Menu

Employment Law

Pride

Employers urged to avoid tokenism during Pride month

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

HR Inform part of our Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) has written a great article this month: Employers urged to avoid tokenism during Pride month and explains how businesses should ensure that their teams are managed correctly and that the correct behaviours and actions take place continually and and are the norm and not an exception.

Within this blog we talk about how to avoid tokenism during Pride month:

  • Learn about LGBTIQ+ employment rights
  • Review your policies
  • Mind your language
  • Back up your words with training and processes

As we all know it is easy to post a rainbow flag on social media for Pride month, but this act alone isn’t going to help the fight for equality. You don’t want to make a public gesture if you don’t have a supportive environment to go with it.

To create good relations with your staff, have better retention rates and avoid legal risk, you need to go beyond tokenism. Here’s how to get started.

avoid tokenism during Pride month

Learn about LGBTIQ+ employment rights

 

First, make sure you know your legislation. There are certain laws in place to protect staff from discrimination. The main law you need to know is the Equality Act 2010.

This protects people from being discriminated against because of these protected characteristics: age, sex, race, disability, religion, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership and pregnancy and maternity.

This law applies – in any public and business setting – to all workers, not just employees.

It’s important that staff know their legal rights and you understand your legal obligation to uphold this legislation in your workplace. Or, you risk facing discrimination claims down the line.

The Equality Act 2010 outlines the types of discrimination that staff are protected from.

  • Direct discrimination – you are treated unfavourably because of any protected characteristics.
  • Indirect discrimination – you are at a disadvantage because of workplace policies or ways of working that discriminate against or exclude any protected characteristics.
  • Harassment – you are offended, humiliated, or degraded by someone because of any protected characteristics.
  • Victimisation – you are treated badly for making or supporting a discrimination claim.

As you can see from the above, there are different ways that someone can experience discrimination. It doesn’t just happen directly. You could indirectly discriminate without realising.

For example, it could be something as simple as how your system is set up. You might not allow staff to update their details – but this might prevent trans staff from being able to use their preferred name.

 

Review your workplace policies to make sure there are no inclusion barriers. It’s key to look at your policies on parental leave and adoption, and other family policies. Make sure they’re inclusive of all gender identities and sexualities.

You should also have a policy on equality and diversity that outlines:

  • the Equality Act 2010
  • your attitude towards equality and discrimination
  • the work environment you want to create
  • your zero-tolerance for discrimination and what will happen if anyone discriminates, i.e. disciplinary action.

Make sure the language you use in your policies is inclusive too. 

Review your policies

Mind your language

The language you use is important – not just in your policies but in how you communicate at work.

People use non-inclusive language every day, such as:

  • gendered greetings – ‘hey guys, ladies, gentlemen’ – this excludes people who don’t fall into a gender binary. It’s better to say ‘hi all/folks/friends/everyone’
  • inviting people’s girlfriends, boyfriends, wives, or husbands to work events – never assume that someone is heterosexual. It’s best to say partner or spouse
  • gendered job roles and phrases – such as best man for the job, mankind, chairman or barman. Instead, say best person for the job, humankind, chairperson, or bartender
  • referring to someone’s sexual preference – never refer to someone’s sexuality or gender identity as a lifestyle choice or preference. Instead, say sexuality or sexual orientation
  • using the gendered pronouns he/she – instead, use the neutral they/them.

So, you’ve got your policies in place and are using all the right words, what now? At the end of the day, words are just words. To make a real difference, you need to make sure that staff hear and understand your policies.

It’s a good idea to back your words up with diversity training and robust processes.

Diversity training helps staff become aware of their own assumptions and prejudices. It stresses the importance of equality and diversity, and can also help you to boost awareness, build staff morale and stay legally compliant.

And if staff feel victimised, how will you help? Make sure your staff know the processes you have in place to support them and that you will back up your words with action.

Back up your words with training and processes

Let us help you with the development of your team. We at Consensus HR can work with you to write and implement a company specific development program. Get in contact now!!!!

We are here to help.

Further blogs: Over the past years we have written a number of blogs on this subject which can be viewed by clicking here:

avoid tokenism during Pride month

Employers ensuring they avoid tokenism during Pride month

Horseplay

Employment Law Newsletter – March 2022

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

As part of quarterly newsletters, this newsletter covers:
  1. Horseplay and Vicarious Liability
  2. Holiday pay and the Gig Economy
  3. The Great Resignation
  4. Climate Friendly Employment Contracts
Employment Law Newsletter

1. Horseplay and Vicarious Liability

Mr Heath detonated two explosive pellets close to Mr Chell causing injury to his hearing. This happened in the workplace, namely on the premises of Tarmac. Were Tarmac vicariously liable as employer? In the case of Chell v Tarmac, Mr Chell claimed they were. He cited a history of friction between fitters employed directly by Tarmac, and others by Roltech – rivalries arose.

The potential vicarious liability of an employer is relevant where an employee causes injury in the context of work. Obviously employers, being insured, have deeper pockets than employees so the injured party will often look to the employer for recompense. 

Mr Chell considered there was a close enough connection between Mr Heath’s action and the work he undertook for Tarmac. However the Court disagreed, there was not a close enough connection. The Court drew an analogy between the employer’s potential liability and the expected subject matter of a risk assessment – horseplay, ill-discipline and malice are not matters usually included. Those are acts the employee must know are outside the behaviour expected in the workplace.

There is a long history of cases on employers’ vicarious liability. Vicarious liability has two basic requirements:

  1. A relationship between the employer and the individual who caused the injury
  2. A connection between this relationship and the wrongdoer’s act

How do these two basic requirements relate to the following scenarios?

  • A prisoner in a prison kitchen injures a prison employee. Does the prisoner have a sufficient relationship with the employer?
  • An employee in a petrol station violently attacks a customer. Is the violent attack connected to his employment?
  • An employee in a body shop sprays a fellow employee with thinners and then lights a lighter. Is the resulting conflagration connected to his employment?

In the case of Cox v Ministry of Justice 2016 the Court considered a relationship other than one of employment. Mrs Cox worked as a catering manager in a prison kitchen. She supervised staff in the kitchen, including prisoners. A prisoner accidentally dropped a sack of rice on her, injuring her back. The Court considered the following questions:

  1. Was the activity which caused the injury undertaken on behalf of the defendant and part of the business activity of the defendant
  2. Did the employer create the risk of the accident happen by allowing the prisoner to carry out the activity?

In this case the Court held the employer was vicariously liable.  

In the case of Muhamud v WM Morrisons Supermarkets plc 2016, a Morrisons’ employee, Mr Khan, violently assaulted a customer who had asked him a question to which he took exception. The Court held Mr Khan’s job was to attend to customers and respond to them. His conduct was inexcusable but within the field of activities assigned to him. The employer was vicariously liable.

