whether it's financially worth it or not, and many are deciding it's not."

As she argues, legislation to protect workers' rights has been rendered meaningless by the loss of access to redress. In addition, those who feel unable for financial reasons to challenge dismissal can end up stigmatised by that dismissal appearing justified. She does not use the word blacklisting, but it is implied.

The means testing element also means that no matter the alleged injustice involved, if a claimants finding another job are penalised by being denied funding to seek redress.

This has now become a running sore dating back almost two years, which makes the Ministry of Justice response all the more desultory. Purdah at Westminster is beginning, with Parliament having ended ahead of the General Election, so that will be their excuse.

The point is that if the Ministry believes, as we do, that mediation and arbitration are better alternatives to tribunals which are increasingly being denied to legitimate claimants, then the onus was on them to put a greatly improved system in place.