NEWS

1. Managing Absence during the Olympics (written by Joanne White).
2. Bullying at work within the Police
3. Will the 2year Qualifying Period make a difference
4. CV’s. Recruitment. Lies.
5. Anger at leaked Downing Street Document

1. MANAGING ABSENCE DURING THE OLYMPICS : July 2012

Written by Joanne White of  Linder Myers Solicitors.

Generally speaking, employees will fall into one of the following categories. Those who plan to:-

1. take time off during the Olympic Games to act as a volunteer – confirmation to successful applicants has yet to be announced
2. take time off because they have bought tickets for certain events
3. take time off for a reason unconnected with the Olympic Games but who feel that people who have a connection with the Olympics are being treated more favourably

The main issue you face as an employer is likely to be managing attendance. If you know this is likely to be an issue in the summer, you should start discussing it with your staff now. 

HOLIDAY POLICY : If you already have a holiday policy in place, you may wish to keep things simple and follow that policy. This is likely to include a rule that time off will be granted on a “first come first served” basis. Whilst this approach is totally acceptable, you may need to deal with employees who have bought tickets for events before booking holiday. Depending on what your holiday policy says, this may be a case of “unauthorised absence” if the employee takes the time off without authority and so you may wish to establish early on, if you have any employees who fall into this category.

FLEXIBLE WORKING : A less formal approach may be to apply a flexible working policy for the duration of the Olympics. This is more likely to be applicable to those employees who do not want to take a lot of time off but who may wish to watch a particular event on certain days during normal working hours. Whether or not this will work will obviously depend on the structure and needs of your business but it is a useful way to maintaining good morale within the workforce.

PERFORMANCE ISSUES : You may experience problems with staff watching lengthy coverage of the Olympic Games on their computers during normal working hours or failing to turn up for their shift following attendance at the Olympic Games or watching it on TV at home. You may wish to consider planning for popular sporting events in advance – perhaps give staff access to a TV during agreed times, provided they make up that time later on in the day/week etc. However, ultimately, there is no legal right to take time off to watch or volunteer at the Olympics and so performance issues should be dealt with under your normal disciplinary procedure. It is advisable to warn staff of this in advance of the start of the Olympics.

If you would like to find out more about this call us or contact the author of this article;  Joanne White of Messrs Linder Myers at joanne.white@lindermyers.co.uk

2. ALLEGATIONS OF WORKPLACE BULLYING WITHIN THE POLICE – Jan 2012

On 27^th January 2012 Christine Pratt spoke on BBC York radio at 0845am about allegations of workplace bullying within the Police.  Why is this happening?  Exactly what support is there?  

We believe the ongoing lack of funds and resources is impacting on the workplace right across the country.  Whatever business you work in, whatever your line of work, where there is a lack of funds and resources you are likely to find inappropriate levels of line-management skills. This presents significant risk to the business.  Look for the three ‘highs’.  High stress levels, high levels of absence and increasingly high turnover of staff – as these three result in low morale and poor productivity levels.  In summary, loss of competitive edge!  The business, whether public or private sector, will fail to deliver.  Private firms go out of business and public sector departments face extreme criticism – at the very least.

90% of managers admit they do not have skills to manage staff. Do they feel supported?  No.  80%+ of cases we get involved in are Public Sector, mostly emergency services; NHS, Police, County Council’s and Education (ie: teachers) and in all these sectors managers struggle with basic line management and leadership skills.  The workforce lack diversity awareness and little or no training takes place in this area.  Policies and procedures are either misunderstood or disregarded.  How many times have you had an employee who has said; “I didn’t know there was a grievance process?”.  Or a line manager who says; “I didn’t know how to tackle the problem”.  Does this sound familiar?  If it does and/or if you are worried about conflict within area’s of your business, call us for a free consultation.   What have you got to lose?  

3. WILL THE 2 YEAR QUALIFYING PERIOD MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

The 2year service qualification period will only apply to those engaged after 6 April 2012.  Will this make a difference to the way organisations treat staff?  We don’t think so.  You get good and bad employers and that will remain the case probably. Some say ‘the rogue employer’ will benefit – using this reversal of employment legislation an excuse to dismiss staff without following procedures.  Here’s what we think.

Simply, one year or two, what does it really matter?  This may seem harsh but the fundamental aspects of managing people remains the same, in our view. Middle management struggle most, it seems.  Indeed, as we have said above, 90% of middle managers admit they do not have the right skills and/or tools to manage staff.  They know this!  This category of line manager will continue to need far more support at ‘line managing’ conduct and capability issues – as well as the recruitment process itself.   So, whether you are a rogue employer or a good employer will depend on how much emphasis you give to the importance of addressing business risk and managing your staff – at all levels in your business.

4. RECRUITMENT & LIES IN CV’s.

We presently have a huge hang-up about CV’s and recruitment agencies (having a client who has had fingers badly burnt by a person who failed to declare a criminal conviction).