In Graham v Commercial Bodyworks Limited 2015 Mr Wilkinson sprayed thinners on the overalls of his friend and co-worker Mr Graham and lit a cigarette lighter. Mr Graham’s overall caught light and he was injured. The Court held that Mr Wilkinson’s actions bore no resemblance to the work for which he was employed. Accordingly the employer was found not to be vicariously liable for Mr Graham’s injuries.  

Exclusivity
Flexible Working Request
Employment Law Newsletter
Vicarious Liability

2. Holiday Pay and the Gig Economy

When it gets hot

Gary Smith has been back in Court against Pimlico Plumbers, this time claiming unpaid holiday pay.

In 2018 Gary Smith went to Court to establish he was not self-employed but a worker. He worked solely for Pimlico Plumbers and was sent out in one of their vans to do work on behalf of the company. Despite the company’s claim that Mr Smith was self-employed and as a skilled worker was in a strong bargaining position, he succeeded in his claim.

Workers do not enjoy the same rights as employees but nonetheless they do have entitlements for example to the national minimum wage and to paid holidays. Mr Smith worked with Pimlico Plumbers between 2005 and 2011 during which time he took unpaid holidays. In his most recent case he claimed £74,000 in unpaid holiday pay and succeeded.

The lesson to employers is to be sure of the status of those who carry out work for you.

3. The Great Resignation

Employees are leaving their jobs in record numbers, sometimes leaving the workforce entirely. Vacancies are at records levels. According to the Office for National Statistics they hit a record of 1,247,000 in October to December 2021.

Why are employees resigning in record numbers? Many causes are cited: lack of hybrid working, a mandatory return to the workplace, a perceived preference of office bound workers over homeworkers. Ultimately it could be the pandemic – employees are more focussed on their work life balance.

Employers can take steps to recruit and to retain employees. They can offer:

  • extra holiday entitlement
  • extra parental leave
  • financial incentives to attend interviews
  • financial incentives to complete a period of probation
  • electric vehicle charging points
  • cycle to work benefits

Perhaps even pet adoption leave.

This year around thirty UK employers will take part in a six month trial on a four day working week. Employees will work four days and will not receive a pay cut. It is anticipated

  • sickness absences will decrease
  • employees will remain fresher and more motivated
  • staff retention will improve
  • staff turnover will reduce
  • productivity will increase

Trials are ongoing in the US, Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In 2023 a trial will proceed in Scotland. In Belgium employees will soon be entitled to work a four day week with no loss of wages – employees can request this working arrangement and employers can turn it down but they must provide written reasons, and they must be reasonable. And in Iceland 85% of the workforce has already opted to work a four day week. Across Europe the workplace is changing.

Resignation
Resignation
Resignation

4. Climate Friendly Employment Contracts

Contracts
weather

Last month the UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, said the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report represents an “atlas of human suffering and a damning indictment of failed climate leadership.” He went on to say, “Nearly half of humanity is living in the danger zone – now. Many ecosystems are at the point of no return – now. Unchecked carbon pollution is forcing the world’s most vulnerable on a frog march to destruction – now.’

 

How can employers and employees take effective action at this troubling time? Much can be done to reduce the carbon footprint of businesses and of employees. Perhaps it’s time to look at contracts of employment, to include in them a focus on climate, Net Zero and sustainability? This will lead to benefits for employer, employee and planet.

 

Visit the Chancery Lane Project website for contract clauses with solutions to climate change. Here you will find clauses not only to add to employment contracts but to commercial agreements. Take for example “Athena’s Clause”, a set of Employee Climate Engagement Provisions requiring the employer to provide, and the employee to participate in, a routine of regular climate education and awareness-raising training during working hours. Employees can learn and businesses can prosper. Possibilities for education include:

  • the latest climate science including the projected impacts of global warming of 2 degrees as opposed to 1.5 degrees
  • the Paris Agreement
  • economic and health benefits of reducing the workplace’s environmental impact and carbon footprint.
  • sustainable lifestyle changes such as energy efficiency, digital meetings, food and travel choices, renewable energy and smart waste management
  • extreme weather events, climate change and immigration, protection and enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystems, low carbon technology innovations
  • A further option is for the employer to publish metrics internally on its carbon footprint and behavioural changes, together with any avoided emissions for example from travel or utilities or resource use.

Also of interest to employers and employees is the Chancery Lane Project’s Net Zero Culture Employment Handbook. This provides Net Zero and sustainability clauses for employment handbooks. These issues can permeate all levels of the employment relationship and encourage development of a Net Zero culture in the company.

And can “Garden leave” be productive? “Eric’s Clause” repurposes Garden leave and employee sabbaticals as opportunities to volunteer with environmental organisations by integrating climate-conscious employer-employee obligations into employment contracts.

 

Contact us for free advice on the issues raised in this Newsletter. In this thirty-minute session we will review your situation and how you can achieve your objectives. The topics covered in this Newsletter are complex and are provided for general guidance only. Therefore, if any of the circumstances mentioned in this Newsletter have application to you, seek expert legal advice.

Covid-19

Is it the end of Covid-19?

, ,

Mental Health

“Well, the past two years have been very interesting since the start of Covid-19 which I remember well when out celebrating my birthday on March 17 in Cambridge and the following day seeing the beginning of the effects of the Covid-19 and shutting down of the economy.  However, is it now the end? or will another variant raise its head?  These are questions we or the scientists do not have the answers to but yesterday the Prime Minister – Boris, announced:” (Matthew)

“Covid restrictions will end in England on 24 February 2022″

People with Covid-19 symptoms will be encouraged to exercise personal responsibility, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said, after all legal restrictions in England are lifted on Thursday 24 February.

“Restrictions pose a heavy toll on our economy, our society, our mental wellbeing, and the life chances of our children,” he said. “And we do not need to pay that cost any longer.”

This will mean an end to the legal requirement to self-isolate following a positive test which in turn means that the Government will stop self-isolation support payments, although Covid provisions for Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) can still be claimed for a further month.

In addition, Mr Johnson went on, the provision of free rapid testing would, from 1 April, be targeted to certain sections of the population. Routine contact tracing will stop and fully vaccinated close contacts and those under 18 will no longer be asked to test daily for seven days.

A summary of the changes is provided below.

From 24 February 2022:

  • The legal requirement to self-isolate upon a positive test will be removed
  • However, until 1 April 2022, those testing positive are advised to stay at home for 5 days
  • Covid SSP rules will remain in place until 24 March 2022. From that date, pre-pandemic SSP rules will apply. This means that SSP will no longer be payable from day 1 for Covid related absence
  • The legal requirement for workers to inform their employer that they are required to self-isolate will be removed.

Changes in legislation

The Government intends to expire all temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act.

Of the original 40, 20 have already expired, 16 will expire on 24 March, and the last four, relating to innovations in public service, will expire six months later, after those improvements have been made permanent via other means.

