Category: HR

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Employment Law Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023 Employment Rights Act 1996 HR Part-Time Working Remote Working Return to Work

Reform of flexible working

View of the British Houses of Parliament from the river Thames, where the Employment Rights Bill is being debated

The government has launched a consultation relating to some amendments to the flexible working legislation making political mileage out of a willingness to make a request of flexible working a day 1 right, but what will their proposals really mean?

The current system works as follows: someone with 6 months service can make a request to work flexibly to their employer who must consider it within a reasonable time and can decline the request, provided their reasons for doing so falls within a list of eight business reasons for doing so. This covers things like the inability to service their customers, additional cost, the inability to reorganise work amongst existing staff or to recruit additional staff and a detrimental impact on quality or performance, if there is sufficient work during the period of time the employee proposes working and wider planned structural changes.

Given that it’s fairly straightforward for an employer to weave their way through, employees typically have to rely on the discrimination legislation to argue their request results in less favourable treatment of them compared with colleagues. For example, working mothers have often claimed indirect sex discrimination in comparison with the male workforce as regards fixed working hours and patterns of work because they are at a disadvantage as a result of the employer’s policies. The employer then has the ability to justify any indirect discrimination as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Employees with caring responsibilities may have to rely on associative discrimination provisions or age discrimination to help them.

The Government’s consultation has asked for views on 5 different things:

  1. Making the right to request flexible working a day 1 right by removing the 26 week qualifying period.
  2. Whether the eight existing business reasons for refusing a statutory request remain valid.
  3. Requiring employers to suggest alternatives if they intend to refuse a request.
  4. The administrative process underpinning the rights to request flexible working and whether that needs any change.
  5. Whether the right to request a temporary flexible arrangement might be utilised.

This tells us that the Government may be considering a separate right to the existing legislation which results in a permanent change to somebody’s working patterns if a request is accepted and that there might need to be a short term agreement but clearly there’s no definition yet to see what that might look like. Anyone who is a working parent trying to juggle children being sent home from school because of COVID-19 will surely have ideas about how such temporary flexibility might improve their lives.

The Government has already signalled that it will introduce a right to carers leave, which would be 5 working days of unpaid leave per year for employees to manage long term caring responsibilities outside of work and which would be able to be taken in any combination from half day to days or part of a week to the week. We have been told that the legislation will go before Parliament “when time allows”.

The CIPD emphasise that flexible working needs to be thought about in wider terms than just whether somebody is working from home versus working in the office. There is a whole range of flexibility in relation to flexi-time, part-time working, compressing hours such as working a 13 day fortnight and job shares.

The Government is going to be considering the lessons that have been learnt from COVID-19 and the undoubted seismic changes in what employees want in terms of their desires and preferences to spend less time commuting and how that is balanced against what employers want in terms of what is workable for them and what is in the interests of the business. Quite how that balancing exercise will play out will be interesting – from a legislator perspective, my money would be on incremental changes only and the employers retaining the upper hand but realistically, all employers needs to consider the current jobs market and the fact that employees are gravitating towards those organisations who they feel are most likely to meet their needs and any employer who is ignoring the issue of flexible working is likely to experience the implications in their attrition rates and challenges recruiting.

It’s always worth remembering to trial something before having to commit to it fully. Often a trial is the only way to successfully assess whether or not something works as a compromise for both parties.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Employment Law HR Immigration Right to Work Video

Video | Right to work checks

YouTube video playing on a phone

Our latest video is available to view on the Refreshing Law YouTube channel — please click here to watch Anna discussing ‘right to work checks’ and clarifying the position for employers in respect of what they should and shouldn’t be doing in respect of these checks.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Alternative Dispute Resolution Anna Denton-Jones Communication Disciplinary Dispute Management Employment Law HR

Issues flowing from suspension of an employee

View of the City of London at sunset

So imagine you’ve just suspended an employee and packed them off with their letter setting out the terms of their suspension. You now need to address their reporting lines and it can be tempting to write an email to staff perhaps even telling them that their colleague has been suspended. I currently have an Employment Tribunal file on my desk where the communication to colleagues that took place immediately following suspension is something that the employee has leapt on in order to claim that minds were made up, his dismissal was entirely pre-judged from the moment of suspension and that trust and confidence would have been broken at that point in time.

I suggest instead that you speak to employees. The reason that I am suggesting speaking to colleagues is that you will not then have paperwork which will form part of any data protection subject access request when it is inevitably made.

When you speak to the colleagues you should inform them that their line management is temporarily changing and explain who they are now reporting to and, if they are required to take on some of the suspended employee’s duties, state this fact. You would reference the suspended employee as being temporarily absent from work. Curious colleagues are bound to ask why but I would just say that this is “confidential”. You can always bat it back to the colleagues by saying that if it were the other way around, they would want confidentiality to be protected and when most people think about it like that, they can understand.

You may be worried about the suspended employee trying to affect the investigation in some way by speaking to their colleagues. If that is the case there is nothing wrong with you, when you have this conversation, explaining to employees that there is nothing wrong with them having purely social contact with their absent colleague but they should not be discussing work with them.

It is entirely possible that the suspended employee themselves will tell all and sundry that they are being suspended and they are being investigated. If that is the case and people are querying the position, then you are free to confirm that you would have preferred to keep the matter confidential but now that they employee has explained to them, that yes there is an investigation and they are duty bound to co-operate with that investigation if they are called to do so. I wouldn’t go into any details about what the investigation is about.