Don’t rely on the Recruitment Agency to do the reference checking.  We know that a Recruitment Agency will ‘wriggle’ and go into ‘self preservation mode’ where problems occur as a result of a sloppy references and CRB checking processes – which is extremely disappointing.

The Recruitment, Reference checking, Induction, Probation period, Performance managing processes etc., all go hand-in-hand and need to be shown the respect and management time/attention it deserves.

If a reference from a new starter looks suspicious – make a phone call, check it out.  If a reference is produced by the new starter personally, verify it.  If you are having problems with an employee who has been with you for a relatively short period (less than two years), dig out their personnel file and check their references and career history.  A problem employee is likely (not always of course) to have a history.  Assume nothing!

Ensure the Induction process is completed.  Conduct an ‘end of probation period’ review meeting and identify areas where support and/or improvement is required.  Document this.  Take action where necessary.  From this point on, manage performance regularly and document the process.  Address conduct and capability issues and know when and how to separate the two.  No matter how capable or skilled a person is – they do not have a right to treat colleagues with disrespect.  Separate Conduct and Capability!

If you are a business owner, ensure your supervisors, team leaders and middle management receive the tools, training and support they need.  If you observe them struggling with their tasks, step in and offer appropriate support. Do not resist seeking external expertise where necessary.  Personally, I would go to a doctor or dentist if I needed their skills – I would not try to do it for myself.  So, apply this common sense approach to employment law and conflict resolution.  If you notice a change in absence or turnover statistics – or you are aware of conflict within a team or department, do not hesitate to call in an independent expert for advice.  Do not try to keep the cost down by tackling it ‘in-house’.  That is a false economy and could make matters worse. 

Call us for a free consultation if you find yourself in this position.

It’s not rocket science.

It ensures your line managers are left free to get on with their work.

You will be able to sleep at night knowing that you are addressing all area’s of risk to the business.

5. ANGER AT LEAKED DOWNING STREET DOCUMENT. 27th October 2011

There is a lot of talk, anger, frustration, mis-information and assumption going on here – all due to a leaked government document.  This is exactly how accidents occur and how a culture of bullying can develop within an organisation.   Allegedly, this leaked document (which we have not seen incidentally) states that economic growth in the UK can  be bolstered by making it easier for firms to dismiss unsatisfactory employees.  The document has been described as ‘neither beneficial to employers or employees’ and the Unions are, naturally, up in arms.   

We are talking about one of our oldest pieces of UK employment legislation so the anger and emotion is understandable to an extent.  However, maybe, we should all just calm down.  

The protection of employees from being dismissed unfairly was introduced 40 years ago.  The compensatory award is presently capped at £68,400.  The legislation was introduced with the intention of preventing an employer from dismissing an employee, unless the dismissal was for one of the stated ‘fair’ reasons – conduct, capability or performance.  (NB: Not everyone is protected by unfair dismissal – employees have a one year qualifying period and cannot bring a claim unless it is linked to another issue such as sex discrimination or whistle-blowing).  We were already aware that government was consulting on whether to extend the qualifying period for two years from April next year (See below).  

So what is all this present fuss about exactly?  It’s a fact, employers who don’t capability, conduct or performance manage their staff will become frustrated and will look for a ways to dismiss staff at minimal risk and cost to the business. This happens all the time.  Some employers even believe the risk is worth taking.   The current ‘spin’ being placed on the proposals in the leaked government paper suggests that rogue employers will make life even more unbearable for their staff.  Why would they want to do this?  Surely, employers want to motivate and retain their staff.  This negative ‘spin’ cannot be substantiated at all.

At HR & Diversity Management we are keeping an entirely open mind.  However, here are just some comments made publically and some further facts, along with our own observations. 

Adrian Beecroft: According to the document by venture capitalist and Tory donor Adrian Beecroft, which was commissioned by David Cameron, “radical changes” are needed to the law to help small businesses grow.  (Not an unreasonable statement in our view).

The Guardian Newspaper: Under new proposals the present employment legislation would no longer apply, and you would only get the basic award if unfairly dismissed.  Effectively what is now the redundancy payment would become a “dismissal payment” and the right to claim further compensation would disappear (except in cases of discrimination).   Some employers will treat employees worse.  Consider February this year when soldiers serving on the frontline were told, by email, and with no consultation, that their jobs were to go. Members of the armed forces cannot claim unfair dismissal. The army did that because it could. 

The Guardian goes on to point out that these proposals; ‘Will apply to all employees, not just lazy or unproductive ones’.  

Politics United Kingdom: With every passing week comes more sobering economic news – unemployment at a 14-year high, inflation rising more than three times faster than wages, while business confidence and household spending plummet. The shake up would effectively allow firms to fire underperforming staff without explanation. And , employers would no longer have to pay an employee their salary during a formal performance management or capability process.  There is no evidence of this, at this stage.

The Telegraph: The proposals will ‘Give firms freedom to sack their slackers’. Media spin.

