Recruitment within businesses can sometimes entail a hidden cost that business owners do not take into account such as the additional burden for the team to develop the new member in the role and systems of the business and is why the following survey information did not surprise us.
Around one in five employees (22 per cent) have left a job during or at the end of their probationary period, a survey seen exclusively by People Management has found.
The role ‘not being as expected’ was the most common reason given for quitting, cited by 43 per cent of respondents. This was followed by having found a better role (23 per cent), not liking the company’s culture (13 per cent) and not liking the boss (8 per cent).
Matthew from Consensus HR comments “Many business owners do not realise the overall cost of recruitment and the fact that they are paying for a considerable time for a new employee not just in the initial costs such as advertising & interviewing but also when the new member joins and the time being spent with them by their team. Business owners need to ensure that they invest in a new starter correctly so as to ensure they are motivated and happy in their new role / company.”
Matthew also comments “In the past we developed a comprehensive 3 monthly induction / performance review process for new employees to ensure they are developed adequately in their new role and given the opportunity on a regular basis initially to discuss their performance & identify any areas that need to be addressed during their probationary period. We have found this to be very beneficial to the businesses and a reduction in turnover and also assisted one of our clients in a racial & discrimination case where awards are unlimited and ability for an employee to bring a claim from day one of employment prevented / managed. This also makes them feel valued & not just a number as their induction is written specifically for them but is also down to them to tell the employer in a constructive recordable manner what support / development they require to be successful in the role.”
The study, by CV-Library, also revealed that 12 per cent of people had been dismissed during a probation period, although almost half (44 per cent) of them agreed it was the right decision.
When asked why they were dismissed, the top reasons were poor performance (27 per cent), the company being unable to keep them on (22 per cent) or being the wrong fit for the company’s culture (20 per cent).
Lee Biggins, founder and managing director of CV-Library, said HR teams should take responsibility for running on-boarding processes and making sure new starters settle in well. “Induction sessions are the perfect opportunity to take new starters through what makes the company unique and a great place to work,” he added.
The vast majority (86 per cent) of respondents to the CV-Library survey believed probation periods are a good idea, with 49 per cent saying they allow companies to ‘test the waters’ with the new employee, though the concept of a probation period has no legal basis. Just over half (56 per cent) thought that both employers and employees benefit equally from probationary periods.
As for those who do not believe probation periods are a good idea, a little under half (49 per cent) believe the time period is not long enough to monitor an employee’s contribution to the business and 39 per cent said it can be upsetting to an employee if they fail to pass their probation.
Our Recruitment page discusses how we can help businesses and can be reached by clicking here.
For further information and to discuss your recruitment or how you currently carry out productive inductions please contact us using our contact form or alternatively by telephone on 01462 621243
Consensus HR – “Helping Companies with their People Solutions”
The EU’s General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) will come into force on 25 May 2018, replacing the UK’s Data Protection Act 1998 and will affect all employers in areas such as recruitment, subject access requests and obtaining consent from an employee to their personal data being processed.
Matthew from Consensus HR states “Data Protection is one of those areas within business that many people unfortunately do not take serious and see it as an inconvenience. However with the arrival of the new GDPR next May 2018, employers are going to need to ensure that they follow the regulations or face a possible fine of 20 million Euro’s or 4 per cent of their annual worldwide turnover”
Victoria Albon, an employment associate at law firm Dentons, explains the changes and suggests how they may be dealt with.
Business Owners with employees might wonder if they can ignore the new legislation, given its purpose and that it is an EU law. This is not an option. The GDPR will automatically become law in the UK next year, and the UK government has made clear that it will comply. Even after Brexit, the UK will want to keep the new regulation, or something similar to it, to ensure the free flow of data with its trading partners. Employers that don’t comply risk a maximum fine of 20 million Euros, or 4 per cent of their annual worldwide turnover, whichever is the greater sum. The GDPR is not going away.
The core rules of the Data Protection Act will remain. In particular, employers will continue to process data as ‘data controllers’ and that processing must comply with six general data protection principles similar to those set out in the Act, although there are significant additions. The concept of ‘sensitive personal data’ also remains, although the GDPR refers to it as “special categories of personal data”, and the concept has been expanded to include genetic and biometric data. Other key concepts will continue but will look different under the GDPR.
For employers and HR professionals, the key changes connected with the GDPR concern consent, subject access requests, and automated decision-making. The challenges presented by these changes are certainly not insurmountable, but organisations should begin preparing their businesses for them now, if they have not done so already, to ensure a smooth transition to the new regime.
