Peninsula Business Services - Blog

Do you find it annoying after getting in from a long day to still read work e-mails continuously on your phone, but if you do respond to each e-mail that evening then who is actually benefiting? Yes, you will have less to do tomorrow, but there will always be tomorrow and anything like this can surely wait. Some people might feel guilty for responding or not responding to the emails, but imagine it like this; once you leave your workstation at night you don’t reply to any e-mails until the following morning, so why respond to them on a smartphone?

We recognize that many of our employees are guilty of writing and responding to email out of work hours, however, we inform them not to feel guilty if e-mails aren’t answered until the next day. Some people may feel guilty because they aren’t replying but that is pointless because you aren’t paid to answer e-mails outside of working hours, so if you do worry – there’s no need to. You have to allow for some time to enjoy your life and not let work take over. Bringing work home unnecessarily can cause stress in and out of work. We suggest that you sign out of work emails from your phone when your work day has ended, not only will this take your mind off of work, but it can also protect the confidentiality of your business in the unfortunate circumstance that your phone falls into the wrong hands

Have you ever been told that first impressions count for everything? This may not be the case in an interview process but you can be certain they count for a lot. It is suggested that some employers make up their minds about candidates within the first thirty seconds of an interview, with the majority of employers make up their minds by around the three minute mark.

This could cause problems for both employees and employers a like. First of all as an employer, by judging someone to quickly you could be missing out on someone who would benefit your business greatly. Snap judgements can be based on; appearance, attitude and/or punctuality. Whilst it is important that your potential candidates are well suited for the job, you must ensure that you do not allow any presumptions to harm your overall judgement of someone’s abilities.

As well as missing out on a potential employee you could also face legal action from them. One thing that must not be affected in the first three minutes of an interview is your attitude towards the process. If for example, a candidate can sense a dismissive tone from an interviewer they may feel as though they haven’t been given a fair chance by you and look to pursue the matter further. It is recommended that you keep an open mind for as long as possible during the interview process in order to avoid any backlash if and when you make a decision to employ one of the candidates.

As a potential employee, ensuring that an interview cannot make a snap judgement of you is essential. You would need to keep an interviewers interest for as long as possible in order to avoid missing out on an interview so early. Tips that you should keep in mind include: attending the interview on time – lateness can give the worst impression as it could be misconstrued as not caring about the job. If lateness cannot be avoided then you should make sure to call either the interviewer or the business to let them know your estimated time of arrival. You should also make sure you are dressed in a smart way. For men a suit is usually standard dress ware for an interview and for women it is recommended that you dress smarter than their company policy in order to avoid being under dressed. These are areas that often lead to quick judgements and can be avoided very easily.

There is a real sense of optimism in the workplace, perhaps because Spring is around the corner and the nights are getting lighter, however we cannot say the weather is a factor. This morning we spoke about getting workers motivated on a Monday morning but let us look at the wider picture, we are getting to the end of the financial year, we look ahead. For many businesses there may be a problem in terms of forking out cash to pay for large bonuses but we still want to keep our best staff, so what we can do? It’s a question that a lot of us need to grapple with. We can look at incentives mentioned this morning such as a free breakfast but a bacon sandwich, is hardly going to retain staff but add this to a programme of incentives and you may just have a formula that will help retain your top staff.

We have a number of incentives here at Peninsula, on a Thursday we offer our staff a work out session with an instructor, who to be fair, should be in the army, we provide our staff with a modern head office with internet break out areas, and internal zones that staff can go for a chat and eat their lunch.

We also, which we regard is very important offer EAP, an employee assistance programme, something which our employees can rely on. We have experienced individuals on standby to help provide support and advice on a wide range of topics, from financial advice to medical issues, we are there to support our staff and you will be amazed at just how welcome having such a scheme in place really is. Our employees feel valued and this surely is a good thing.