(HR Inform – 21st February 2022)
Employment Law
Covid-19
When it gets hot

Smith v Pimlico Plumbers: Holiday pay – indefinite carry over for unpaid leave

, , , , ,

Pimlico Plumbers

 

 

This is an Employment Tribunal (ET) case that goes back to 2018 when the Supreme Court held that ‘Smith’ was a worker and not Self-Employed.  Status of members of a company’s team has been a very topical subject over the past with this case and Pimlico Plumbers, Uber, Addison Leigh to name a few and employers must ensure they get this right or could have to face expensive consequences such as was in this case and the employee being awarded by the Court of Appeal, four weeks of annual leave for every year of his employment which was payable to him.

 

This case involving ‘Smith’ goes through all the stages an employee can exercise once they have two years continuous employment including:

  • Employment Tribunal (ET) – 2018
  • Employment Appeals Tribunal
  • Court of Appeal – (The Court of Appeal is the highest court within the Senior Courts of England and Wales and deals only with appeals from other courts or tribunals.

It is divided into two Divisions, criminal and civil, and is based at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. The judges of the Court of Appeal are the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division, the President of the Family Division, the Chancellor of the High Court and the Lord or Lady Justices (currently 38 in number).

There are three main types of employment:

  • Worker
  • Employee
  • Self-Employed

In this most recent case involving Smith it was found that due to the way / circumstances it had been handled resulted in the Court of Appeal (COA) permitting ‘Smith’ to recover compensation for ALL of the leave throughout his employment as it was found that he and his colleagues were Workers.  This is an example of ‘Worker’ status in the gig economy and the ever-changing business world.  ‘Smith’ since he started his claim against his employer ‘Pimlico Plumbers’ in 2018 again successfully challenged his now ex-employer in relation to unpaid pay for the entirety of his employment.

The law in relation to this can be found below:

The Working Time Regulations 1998

Regulation 13 – Entitlement to annual leave

(1)    Subject to paragraph (5), a worker is entitled to four weeks annual leave in each leave year.

(2)    … (9) Leave to which a worker is entitled under this regulation may be taken in instalments, but –

(a) it may only be taken in the leave year in respect of which it is due, and

(b) it may not be replaced by a payment in lieu except where the worker’s employment is terminated…”

Regulation 14 – Compensation in relation to leave entitlement in the year of termination:  

(1) This regulation applies where –

(a) a worker’s employment is terminated during the course of his leave year, and              

(b) on the date on which the termination takes effect (“the termination date”) the proportion he has taken of the leave to which he is entitled in the leave year under regulation 13 and regulation 13A differs from the proportion of the leave year which has expired.

(2) Where the proportion of leave taken by the worker is less than the proportion of the leave year which has expired, his employer shall make him a payment in lieu of leave in accordance with paragraph (3). …

Regulation 16(1) – Payment in respect of periods of leave

  • A worker is entitled to be paid in respect of any period of annual leave to which he is entitled under regulation 13 and regulation 13A, at the rate of a week’s pay in respect of each week of the leave.

King v Sash Window Holdings

In this case on unpaid holiday pay, that went as far as the European Court of Justice (ECJ), it was held that where holiday has not been taken because the worker was not permitted to do so, then this holiday will carry over indefinitely, even where the leave was not given because the employer wrongly believed the individual was not legally a worker. 

HR Inform – 4th november 2022 DISCUSSES FURTHER:

Face to Face
Exclusivity
Working Time Directive

FACTS

The claimant was employed by the respondent from 2005 to 2011. Initially agreeing to be an employee, the respondent later treated him as a self-employed independent contractor. His status as a worker had already been established by the Supreme Court in an earlier decision, and this case was as a result of the respondents failure to pay for holiday pay for the duration of the employment.

As a self-employed contractor, paid leave was not given. The claimant did, however, from time to time, take unpaid leave from his work. Therefore, the question for the employment tribunal (ET), and ultimately the Court of Appeal (CoA) was whether or not the respondent was liable to pay for leave that had been taken, but not paid, and if so, how far back he would be able to claim?

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (ET) AND EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL (EAT)

The ET rejected the claimants holiday pay claim on jurisdictional grounds, as the claim was out of time, as a claim should have been brought within three months of the last time, he had taken unpaid leave, rather than within three months of the end of employment. The decision in King was rejected by the ET in that it permitted a claim in respect of all annual leave accrued throughout the employment to be made on termination.

The subsequent appeal was dismissed, finding the ET was correct in its findings, and that King was not concerned with leave that was taken, but not paid. Instead, it concerned the right to carry over, until termination, annual leave that is not taken because of the employer’s failure to pay for it.

COURT OF APPEAL (COA)

It was held by the CoA that he could recover compensation for all of the leave, throughout his employment. There was, therefore, no need to distinguish between that leave which was taken, but not paid for, and not taken at all.

It was found that the principles in King allowed for the indefinite carry over and accumulation of untaken leave forming the four weeks ‘Euro’ leave could also be applied to leave that was taken, but unpaid. Therefore, on termination of employment, four weeks of annual leave for every year of his employment was payable to him.

Contact us for further details

Click Here
Chicken Nuggets

When three chicken nuggets cost £6,000.

,

Chicken Nuggets
Chicken Nuggets

Contact Us Now.

This is a recent unfair dismissal case that cost an employer dearly!

The chicken nugget situation, when three are not enough and costs an Employer £6,000.00!

A recent case involving a customer service advisor who was accused of becoming “aggressive and violent” has recently been awarded more than £6,000 for unfair dismissal, loss of statutory rights, wrongful dismissal, and an unreasonable failure to follow the Acas Code of Practice.

In this case, which can be fully read here: Case No:  4111842/2019 – Mr Steven Smith v Teleperformance Limited involved an employee who had a respiratory issue which caused his face to go red and happened when he was accused of becoming “aggressive and violent” over the fact he had been given less chicken nuggets that other employees, three in this case.

 

This case clearly highlights the importance of ensuring that employers follow the Acas Code of Practice correctly and fully investigate matters that arise whilst ensuring that anyone who may have been in the vicinity of the alleged act of Gross or Misconduct are investigated as part of the overall Investigation process into the allegations or failure could result in a £6000 plus award.

Employers need to remember that HR is covered by civil law and the balance of probabilities and that they have acted reasonably and fairly and that they do not fall out of the “range of responses open to a reasonable employer” – Employment Judge Hoey.  Employers need to fully investigate and ensure the correct records are kept for future reference when making a reasonable decision based on the investigation and facts obtained.