Numerous, significant, points are raised that we would further comment on.

1. While there is a lot of speculation that the proposed change will affect the business economy, there is no tangible evidence that it will at all.  Much more evidence is needed. 

2. It is said that our government holds the view that ‘if it were easier to fire staff, businesses would be more willing to hire’.  While there is no tangible evidence to support this either, it is understandable that employers would want to ensure that their workforce is productive – if they are to survive the economic climate.  Maybe this is the argument that supports the impact the proposed change will have on the economy? 

3. Employers claim that the current legislation ‘holds them back’ and that they get caught up in costly and long winded employment tribunals.   This may be the case.  In an ideal world we would not have disgruntled employee’s.  Maybe employers should focus more on ensuring that a) their managers communicate effectively and b) line managers have the necessary skills and are properly trained in capability and conduct management.  Performance management initiatives need to be more visible and more widely practiced. 

4. There are other costs associated with firing and hiring, such as recruitment and training costs and therefore the suggestions contained within the leaked report may make little financial difference to the employer.  Good point!

5. Some say that employers do treat their employees fairly and that they will not need to worry about unfair dismissal claims. Another excellent point!   Those with something to worry about, will no doubt worry! 

6. It has been pointed out that, recently, our government’s own business barometer survey asked businesses what issues they considered to be barriers to growth.  By far the largest concern – with 45 % of businesses agreeing – was the state of the economy.  Employment Regulations were well down the list of concerns, with just 6% of businesses mentioning it.   Interesting point if true.

So, what is all the fuss about we ask.   We believe there are far greater economic problems on the agenda for our Government and for us all to worry about.  We would be surprised if the present employment protection laws were abolished without proper consultation at least.  At the end of the day, we all want what is right and fair in order to improve living standards and our quality of life.   We feel certain that our Government would want this too. 

FEE TO LODGE A TRIBUNAL APPLICATION : October 2011

From April 2013 a fee will be charged to claimaints bringing a Tribunal claim. There will be a refund for any individual who wins their case.  Consultation will commence from November 2011 about the amount and method of charging.  The following fee structure is proposed;
• upfront fee of £250 when lodging ET1;
• further fee of £1,000 payable by Claimant when the hearing is listed;
• higher fees if the claim is for over £30,000;
• fee to be refunded if Claimant wins, and forfeited if they lose
• fees to be waived for those with no money

If the test for a fee-waiver is simply being on income support, then most ex-employees will automatically qualify for the waiver (but those still in a job will not). Note that the issue fee of £250 (and hearing fee of £1,000) is substantially greater than the small claims issue fee.

See the Employment Tribunal stats for the past year on our statistics page.

There is currently no fee for an applicant who wants to make an employment tribunal claim. The low-paid, or those without an income, may also have the fee waived or reduced at the start of the process, under the new scheme. “We respect the right of those who spent their whole lives building up a business, not to see that achievement destroyed by a vexatious appeal to an employment tribunal. So we are now going to make it much less risky for businesses to hire people” Chancellor George Osborne said.

Under Mr Osborne’s plan, workers will still be able to take action immediately if they suffer discrimination, but by reducing the risk of tribunals for unfair dismissals the government hopes bosses will feel more confident about hiring people.

1. The GMB Union criticise the plan.
2. The TUC General Secretary, Brendan Barber, criticises the plan and claims this is a “charter for bad bosses”
3. Business Leaders generally oppose the plan and call for broader consultation
4. The CBI welcomes the proposal (see below)
5. Employment Law Solicitors voice differing views and point out both the advantages and disadvantages. 

The CBI Director General says;  “We have been urging the government to do everything it can to make it easier for firms to grow and create jobs, and this will give employers, especially smaller ones, more confidence to hire” 

Solicitor, Martin Edwards of  Messrs Weightmans, urges caution and states: “The changes may have mixed results. Someone who has not worked long enough to claim unfair dismissal may claim they are a whistleblower or a victim of discrimination instead, causing employers even more hassle than before”. 

COMMENTS / DEBATES VIA LINKEDIN

• The fee structure is highly regressive and will affect low income Claimant disproportionately, acting as a barrier.
• The payment of an initial fee of £250 will be closely followed by a demand for a further fee of £1,000, even before the ET3 has been lodged. This will, in my view, be enormously unfair to all but the wealthiest claimants.
• Would like to see the introduction of a deposit/fee which is linked to the compensation sought by the Claimant e.g. 2.5%. To give this proposal some perspective, the average unfair dismissal award is around £9k and therefore the deposit/fee would be £225.
• Most people who apply to Tribunals are out of work, having been dismissed, so any fee on issuing a claim would act as an disproportionate deterrent
• Low paid workers would also suffer disproportionately in the event of a fixed fee structure being introduced.
• There  will be a cost involved in collecting and banking any fee so that hard cost needs to be factored in. What happens to the interest.

More news to follow on this story.