At the beginning of the editorial we said look at the wider picture, put all these incentives together and you have a kaleidoscope of ways that you support your staff, and it need not cost the earth but what it does do is that it makes them feel that they are valued and that is what you want, it should also help retain your best staff.

Stress can be a very serious condition leading to illness and disease, as well as high levels of sickness absence, staff turnover and human error. Consequently, stress reduces the productivity of businesses and can be quite costly for both employers and society. Tackling stress in the workplace should therefore be of high priority and in order to deal with this issue effectively, the common attitude that stress is merely an excuse for time off work must be abolished.

 Work-related stress is where the various work demands placed on an individual exceed that individual’s capacity and ability to cope; it must be differentiated from minor demands and pressures that are motivating to workers. Stress is often caused by insufficient attention to job design, work organisation and management, as well as lack of support, detrimental working relationships and organisational change. Stress was behind 400,000 out of 1,152,000 work-related illnesses in Great Britain recorded in 2010/11; it is clearly as major problem.

One of the reasons why stress is often perceived as an excuse for work absence is that it can be manifested in a number of different ways; sometimes it is only noticeable to the individual who is suffering. Stress can have a variety of symptoms from affecting emotions and concentration, to changing an individual’s blood pressure and weight.

Workers may be suffering with stress due to pressures outside of work or conflicting demands from work and home. Many issues from outside work can cause stress, such as family problems and personal or social demands. Workers are not obliged to inform their employers of their problems outside of work, but it is advisable that employers anticipate potential problems that their workers may face and offer support where appropriate. Where employers are sympathetic and flexible, workers will find it easier to deal with their problems.

Employers can help reduce work-related stress by implementing suitable health and safety checks and organisational stress policies in the workplace. By listening to staff complaints and concerns, making time to tackle stress properly and planning how to respond to stress at work, the impact of work-related stress will be reduced.

Where there is absenteeism or poor performance at work that genuinely cannot be justified, it is conduct that must be addressed. Employers may want to consider starting a fair and reasonable disciplinary procedure; this should be outlined in employee handbooks. Disciplinary procedures can be tricky and time-consuming, but are a way to deal with misconduct effectively.

It can be difficult to make staff feel valued when financial incentives are not an option. They need to believe that the company is treating them genuinely and fairly and is not simply taking advantage of them. Your employees need to feel that they are respected and valued for their contribution and are being treated equally.

Show them that you value their efforts. Look at the work that your employees are doing and see if they are aware of the end result. Make sure you communicate positive things rather than just talking to your employees when something has gone wrong. Let your employees know when things have turned out well and if you have received any positive comments. Acknowledge the part that they have played in achieving that result which shows that you recognise that what they do is important.

The best way to show employees that you value them is to reward hard work.  You may not be able to give salary increases across the company but can you recognise some individuals on a discretionary basis for the work they have put in where they have gone the extra mile for the company.  If your company is split into different departments are you making it clear that you value the work of each of the different departments equally? Many companies fall into the trap of only recognising the work of the departments that demonstrably create revenue. However, the work of your other departments in providing or supporting your product or preventing you from losing money is equally as important and should also be recognised.

If money isn’t an option then look at what you can do to reward your employees in some other way or to reduce their costs for attending work. Consider allowing home working or flexibility on working hours.  If your employees can reduce their travel or childcare costs or have more control over their working hours then this will show that you recognise the pressures they are under and that you trust and respect them. Consider increasing their holiday entitlement.

Try and make the workplace as happy a place as possible. Make sure the heating and lighting is appropriate and control the noise levels so that your employees are comfortable at work. Employees will feel more valued if you can show that you are trying to address their concerns and are appreciative of what they do.

There are a number of employment tribunal claims making the headlines at the moment. At the prospect of facing an employment tribunal claim make sure that you contact Peninsula Business Services in the first instance. 

Worker who claimed she was owed more than £1,000 by her employer has lost her case at an employment tribunal.