Contact Us
Working from home

Keeping up with the latest Employment Law – September 2021

,

Save

This Employment Law Newsletter covers:

  • Social Media

  • No Jab, No Job

  • Discrimination and Hypersensitivity

  • UK Right to Work

  • Hybrid Working

Employment Law

1. Social Media

Can your social media posts get you into trouble at work? You may have heard that England lost the 2020 Euro final 3-2 on penalties. Heart breaking – but then the racist tweets began. Arrests have followed and a high-profile estate agents suspended an alleged racist tweeter.

  • Does your organisation have a social media policy?
  • Doubling down on privacy settings isn’t always the solution – screenshots can easily be taken and shared
  • Workers should check their posts for discriminatory remarks and harassment

If a worker claims unfair dismissal, the Employment Tribunal must consider three aspects of the employer’s conduct as set out in the test in British Home Stores -v- Burchell

  1. Did the employer carry out an investigation into the matter reasonable in the circumstances of the case?
  2. Did the employer genuinely believe the employee was guilty of the misconduct complained of?
  3. Did the employer have reasonable grounds for that belief?

If the answer to each of these questions is “yes”, the Tribunal must apply the band of reasonable responses test. Did the employer act within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer?

In Game Retail Ltd v Laws the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that, “Generally speaking, workers have the right to express themselves providing it does not infringe on their employment and/or is outside the work context. That said, we recognise that those questions might themselves depend on the particular employment or work in question.”

In the case of Plant v AP1, a disgruntled worker posted, “PMSL [pissing myself laughing] bloody place I need to hurry up and sue them PMSL”. The worker’s dismissal was found to be fair as the post was in contravention of the employer’s social media policy. This set out the damage that could be caused to the company’s reputation. It reminded workers conversations between friends on Facebook were not private. It concluded that any breach would be taken seriously and might lead to disciplinary action, and serious breaches would be considered as gross misconduct and subject to summary dismissal.

In Austin v A1 the worker – a paint sprayer – had an argument with the MD. The worker shared his feelings on social media. “I don’t think I’m a bad person but I don’t think I have ever felt so low in my life after my boss’s comments today.” The Employment Tribunal held that the claimant had simply expressed his personal opinion. He succeeded in his claim and was awarded a basic award of £3600 and compensatory award of £24,960. 

2. No Jab No Job

Rumour and speculation abound about the role of vaccines in the workplace. Is the Government encouraging employers to crack down on the unvaccinated? Are vegans going to refuse to be vaccinated?

Government ministers recently seemed to encourage employers to set rules that workers be vaccinated. This came up because Google and Facebook in the US have ruled that workers can only access premises if vaccinated.

But there’s no legislation to back up these suggestions. If employers do insist on vaccination, workers may well claim unfair dismissal and evidence of ministers’ comments won’t help the employer.

Employment Law

Would a worker succeed in a claim? It depends on the risk involved in the work setting but employers run the risk of being discriminatory. Workers may claim they’ve avoided vaccination because of belief, religion or disability.

Rather than risk breaking trust with workers another approach is suggested: perhaps workers are vaccine hesitant and need information? Workers want their workplaces to be safe too and are keen for workplace testing and adequate pay for self-isolating.

Could vegans claim a protected belief namely ethical veganism to avoid vaccination (all vaccines are tested on animals)? The Vegan Society encourages everyone to be vaccinated.

Legislation comes into effect on 1 November that workers in care homes must be vaccinated. The only exemption is on the grounds of health reasons. Religious or philosophical belief are not covered.

Employment Law

3. Discrimination & "Hypersensitivity"

To what extent do workers have to put up with “blunt” comments and “direct” management styles?

In-house counsel, Miss Sithirapathy, claimed she’d been discriminated against by her employer PSI CRO UK Ltd. PSI is based in the UK and Switzerland and provides services to customers involved in clinical trials.

Miss Sithirapathy was employed in London. A Swiss manager, Mr Schmidt, proposed a transfer to the Swiss office. When Miss Sithirapathy queried the salary he said she couldn’t be paid more because of her age. She responded she couldn’t take up the offer anyway –

for personal reasons – and he countered she wasn’t married and didn’t have children. Mr Schmidt went on to relate an anecdote about the tolerance extended to lesbians who worked in the Swiss office.

The following year she sought promotion to senior legal counsel but was told her appraisal, although satisfactory, indicated she wasn’t ready to be promoted: she was still at the beginning of her professional career.

Miss Sithirapathy was informed of a non-legal vacancy in Switzerland. She exchanged emails with Mr Schmidt, said she was keen and resigned from the London branch. She took up a position within Finance and Administration in Switzerland but lost her job after a month in a reorganisation. Subsequently she claimed that during her short time at the Swiss office she’d been sexually harassed. Mr Schmidt was to drive her to an appointment and she found herself outside a lift and about to get into it with him and didn’t immediately understand the necessity. She hesitated and Schmidt said, “What’s wrong? Are you scared?”

Miss Sithirapathy claimed:

  • direct discrimination because of sex and/or age
  • sexual harassment
  • harassment related to age and/or sexual orientation
  • victimisation

The Employment Tribunal accepted that in Switzerland there’s generally a link between age and salary. Also that Mr Schmidt had personal information about Miss Sithirapathy because it was relevant to relocation costs. He said he’d have made the same comments to a male employee and had mentioned the lesbian anecdote to explain that sexuality or other personal circumstances of employees are not an issue for the company. The Tribunal said Mr Schmidt’s comments were “bluntly put”. Mr Schmidt said of his comments by the lift that he was referring to his driving.

The Tribunal held that Mr Schmidt’s comments were unfortunate and awkward. “However we bear in mind the importance of not encouraging a culture of hypersensitivity or of imposing legal liability to every unfortunate phrase”.

As for her claim of age discrimination, the Tribunal held she was two and a half years into her first legal counsel role and still at an early stage of her career. Her appraisal demonstrated she wasn’t ready for a senior legal counsel role. “The same comments would have been made to someone who was at the same career stage as the claimant, whatever their age. Using the words ‘still young’ in this context was another way of saying the claimant was at the beginning of her professional career and was not a detriment to the claimant.”

Mr Schmidt’s comment, “What’s wrong? Are you scared?” was not conduct of a sexual nature. It was “an awkward remark intended as a joke … Although the claimant felt uncomfortable and intimidated, this comment did not, objectively, have the effect of violating her dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her.”

The Tribunal concluded that the two managers concerned “both have quite direct management styles. Mr Schmidt in particular spoke very bluntly to the claimant … However we have concluded that they did not cross the line such as to amount to unlawful harassment”

4. UK Right to Work

Employers have the duty to check the immigration and right to work status of all workers before employment or face fines of up to £20,000 and potential criminal liability for directors. But the guidance on checking right to work, the pandemic and the settled status scheme have made everything complicated. Employers have to get to grips with reams of guidance depending on the date of employment and the status of the employee.