The GDPR will require employers to obtain a higher standard of consent from individuals to their personal data being processed. Employees must give consent freely, specifically and when informed (nothing new there), but the consent must also be unambiguous and affirmative, and those giving it must be able to withdraw it easily. Where information falls into one of the ‘special categories of personal data’, that consent must also be explicit. The general consent to data processing, commonly used in employment contracts, is going to have to change.
The regulation also states that an employer cannot rely on consent when processing data. This is because there is a “clear imbalance” between the parties to an employment relationship, so employers should presume an employee has not consented freely. So, consent on its own may no longer provide a legal basis for processing employee data.
Employers now receive an increasing number of subject access requests, and the GDPR presented an opportunity to ban subject access requests that were nothing more than a ‘fishing exercise’. But this has not happened, so the current case law on this issue will continue to apply. However, the regulation is a new opportunity for employers to refuse to comply with requests which are “manifestly unfounded or excessive” although there is no guidance on exactly what that phrase means.
The regulation will make subject access requests more challenging for employers to deal with. Except in certain circumstances, an employer cannot levy a charge for complying with a request, and will have to comply within one month, rather than the current 40 days.
The regulation introduces a new right for individuals not to be subject to decisions based solely on automated processing that have a damaging impact on them, whether legally or otherwise. Such decisions should have human intervention. Employers are most likely to face this issue when using online recruitment.
Key practical points
Employers should reconsider the use of filters, which might lead to job applications being disregarded before they are considered by a human being.
If an employer does use filters, it should ensure that job applicants have the opportunity to opt out of them on an individual basis.
If the volume of online applications is unmanageable without the use of filters, organisations should consider whether the automated decision making is necessary for entering into, or the performance of, a contract, because this is an exception to the right. Employers will need further guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), or from case law, to be in a better position to know whether reliance on this exception might be justifiable.
If your company needs support with ensuring its Data Protection Policy & Processes are up to date and ready for the new regulations, contact us at Consensus HR.
There is increased awareness and openness about mental health. How should employers recruit, support and/or manage employees who are affected?
An Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the Government Legal Service’s (GLS) mandatory test (used during recruitment of lawyers) was guilty of indirect discrimination. The claimant has Asperger’s Syndrome. Her psychiatrist had made previous recommendations (in relation to her university courses) that a multiple choice format test would not be appropriate for her. As the GLS test was not available in different formats, the claimant was severely disadvantaged during the recruitment process.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal acknowledged that the GLS needed to test the core competency of ability of its candidates to make effective decisions. However, it found that a psychometric test was not the only way to achieve this.
“It is valid for employers to assess the essential skills required within a job role, “explains Matthew Pinto-Chilcott of Consensus HR. “However, the test method should adapt to the needs of individuals.”
Supporting mental health in the workplace can be challenging and the issues around it are complex. Therefore, it is important that employers are aware of their legal obligations and the issues that arise. Three key issues are involved:
Employers can manage mental health issues via two key approaches: having policies and procedure in place to deal with mental health issues, and supporting employees via training (for managers especially), return to work interviews and on-going support in the workplace and during periods of absence.
“Professional advice can ensure that policies support both the organisations and its people,” says Matthew from Consensus HR. “With growing awareness and openness about mental health issues, this step is increasingly important.”
Clear, honest communication between employers and employees should determine the nature of support required and the best way to provide that help. However this path relies upon individuals being open about their mental illness. Often, people are concerned about revealing their illness to their employers, leading to deliberate concealment.
Concealment is potentially a problem right from the start as people are not obliged to disclose any health issues during the recruitment process. However Employment Law Consultant Kevin J Murphy explains that if there is a contractual requirement upon an employee to disclose medical conditions which may affect their ability to do their job and the employee has concealed it, there is action you can take.
He explains: “A deliberate concealment can mean that the contract is void if there was a requirement to disclose detailed within it. Further, an employer could rely on the employee’s dishonesty as a reason for dismissal, but might need evidence of their decision to hide their illness.”
“Any dismissal on either of these grounds should still follow the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures to assist the employer to evidence that the dismissal is not based on the employee having a disability – but their dishonesty.”
Matthew from Consensus HR adds: “By thinking through the functions involved with specific job roles and adding clauses to the contract of employment, employers can achieve protection for their organisations whilst supporting the individuals involved. It’s important to get the HR basics right.”
Mental health issues within the workplace is a complex subject and one that is very important to both businesses and people. Further details are available within our article: Employees with Mental Health Issues Face a Lack of Support and Discrimination.
If you would like to find out more and discuss your organisation’s circumstances, contact Matthew on 01462 621243 or email firstname.lastname@example.org for an informal, no-obligation discussion.