Read in full

Hotel workers pursue tribunal amid allegations of race & religious discrimination, harassment and victimisation.

Read in full

Employee takes McDonalds to employment tribunal

Read in full

The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 sets out the entitlement to a minimum rate of pay for various persons and the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 followed this, specifying the first rates in April 1999.

The NMW has consistently been reviewed each year with advice from the Low Pay Commission. New rates generally take effect from October each year.  From 1^st October 2012, the following rates will apply: 

·         The adult rate (age 21 and over) will increase by 11p to £6.19 an hour;

·         The rate for 18 - 20 year olds will not change - remaining at £4.98 an hour;

·         The rate for 16 - 17 year olds will not change - remaining at £3.68 an hour;

·         The rate for apprentices will increase by 5p to £2.65 an hour.

As part of the NMW, it has been announced that the maximum accommodation offset will increase by 9p to £4.82 per day. 

When looking at the 16 – 17 year old bracket, this should really say “over compulsory school leaving age but not yet 18” because it may include some 15 year olds and exclude some 16 year olds.

The NMW is not a right that is only restricted to employees. The employer is obliged to pay the NMW to each of his/her workers except those that are excluded by the Act.  This means that Agency workers, Homeworkers, Piece workers, Commission workers, some seafarers, some offshore workers, some workers working outside the UK and some company directors may all be eligible for the NMW.  Apprentices who are 19 or over and not in their first year of employment must receive the NMW at the appropriate age related rate. 

Some agricultural workers are entitled to higher rates of pay than those set under the NMW Act, however these are determined by the Agricultural Wages Board. 

Finally, not all pay counts for the calculation of the NMW.  For example, tips and gratuities do not count whereas incentive bonuses and deductions for accommodation at or below the accommodation offset limit will count.

Here at Peninsula Business Services we find that approximately 50% of the 3000 calls that our 24/7 Employment Law Advice Service take each week are from our clients in the Care sector. We define our Care sector client base in its widest terms; Care and Nursing homes, providers of Care in the Community, schools, colleges, Day Nurseries, G.P and Dental practices, Pharmacists et al. All these clients are subject to the stringent standards of a number of Regulatory bodies to ensure the protection of the most vulnerable members of our society. We have developed sector specific handbooks, policies and procedures to protect the businesses of our clients.

How confidently would you answer the following questions?

·         My employee handbook is compliant.

·         My contracts (statements of main terms) contain mobility clauses that have not lain dormant so that I can require my employees to work flexibly to respond to the changing needs of my service users and business to ensure that I can compete in the market place.

·         My gross misconduct disciplinary rules are robust enough to ensure that any dismissals will stand the rigours of An Employment Tribunal 

·         When I appoint staff I am confident and can evidence that they are both mentally and physically capable and properly trained to deliver care.

·         My staff have access to an Employee Assistance Programme should they need support with health and personal problems. 

·         I have a sickness/absence handling policy of which my staff are aware and that I apply equally.

The full Peninsula package ensures that our clients are equipped to tick all the boxes should they receive “that visit”.

We have selected a group of experienced Advice Consultants who understand the challenges that face our Care clients. They and we know ,that all employers have problems with employees who will not come to work on time; who will not ring in when they are off sick but in the Care sector there are far greater risks to your customers and your business if you do not respond constructively. We have that commercial focus to give you creative solutions to your problems.

FOR THE ATTENTION OF ALL GP’s.

As you are the next group to go forward for CQC registration Peninsula and the MDU have jointly produced an on-line tool for our clients and their members to help you with the process.

For any further clarification, please call our 24 Hour Advice Service on 0844 892 2772.

On the 14^th September 2012 Vince Cable announced that the Government was to introduce a package of new employment law proposals, designed to simplify and speed up the process of ending the relationship between employers and employees when it breaks down, which in turn, will hopefully give employers the confidence to hire new staff, thus aiding Britain’s economic recovery.