If workers are EU citizens they have the right to work if they have either settled status, pre settled status or a work permit. But there are 400,000 outstanding settled status applications and possibly hundreds of thousands of EU citizens working in this country who are unaware they should have applied for settled status. The Home Office granted a concession of 28 days from 30 June 2021 but there may well still be hundreds of thousands who do not have status.

Training and Development

If a settled status application is pending, workers may be able to rely on section 3c leave, although this is by no means clear. This prevents applicants from being regarded as overstayers whilst they await their decision. The uncertainly surrounding this area may lead to a raft of unfair dismissal claims.

At the moment employers can check workers’ right to work status virtually; eg through online meetings. These arrangements were due to end on 31 August 2021 but have now been extended to 5th April 2022. But working at home is now embedded and commentators wonder whether this virtual scheme should be made permanent.

There is also of course the points system. If employers do not follow this system correctly, here too they risk claims.

Newsletter

5. Hybrid Working

Many workers have come to value the option of working at home for part of the week. They find they’re more productive and the routine fits well around their lives.

ACAS has issued guidance on hybrid working. Employers opting for hybrid working will need to change contracts of employment with workers’ agreement. Hence it’s advisable to consult – in some circumstances it’s the law to consult with the workforce. Consultation improves relations, builds trust and irons out problems in advance.

When creating a hybrid working policy it’s important to consider:

  • Which roles are appropriate
  • Maximum number of days
  • A non-discriminatory procedure for requesting hybrid employment
  • Equipment to be provided and its insurance
  • Risk assessments
  • Keeping home workers in the loop by means of online meetings
  • Equal opportunities for promotion, training etc

Contact Us for further information

National Minimum Wage change

EMPLOYMENT LAW NEWSLETTER MAY 2021

, , , , , , , , ,

Home-Start
Award

 

We are proud to be Trustees of Home-Start & recent winners of SME News – 2021 UK Enterprise Awards – Best SME – Focused HR Consultancy 2021 – Home Counties.

Enjoy our latest Newsletter

Discrimination

 

This newsletter covers:

  1. Working from Home

  2. Fire and Rehire

  3. Gig Economy

  4. Sleep ins

  5. Line of Duty?

1.Working from Home

The popularity of remote working is on the rise but there are pitfalls for both employer and worker.

The Office for National Statistics in its report Homeworking hours, rewards and opportunities in the UK: 2011 to 2020 found that 35.9 percent of the UK workforce worked some of their time at home in 2020, an increase of 9.4 percent over the previous year. But this was not spread evenly over the country or the economy. For example, those who worked at home earned about 20 percent more than those who didn’t, and there was more homeworking in the South East than in the North East of England. IT, professional, scientific and technical, and financial services roles were top for homeworking. Unsurprisingly it was least seen in accommodation and food services.

What are the pros and cons of home working? The upside is that work-life balance is improved, and domestic and childcare roles particularly those of women make it a good fit. It saves journeys which is important for the environment, and, the ONS found, leads to less sick leave.

But homeworkers work longer hours – often in the evening – and are less likely to receive a bonus or to be promoted. They also find it harder to log off.

But homeworking is definitely here to stay. A recent study by Microsoft The Next Great Disruption Is Hybrid Work – Are We Ready? suggests that flexible remote working will continue but that employers need to make adjustments.

  • 70 percent of workers want flexible remote work options to continue, but at the same time over 65 percent crave more in-person time with their teams
  • Business leaders have done better in the last year than workers further down the organisation, many of whom report they’ve been struggling. This is particularly true of those aged between 18 and 25
  • Workforce productivity is high, but so is exhaustion. Many workers report they feel overworked. The “barrage of communications” – online meetings and calls – doesn’t help
  • It’s harder to collaborate outside the daily network, which means groupthink can set in which hinders innovation
  • But seeing co-workers’ homes, children and pets at online meetings has humanised the workplace and forged stronger connections.

Employers may need to rethink working arrangements to provide flexibility and support for workers.

The Right to Disconnect

Recent polling by Prospect, the union for professionals, has found that two thirds of workers want the right to disconnect. The union proposes this right be enshrined in law. A new Employment Bill has been promised since the Queen’s Speech in December 2019 but has been delayed by the pandemic. This could oblige employers to negotiate boundaries with workers – when are they available to be contacted and when are they not.

In Ireland all workers have the right to disconnect from work and to have a better work-life balance. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy says the new Employment Bill will include measures to help people balance work with their personal lives. But there’s nothing stopping employers taking action in advance of any legislation.

2.Fire and Rehire

The furlough scheme ends in September and many employers will be planning how to keep their businesses profitable. Workers fear they will lose their jobs, and women are likely to feature disproportionately in the redundancy statistics.

And there’s also the phenomenon of “fire and rehire”. Also called “dismissal and re-engagement”, the motivation is to fire workers and rehire them on terms more favourable to the employer. This isn’t unlawful but employers may find workers lodging claims in the employment tribunal.

According to a recent Trades Union Congress report, since March 2020 nearly one in ten workers have been told to reapply for their jobs on worse terms and conditions or to face the sack. BME and young workers have principally been targeted, and Parliament’s Transport Committee has criticised British Airways’ fire and rehire tactics. The Unite union has dubbed the practice “bullying” and has launched a national campaign to outlaw it. Fire and rehire is already banned in Ireland and Spain.

 

Meanwhile ACAS has issued guidance on its site, Changing an employment contract – When changes are not agreed. Employers should consider whether the changes are really necessary and if they are:

  • Try hard over an extended period of time to reach an agreement with their worker
  • Consider the damage to workplace morale, and the risk of legal proceedings
  • Follow fair dismissal procedures including the right of appeal, and give the lawful amount of notice

  1. Gig Economy

Holiday pay and national minimum wage – isn’t everyone entitled? Yes, if they’re employed or classed as a worker. But an underclass of so called “self-employed” has grown up thanks to big firms operating in the gig economy. Research suggests almost half a million workers are wrongly categorised as self-employed.

A group of Addison Lee drivers claim they aren’t self-employed but are workers. In 2017 they succeeded in the Employment Tribunal. In 2018 the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the decision on the ground that if the drivers didn’t accept work they had to explain why and could be penalised. The case recently concluded with an unsuccessful appeal by Addison Lee to the Supreme Court. The drivers are workers and are entitled to the national minimum wage from time they log on, and Addison Lee will have to pay an average of £10,000 to thousands of workers. Lawyers said this represented “another blow to big firms operating in the gig economy”.

Another success for workers in the gig economy was recorded for Uber drivers. The Supreme Court recently held they were workers rather than self-employed, and are entitled to the national minimum wage – including backpay of the minimum wage – from the moment they turn on their app. And they will of course be entitled to paid holidays.

Help for gig workers is on the horizon. The long-awaited Employment Bill will protect gig workers with a right to request guaranteed working hours. But commentators criticise this as not being the same as guaranteed working hours.

  1. Line of Duty?

“When did we stop caring about honesty and integrity” asked Superintendent Hastings in BBC’s popular drama, Line of Duty.

A recent case, Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset Constabulary v Eckland has highlighted that organised criminal gangs, corrupt police officers and missing evidence aren’t just the stuff of drama.

Detective Sergeant Nicholas Eckland joined the police in 1998. In 2018 whilst investigating organised crime networks he gave evidence at Bristol Crown Court as Senior Investigating Officer. His evidence concerned the death in prison of a defendant in a drug conspiracy, Mr W. DS Eckland said he’d identified the deceased, but this wasn’t accurate as he hadn’t visited the mortuary.

The Chief Constable appointed a panel to carry out a detailed investigation. DS Eckland said he’d feared for his life, blaming death threats and the existence of a corrupt colleague. He claimed this could be backed up by his notebooks but these went missing during the investigation. The panel held that DS Eckland’s inaccurate evidence to the Crown Court amounted to Discreditable Conduct “in that such conduct has a tendency to undermine public confidence in the integrity of evidence given by police officers in legal proceedings”.

He was dismissed for gross misconduct and brought a claim for disability discrimination against the Chief Constable claiming he was disabled by “depression and episodic paroxysmal anxiety”. A preliminary issue was recently decided. The Court held that the Chief Constable could be held liable for any discrimination committed by the panel that investigated Eckland.

line of duty
recruitment
Consensus HR
Human Resources

Contact us for free advice on the issues raised in this Newsletter. In this thirty-minute session we will review your situation and how you can achieve your objectives.

The topics covered in this Newsletter are complex and are provided for general guidance only. Therefore, if any of the circumstances mentioned in this Newsletter have application to you, seek expert legal advice.

4.Sleep ins

Another couple of long running cases have recently been decided, Mencap v Tomlinson-Blake and Shannon v Rampersad. Both concern the pay of workers in a caring role when they are asleep but available to give care.

Ms Tomlinson-Blake was employed by Mencap. She was occasionally required to sleep-in at a home for vulnerable adults in case her assistance was required during the night. She claimed payment for her sleep-in shifts, not just when she was working but when she was asleep. Mr Shannon lived on the top floor of a care home. He agreed to always be home between 10pm and 7am in case the night staff required assistance. He received a small payment and paid neither rent nor services for the flat. He too claimed payment for the entirety of his sleep-ins.

In 2109 the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld Ms Tomlinson-Blake’s claim to be paid when she was asleep but denied Mr Shannon’s claim. As a result, there were fears the sector would face claims for back pay of national minimum wage of £400m.

Mencap appealed as did Mr Shannon. The appeals were heard together. The Court held that although Ms Tomlinson-Blake and Mr Shannon were “available” for work when sleeping, they were not “working”. Unison sought leave to appeal.

Ms Tomlinson-Blake and Mr Shannon’s claims failed at the final hurdle of the Supreme Court. The Court distinguished between “actual work” and “availability for work” and held that the national minimum wage is only payable when the worker is awake and dealing with care needs.

Mencap states it only fought these cases because of the historical burden of underpaid national minimum wage and the devastating effect this would have on the sector and society at large. The charity pays its workers for sleep ins.

Mencap and Unison, although on opposing sides in the litigation, have written jointly to the Prime Minster calling for immediate reform of minimum wage laws affecting thousands of care workers. They said they are “united in the same vision” of a “properly funded care sector” and that “paying staff decent wages is a major part of this”. The Supreme Court’s finding is a “huge blow” to care workers and is likely to mean they will earn less.

National Minimum Wage Update

50 of UK Top Firms, not returning to the workplace

, ,

returning to the workplace

The BBC announced yesterday (6th May 2021) some research it had undertaken in relation to businesses and their employees returning to the workplace after Covid-19 restrictions are changed to allow this.

We wrote a blog on the 30th April titled ‘Moving to a Hybrid Organisation’ but what does the BBC report now show?

  • 50 of UK’s biggest firms asked
  • 43 of the firms said they would embrace a mix of home and office working, with staff encouraged to work from home two to three days a week.
  • with people working from home it is anticipated that 40% less space will be needed if employees work from home for a certain amount of days per week.
  • Danny Harmer, chief people officer at insurance giant Aviva – which has 16,000 UK workers – said 95% of its workers said they would like to be able to spend some of their time working flexibly and remotely in different locations.
  • Recruitment firm Adecco, which has 34,000 UK workers, said about four-fifths of its staff now work remotely.
  • The firms contacted by the BBC covered 1.1 million workers in the UK.

What does this mean to your business?   

Has your team been working the majority of the time from home during the Pandmic? 

  • How are you going to make the changes, if any? 
  • How will you consult with the team? 
  • What changes will you have to make to their Contracts & Terms & Conditions? 
  • Do you need to make any changes?

These are just a few of the questions we are now starting to get asked by our clients prior to the end of Furlough and the end of September.  Is your business ready to deal with the major changes to work?

For an informal no-obligation chat, contact us today.

Our six Company values:

INTEGRITY | SERVICE | ADVENTURE | TEAM | SUPPORTIVE | OPEN & TRANSPARENT

returning to the workplace

We are a personal, unique HR & Employment Law service, helping employers who cannot support their own in-house Human Resources department. 

Our monthly packages are designed to be affordable and scales with your business as you grow.

We hold the highest Employment Law qualifications (Level 7) with our Chartered Institute and all our advice is fully professionally liability insured and accredited by the CIPD and other leading professional bodies, including the Solicitors Regulation Authority and Bar Standards Board.

We have a range of experiences within all UK business sectors both front & back of house from fast footfall, high turnover retail, hotels & catering and pharmaceuticals to Post Production & Advertising.

We are based in Stevenage, Hertfordshire and cover surrounding areas including Bedfordshire & Cambridgeshire. Get in touch today to see how Consensus HR can help.

heidi-fin-QvPRGI8LfOc-unsplash

‘Sleep-in shift’ Care worker’s lose court challenge

, , ,

Work from home

A recent Supreme Court case involving ‘Sleep-in shift’ Care worker’s brought by Clare Tomlinson-Blake against the learning disability charity, Mencap has ruled that Care workers across the UK who have to sleep at their workplace in case they are needed are not entitled to the minimum wage for their whole shift, the Supreme Court has ruled.   If won, it could have resulted in an estimated £400m bill for backpay,

This is following two cases which commenced in 2017 & which were both appealed and subsequently as a the last available option taken to the Supreme Court, where Lady Arden said that “sleep-in workers… are not doing time work for the purposes of the national minimum wage if they are not awake”.

A report By Alison Holt Social Affairs Correspondent, BBC News on the 19th March 2021 discusses further  & can be found by clicking here.

Employers need to ensure that they follow the Working Time Directive 1998 (WTCD) – Directive 2003/88/EC to ensure legal compliance when dealing with employee hours & days of work.