These proposals are part of the Government’s wider Employment Law Review agenda, which has already seen the extension of the period of eligibility for unfair dismissal from one to two years, and the removal of the Default Retirement Age.

This article seeks to highlight the latest proposed reforms. Will they will be fit for purpose, and whose interests do they serve? Given that an employer and an employee share at least one thing in common; they are both voters.

Reducing the Cap on Compensation for Unfair Dismissal Claims

The consultation proposes a reduction in the cap on the compensatory award for unfair dismissal from £72,300.  The Government is proposing a new lower cap; either 12 month’s pay or, a new reduced upper limit of the national medium average earnings, currently £25,882.

However, this proposal has absolutely nothing to do with the actual levels of compensation paid to successful Claimants at Tribunal.  That much is clear, following the release of the latest Employment Tribunal Statistics; 1^st April 2011 to 31^st March 2012.  During that period the median award for unfair dismissal was £4,560 and the average award £9,133.  This proposal will therefore have little or no impact on the vast majority of claims for unfair dismissal, that will still need to be dealt with properly and with advice at all stages.

So why propose a change?  Well according to the Government, the current high cap gives some employees unrealistic expectations about the level of compensation they might recover, when deciding whether to pursue a Tribunal Claim.  The Government tells us that a lower cap might:-

“Lead to more realistic perceptions of the likely level of awards and thereby encourage employers and employees to make better informed choices when resolving employment disputes”.

That is not my experience.  This is window dressing. The vast majority of employees who believe they have been unfairly dismissed can work out, very easily, the actual levels of compensation likely to be awarded, and that will be nowhere near the maximum, as the median and average awards last year ably demonstrate. 

And I’m also mindful of the unintended consequence of taking this step. Some commentators have suggested that the lowering of the cap will result in more Claimants pursuing discrimination claims, so as to put commercial pressure on their former employers to settle, as this proposal will not affect discrimination awards.  A worrying development, given that median discrimination awards last year ranged between £4,267 and £13,505, and average awards between £9,940 and £102,259.  Indeed an increase in age discrimination claims is widely predicted following the abolition of the default retirement age last year, and this proposal can only exacerbate that trend.

A reduction in the cap also doesn’t address the very real problem that many employers face, and are likely to continue to face; that of vexatious or unreasonable former employees who bring claims with unrealistic expectations about the strengths of their case.  Employers will have to continue to adopt a robust, intelligent and informed approach when dealing with such claims; made all the more easier with advice from the outset.

A lowering of the cap will also result in some highly paid employees deciding to bring their claims for wrongful dismissal in the Civil Courts, where there are no such statutory limits. That can only increase, considerably, the cost burden on businesses having to deal with such claims.

Settlement Agreements

The consultation paper also confirms the Government’s support for settlement agreements as a way of ending employment relationships in a fair and consensual way.  But of course there is nothing new about being able to resolve employment disputes without having to resort to an Employment Tribunal.  Compromise Agreements, as they are commonly known, have been in existence for a number of years now, and they already provide that alternative route for settlement, either before a claim is brought, or during a claim once agreement has been reached.

To move the debate forward and promote this idea, the Government has included in the Consultation Paper template letters and template settlement agreements that will no doubt be a useful starting point.  But the fact remains; the law underpinning the settlement of employment related disputes is complicated, and ensuring a ‘clean break’ is tricky and fraught with difficulty.  Employers run the risk of getting it wrong without advice; a risk demonstrated by the fact that the list of potential claims that is to be settled in the template settlement agreement runs to five pages.  And the proposal includes no plans to simplify the law in this area.

Neither is the government planning to abolish the need for employees to get independent advice from the CAB, Union or a Solicitor, before settling a claim, as they do now under Compromise Agreements.  The template settlement agreement provides for the employee’s legal costs to be borne by the employer, and with this additional cost comes the inequality between the parties.  If the employee has to proceed with the benefit of advice, then invariably it will be necessary for the employer to do likewise; particularly as Solicitors acting for employees often raise technical issues or propose changes, either to justify their fees or support a request for higher fees. None of this will change under the Government’s new proposal, and if settlement agreements are to become more commonplace, then this could well increase the legal costs that employer’s will have to bear.