A range of blogs we have written on the WTD over the years can be found on our website by using the search option (magnifying glass, top right corner) or clicking here.

We are a personal, unique HR & Employment Law service, helping employers who cannot support their own in-house Human Resources department. 

Our monthly packages are designed to be affordable and scales with your business as you grow.

We hold the highest Employment Law qualifications (Level 7) with our Chartered Institute and all our advice is fully professionally liability insured and accredited by the CIPD and other leading professional bodies, including the Solicitors Regulation Authority and Bar Standards Board.

We have a range of experiences within all UK business sectors both front & back of house from fast footfall, high turnover retail, hotels & catering and pharmaceuticals to Post Production & Advertising.

We are based in Stevenage, Hertfordshire and cover surrounding areas including Bedfordshire & Cambridgeshire. Get in touch today to see how Consensus HR can help.

 01438 310062
 
 [email protected]
 
 Business Material

Employment Law

Employment Law Newsletter – February 2021

, , , , , , , , , ,

This Employment Law newsletter covers:

  1. Vaccination and employment

  2. Asymptomatic testing

  3. Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme

  4. PPE for gig workers

  5. Gender reassignment

  6. Our FREE Webinar on Tuesday 23rd February @ 11am – Click here for further info & to book.

Employment Law Newsletter – February 2021

1.Vaccination and Employment

The UK’s vaccination programme is the way out of the pandemic although of course social distancing, mask wearing and PPE are going to be with us for some time yet. But what about employees who refuse to be vaccinated and their refusal is not based on valid medical grounds?

A first step for employers is to provide accurate information about the vaccination programme to the entire workforce and to update Covid-19 safe policies and risk assessments. The second step is to recognise there are two distinct groups who may be unwilling to be vaccinated, the “vaccine hesitant” – those anxious about vaccines – and the “anti-vaxxers” – those who spread conspiracy theories for example that the vaccination programme is intended to control us with microchips.

An employer can’t make it a condition of employment that employees must be vaccinated without risking claims in the employment tribunal. Employers have a duty to provide a Covid-19 safe workplace but if an employee’s employment is terminated for vaccine hesitancy their claim in the employment tribunal for unfair dismissal might succeed.

This is going to be a balancing act for employers. Much will depend on the circumstances of each employment and the employer’s Covid-19 safe policies and risk assessments. Can a vaccine hesitant employee work at home or be redeployed to an area where they do not come into contact with colleagues or customers?

Does an employee have a protected characteristic under the Equality Act which underlies their refusal? The Covid-19 vaccines do not contain pork or other animal ingredients and are endorsed by the British Islamic Medical Association, Hindu Council UK, and the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

Can employers dismiss anti-vaxxer employees who are intent on spreading their beliefs to their colleagues? Such behaviour could jeopardise safety in the workplace and should be addressed in a disciplinary procedure. It is unlikely that anti-vax is a belief protected under the Equality Act because although it may be genuinely held it is arguably not worthy of respect in a democratic society and it is in conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

When an employee provides information about their vaccination status this falls within special category data under GDPR and must be protected accordingly – see the ten-point checklist on the ico.org.uk website, “Special category data”.

Some employers may decide to introduce compulsory policies for existing employees and potential recruits – and risk the claims. But the overall message is not to confuse those who are vaccine hesitant with anti-vaxxers. Someone who is vaccine hesitant may be reassured with full and accurate information.

  1. Asymptomatic Testing

One in three cases of Covid-19 is asymptomatic. Identifying these cases is a crucial arm in the UK’s fight against the pandemic. Government is rolling out asymptomatic testing through local authorities who are prioritising those who cannot work from home. And some employers are rolling out their own schemes, see guidance on the gov.uk site, “A practical guide for employers who want to offer workplace testing for asymptomatic employees”.

Employers have a duty to provide a Covid-19 safe workplace. On the other hand employees have the right to respect for their private and family life under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. Mandating an asymptomatic test could lead to claims for unfair dismissal but employers might weigh this against the virus spreading through their workforce.

Providing accurate information about asymptomatic testing is key as is a detailed policy and risk assessment. The data gleaned is of course special category data under GDPR.

Employment Law
Employment Law

  1. Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme

The devil is, as ever, in the details and employers and employees alike are referred to guidance on the gov.uk site. In brief:

  • Government continues to pay 80% of wages under the scheme which closes on 30 April 2021. Will it be extended? There’s a Budget on 3 March
  • Home schooling – parents who stay at home to look after school age children are eligible for furlough
  • Furlough claims are now subject to a tight timetable
  • Employers who claim payments have been named online since 26 January. See “Employers who have claimed through the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme” on the gov.uk site, a step towards greater transparency and a guard against fraud. All claiming employers are listed unless there’s a “serious risk of violence or intimidation”
  • Furlough can’t be used to pay for contractual or statutory notice

  1. PPE for Gig Workers

Delivery drivers and other gig workers have kept the country going during the pandemic but unlike employees don’t have the necessary health and safety protections nor the right to PPE. The Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWUGB) has been to Court on their behalf and achieved a notable success.

In R (IWUGB) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the High Court ruled workers should have the same protections as employees (an anomaly which arose because the UK failed adequately to incorporate EU health and safety law including that relating to PPE). This important decision extends health and safety protections and the right to PPE to hundreds of thousands of workers including those in the gig economy.

Employers should:

  • Update workers’ contracts
  • Provide appropriate risk assessments, procedures and PPE for workers as well as employees
Employment Law
Employment Law Newsletter – February 2021

  1. Gender Reassignment Discrimination

The employment tribunal case of Rose Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Limited has thrown the spotlight on trans discrimination and employers should take careful note of its findings.

The Equality Act 2010 under section 7 protects against discrimination, harassment or victimisation on the basis of “gender reassignment”. If someone has this protected characteristic the following is unlawful:

  • Direct discrimination – treating someone worse because they are trans
  • Indirect discrimination – the organisation has a particular policy or way of working that puts trans workers at a disadvantage
  • Harassment – a trans worker would have a claim unless the employer could show they did everything it could to prevent this behaviour
  • Victimisation – for example being sacked for claiming harassment

A person has this protected characteristic if they propose to undergo or are undergoing or have undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of gender reassignment by changing physiological or other attributes of sex. Reassignment is a personal process and doesn’t have to involve medical intervention. In other words, cross dressing to express gender identity is protected.

 

In 2016 a Women and Equalities Committee report recommended that the terms “gender reassignment” and “transexual” were outdated and should be replaced with the umbrella term “trans”. The Equality Act has yet to be amended. 

Ms Taylor worked for twenty years at Jaguar Land Rover as an engineer, originally identifying as male. When she disclosed she was gender fluid and transitioning, and would most of the time dress as a woman but had no intention of undergoing surgery, she was subjected to discrimination and harassment. The employment tribunal held that Ms Taylor was on a journey of transition away from her birth sex and that the protections under the Equality Act extend to those who describe themselves as gender fluid, non-binary or transitioning.