Employment Tribunal Reform

The Government has also published a consultation on its plans to reform and streamline Employment Tribunals.  Notably there is a proposal for an initial sift stage, when every claim made to a Tribunal will be reviewed (at an early stage) by an Employment Judge.  The purpose behind this is to enable Employment Judges to strike out cases that have no reasonable prospect of success i.e. claims brought by vexatious former employees. 

Whilst this is to be welcomed, if it is to act as an effective sift, then an employers’ response to their former employee’s claim will need to be carefully drafted, cover all the relevant facts and matters, and refer to and enclose copies of the important documents.  A further reason for employers to respond to such claims with the benefit of advice and assistance, as without such help, they will invariably be unable to the meet the demands that are likely to be made of them, in order to make this a workable and worthwhile proposal.

Employment Tribunal Fees

Although not specifically referred to by Vince Cable in his most recent announcement, in an effort to help weed out weak and vexatious claims, the Government is also considering introducing fees for bringing Employment Tribunal claims.  It is anticipated that claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination will cost £250 to launch, and a further £950 to get a hearing date. 

I’m not convinced.  Litigation in the civil courts has always attracted a Claimant fee at various stages of the proceedings, and yet Civil Courts across the Country continue to struggle with an excessive workload.  This proposal has all the hallmarks of another Government fund raising initiative, which seeks to raise cash for the provision of a service.  One only has to look to the Fee For Intervention policy, due to be introduced in health and safety inspections from October of this year, to get the picture. 

In my judgement, it will simply mean that Claimants will add on the cost of bringing claims, to the amount that they are prepared to settle for, thereby passing yet further cost onto their former employers.

All of which brings me to one final conclusion.  These proposals are only ever going to really benefit those employers who act with the benefit of advice and assistance, in the way that Employment Tribunal claims are managed and dealt with, once the employment relationship has come to an end.

For any further clarification, please call our 24 Hour Advice Service on 0844 892 2772.

At the close of 2011, the Government called for evidence on the effectiveness of the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations.

Following consideration of the evidence received, there will now be a period of ‘policy development and stakeholder engagement’, following which a consultation process will begin.

 The responses to the call for evidence broadly reflected the following common concerns:

·         Employee liability information (the information to be passed from old employer to new employee about the terms and conditions of each transferring employee) should be provided earlier than 14 days before the transfer;

·         There is no provision for an employer to change terms and conditions of transferred employees in order to harmonise with existing staff post-transfer;

·         The Regulations ‘gold-plate’ the Acquired Rights Directive because the Directive does not require service provision changes (transfers that occur when a service is contracted in, contracted out, or a contract changes hands) to be covered;

·         There is uncertainty as to how the Regulations apply to pensions and to insolvency situations;

·         Confusion over the approach to economic, technical or organisational reasons.

In due course, the Government will consult on:

·         Whether the 2006 service provision changes should be retained or repealed;

·         Whether, generally, liability should pass entirely to the transferee as now, or be held jointly and severally by transferee and transferor;

·         Whether employment liability information should be provided earlier to the transferee;

·         Whether an amendment to TUPE would be possible to ensure that a change of location of the workplace following a transfer does not necessarily lead to automatic unfair dismissal i.e. it is capable of constituting an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce.

For any further clarification, please call our 24 Hour Advice Service on 0844 892 2772.

The latest statistics published by the Ministry of Justice covering show an increase in the number of claims made to employment tribunal for failure to inform and consult when there has been a redundancy situation or a transfer of undertakings.

The figures, which cover April 2011 to March 2012, also show an increase in disability discrimination claims. Religious discrimination claims are also on the up since last year.