The inability of the Jaguar Land Rover line managers and HR to support an employee transitioning in the workplace is notable and is a wakeup call to all employers. These managers did not have the necessary training and did not receive the necessary support themselves to support Ms Taylor for example in the question of what toilet she was to use. The employment tribunal described the advice from HR as “woeful”.

The employment tribunal held that there were multiple occasions of harassment. For example the comment, “So what’s going on? Are you going to have your bits chopped off?” When Ms Taylor brought examples of harassment to HR, they told her “not to be sensitive”. She heard herself referred to as “it” and again reported this to HR, who said, “Well what else do you want them to call you?” A female colleague looked at her and said, “Oh my God!” She was told by a female engineer, “It’s nice to see you here in your attire. You have cracking legs”.

She sought support from her line manager. He described her transitioning as “not normal” and told her to use the disabled toilets. The employment tribunal held this amounted to direct discrimination. A person who was not transitioning would not have been treated this way.

Jaguar Land Rover paid Ms Taylor £180,000 (not including her costs application). They also agreed to take urgent steps to prevent anything like this ever happening again. The company Board agreed to:

  • appoint one of its number as a Diversity and Inclusion Champion
  • commission a report by a recognised diversity organisation, such as Stonewall, to investigate diversity and inclusion throughout the company (to include speaking to Ms Taylor) and to produce a report setting out the current position and the steps necessary for the employer to become a “standard setting organisation” in the diversity and inclusion field across all the protected characteristics
  • appoint an expert to produce a report on progress by reference to the original report every year for the next five years
  • send these reports and annual reviews to all employees and to Ms Taylor and to make them public.

An up to date equalities policy is required by all employers together with a transitioning at work policy, with regular training and support for managers and HR. These policies should be up to date with trans terminology, provide opportunities for employees to express preferences for their pronoun and provide gender neutral facilities.

Contact us for free advice on the issues raised in this Newsletter. In this thirty-minute session we will review your situation and how you can achieve your objectives.

 

The topics covered in this Newsletter are complex and are provided for general guidance only. Therefore, if any of the circumstances mentioned in this Newsletter have application to you, seek expert legal advice.
Lockdown

Did you know? 10 Key HR Facts

, , , ,

Did you know? 10 Key HR Facts
  1. Discrimination can take place before, during & after employment & latest figures show an increase in all protected areas of the Equality Act 2010.  Awards can be unlimited!!
  2. The maximum amount that you can be awarded as compensation for Unfair Dismissal is presently the statutory cap of £88,519, or 52 weeks gross salary- whichever is the lower. This is in addition to the basic award which can be ordered by the Tribunal of up to a maximum of £16,140. These figures are from 6th April 2020.
  3. There is no default retirement age anymore and was stopped on 1st October 2011 unless you can objectively justify it. Examples could include air traffic controllers and police officers.
  4. Failure to consult correctly when making Redundancies can result in a Protected Pay award of 90 days pay?
  5. When employees are on Furlough they are allowed to do work training, as long as they are not making money for their employer?
  6. Employees that were put on Furlough when first introduced and are still on it, could have been on it a year, if still on it on the 23rd March 2021?
  7. An Employment Tribunal (ET) on average lasts 4 days and costs £8.5 k per day?  (Totals: £34k)
  8. HR is based on Civil Law and the balance of probabilities , reasonableness.
  9. The ACAS Code of Practice is used at all times to set the minimum standard of fairness that workplaces should follow & which an Employment Tribunal will use when deciding an outcome. 
  10. We hold the highest Employment Law qualifications (Level 7) with our Chartered Institute and all our advice is fully professionally liability insured and accredited by the CIPD and other leading professional bodies, including the Solicitors Regulation Authority and Bar Standards Board.

These are our latest did you know? 10 Key HR / Company Facts and are just a  few of the things we get asked……….

Contact Us

We are a personal, unique HR & Employment Law service, helping employers who cannot support their own in-house Human Resources department. 

Our monthly packages are designed to be affordable and scales with your business as you grow.

We hold the highest Employment Law qualifications (Level 7) with our Chartered Institute and all our advice is fully professionally liability insured and accredited by the CIPD and other leading professional bodies, including the Solicitors Regulation Authority and Bar Standards Board.

If you have had a positive experience with Consensus HR, we would kindly ask that you leave us a review for others to see.

INFO

01438 310062
[email protected]

ADDRESS

BTC, Bessemer Drive,

Stevenage,
SG1 2DX

Did you know? 10 Key HR Facts

Management Development Workshops

We continually run a a range of fact / Knowledge gaining, informal, friendly & exciting HR Management / business owner development workshops designed to equip individuals with the skills required to run their businesses successfully.

If your business would like to run a specific HR Workshop such as Performance Management, Disciplinary & Grievance Management, or Customer Service to name a few, please get in contact today or alternatively book on to one of our next planned events shown below.

Performance Reviews (Appraisals)

Thursday 14th January 2021 – 9:30am – 15:30 pm

Click here for further information.

Communication Skills

Thursday 11th March 2021 – 9:30am – 13:30 pm

Click here for further information.

 Coaching Skills

Thursday 13th May 2021 – 9:30am – 13:30 pm

Click here for further information.

 Delegation Skills

Thursday 8th July 2021 – 9:30am – 13:30 pm

Click here for further information.

Managing Discipline in the workforce (Disciplinary & Grievance)

Thursday 11th February 2021 – 9:30 am – 15:30 pm

Click here for further information.

Team Building

Thursday 15th April 2021 – 9:30am – 15:30 pm

Click here for further information.

Successful Recruitment

Thursday 10th June 2021 – 9:30am – 13:30 pm

Click here for further information.

Contact us today.

rewards-and-benefits

HR Newsletter – August 2018 – More Employment Law Judges

Welcome to the preview of our August 2018 HR Newsletter from Consensus HR.  This month we cover:

  • The need for more Employment Law judges due to increase in ET cases. 
  • Sainsbury employee dismissed for using Facebook
  • How a Bangor pregnant woman got a payout of £25,000,
  • Working time.  Should you be paid if working at night but can sleep?
  • Uppdate on the Self Employed scenario with the latest involving Deliveroo.

To receive a full copy of our monthly HR newsletter and to give your consent contact us today.

“WE TAKE THE PAIN OUT OF EMPLOYING PEOPLE WHILST PREVENTING PEOPLE PROBLEMS.”

HR Software:

HR Software designed to tame all of your HR chaos… easily and safely access all your HR data, manage and monitor employee sick leave and absences, securely store or share documents with specific employees, and more!

For further information, click here

Free yourself from the holiday management nightmare by contacting us today.

Load More

Back To Top