Sex discrimination claims have drastically fallen, but still stand at in excess of 10,000. Unfair dismissal claims remain stable at 46,300, falling slightly from last year’s figure of 47,900.

In terms of compensation, the highest figure stands at £4,445,023 which was awarded in a race discrimination claim. The highest unfair dismissal award was £173,408 (there is a cap on unfair dismissal claims of £75,300 but this cap is disapplied in rare circumstances).

The average unfair dismissal claim compensation for 2011/2012 was £9,133.

The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill includes provision for the introduction of ‘settlement agreements’. The term ‘settlement agreement’ will be the term used to refer to what we currently know as ‘compromise agreements’. Compromise agreements are agreements whereby an employer pays an employee a sum of money to terminate employment, but the employee signs away his right to make a claim to tribunal in relation to an ongoing dispute with the employer.

 

It will be possible to use the new settlement agreements even where there is no existing dispute. A conversation during which a settlement agreement is discussed will be protected i.e. no part of the discussion can be used as evidence against the employer in a tribunal.

 

It is proposed that the statutory Code of Practice for the use of settlement agreements will set out the following principles for their use:

 

·         Protection only applies to unfair dismissal cases;

·         Either party may propose settlement but the reason for being offered the settlement should be clear;

·         Settlement offers should be made in writing and set out clearly what is being offered e.g. sum of money, agreed reference etc, as well as what the next steps are if the individual chooses not to accept the offer;

·         It would not be necessary for an employer to have followed any particular procedure prior to the offer but if an employer handles settlement in the wrong way (i.e. not as explained in the Code) there is a risk that this will give rise to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence and allow the employee to resign and claim constructive dismissal;

·         Where an individual refuses settlement the employer must go through a fair process before deciding whether to terminate the relationship;

·         Individuals should be given a clear, reasonable period of time to respond and no undue pressure should be put on a party to accept the offer of settlement;

·         The Code should give specific examples of what may constitute ‘improper behaviour’ (a conversation will not be a protected conversation if the employer behaves ‘improperly’);

·         As closely as possible, the approach should reflect current practice in ‘without prejudice’ negotiations;

·         The employer should not make any discriminatory comments or act in a discriminatory way when making an offer of settlement.

 

The Government is also considering whether the current cap for an unfair dismissal compensatory award (£72,300) is set at an appropriate level to provide reasonable, but not excessive, compensation or whether the level of the cap should be decreased. It is considered that the current cap may lead to unrealistic perceptions among both employees and employers about the level of tribunal awards. It is proposed to cap the compensatory award at 12 months’ pay (which would be in conjunction with an overall cap of between £25,882 and £77,646).

 

It has also been officially confirmed that the proposal for ‘compensated no fault dismissals’, whereby a micro employer (less than 10 employees) would be able to terminate an employee’s employment purely by paying a sum of money, which the employee would not be able to contest, has been dropped and will not make it into law.

 

For any further clarification, please call our 24 Hour Advice Service on 0844 892 2772.

Delegation is not always easy, particularly as it can mean letting others make decisions which may involve spending money. However, appropriate delegation will give your staff enough authority to get the work done and allowing senior members of staff to take initiative will keep your operation moving in your absence.

The people to whom you delegate responsibility and authority must, of course, be competent in the technical areas for which you hold them accountable and must have the correct systems and tools available to carry out the work.

The range of health and safety management tools available from Peninsula’s online service SafetyWise can be made available to members of your management team simply and easily - as you control the access each user has.

Adding a new user couldn’t be easier: enter their basic details and grant the permission to access the different features within SafetyWise through the use of a simple checkbox process, then - click Save. Job done.

It is also very quick and easy to update your users/permissions as needed, should a member of your team leave or there is a change to the organisation of responsibilities and tasks you delegate to your staff. To review the users currently set up to access your account, simply login to SafetyWise at www.pbsnet.com and go to My Account.