In general, I would leave it to the investigator to plan out how they are going to conduct their investigation, who they are going to speak to and to brief any witnesses in terms of issues around co-operation with the investigation, confidentiality, the fact that the suspended employee may well get to see an investigation report etc.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Absence Anna Denton-Jones Burnout Duty of Care Employment Law HR Mental Health Stress

Burnout and the risks for employers

View of the City of London at sunset

Last year the World Health Organisation recognised “burnout” for the first time in its classification of diseases. It defines “burnout” as “mental or physical exhaustion caused by excessive or prolonged stress and a syndrome resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed”. It highlights the three characteristics:

  1. Feeling of energy depletion or exhaustion.
  2. An increased mental distance from one’s job or feelings of negativity or cynicism relating to one’s job.
  3. Reduced professional efficacy.

For many people who were reading that definition they would be saying yes or would be ticking off the criterion, due to the pandemic, with the stresses and strains of the last year or so only adding to the problem.

Stress is normally a short lived thing or tied to a specific goal so is not harmful. If the stress feels never ending and comes with feelings of emptiness, apathy and hopelessness, it may be indicative of burnout.

A recent case involving a firm of solicitors that has been litigated through the Courts highlights the risk of employers not taking this issue seriously. In this particular case, the employee concerned was a high flyer – for a period of around 5 years he had been one of the most high billing or income generating fee earners at the law practice, being in a leadership position, in charge of one of the firm’s offices. Criticisms levelled at the employer included, failing to reduce his working hours or ensuring that he was taking his annual leave. He had been dedicating 15 hours a day to work and the employer faced criticism for not having picked up on that and done something about it.

It seems that when the condition began to manifest including the employee acting out a character and making an inappropriate joke which was then used as a disciplinary matter, the firm failed to put in place a structured plan for offering support. In particular, when the employee had 7 weeks’ ill-health, they didn’t take any steps to find out about the extent of his condition. If they had done so, they may have been more aware of his fragility and the problem that they were dealing with.

In particular, at the point at which he has tipped over into “burnout”, the firm had a duty to put their minds to how they could prevent the risk to his health that his job was causing. The problem is that the firm took the perhaps “usual” reaction of getting him to relinquish his management position. Indeed it was found that one witness had said that he should “drop back into midfield” and leave the captaincy to somebody else. The Judge in the case found that that was grossly insensitive. Of course the firm might have had genuine concerns over the impact on colleagues but there wasn’t really any meaningful communication around the issue or understanding of the workload issues or what was necessary.

These sorts of cases are going to be particularly relevant given all the evidence about people working from home, working greater hours, juggling all the other stresses that come with a pandemic and inadequacies in many cases of employers to be prepared to deal with these sorts of issues.

So what things can an employer be doing to prevent “burnout”?

  1. Actively encourage employees to take holiday, including those in senior leadership positions and create an environment where people are allowed to genuinely switch off, which will require senior leaders to lead by example in this regard.
  2. Reconfigure email so they send only during set hours.
  3. Encourage all managers to check in with the members of their team as regards workload. It is a culturally normally thing to happen for work to be juggled around between different people to alleviate the pressure points?
  4. Encourage employees to speak up if they are starting to feel overwhelmed, explaining that support will be available if they do, including the possibility of devoting extra resource to take on workload.
  5. Train managers to spot the signs when somebody is beginning to become overwhelmed and not cope and to not be afraid to intervene when they see that happening.
  6. Refer the employee to occupational health immediately for guidance on other measures that can be taken.
  7. Have an employee led position about what they think needs to happen – they know themselves best.
  8. At this stage, emphasise that any changes to job description or duties are temporary whilst you are supporting them to recover.
  9. Simple things can apply, such as permitting the employee to say no to new tasks.
  10. In any return to work/management plan, it will be useful to schedule regular breaks including identifying what activities the employee is going to be doing to help them reduce the feelings of burnout in terms of self-care and exercise etc.

If the medical condition the employee is suffering from becomes a long term thing then it could become a disability which is protected by the Equality Act, in which case the duty to make reasonable adjustments is going to apply. Where an employer has not tackled the issue early enough, if the employee goes through periods of absence and return to work with little changing, you can see how a pattern could be established that leads into disability territory.

In the particular case involved, the employer was potentially liable for the employees losses that resulted from his employment relationship coming to an end and not tackling the issue effectively.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones COVID-19 Duty of Care Employment Rights Act 1996 HR Return to Work

Refusal to work due to COVID-19

View of the City of London at sunset

A case involving an employee who refused to attend work due to COVID-19 – Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd caught my eye because it is one of the first decisions that I have heard about dealing with an automatically unfair dismissal claim under Section 100 of the Employment Rights Act. Section 100 (d) permits an employee who is dismissed, in circumstances of danger, which the employee reasonably believed to be serious and imminent and which he could not reasonably have been expected to avert, he left (or proposed to leave) or (while the danger persisted) refused to return to his place of work or any dangerous part of his place of work, to claim automatically unfair dismissal.

In this particular case, the employee had a child with sickle cell anaemia and a 7 month old baby and was concerned that attending work would put his family at risk. The Employment Tribunal found that the employer had generally complied with all guidance as regards creating a COVID safe workplace: it was a large warehouse space, where it was possible to socially distance, face masks had been provided, guidance had been issued around hand washing and sanitiser had been provided and there were no criticisms made of the employers risk assessments or other measures put in place for COVID safety. In summary, the employee was more concerned about COVID-19 generally in the world at large as opposed to having any specific complaint about his actual workplace and how his employer had addressed those risks. In particular, the Tribunal noted that he had not made any complaint.

In those circumstances, whilst the wording used in the general Coronavirus Regulations (Public Health legislation) does use the same language and establishes that COVID-19 is a serious and imminent danger in general, the Tribunal felt that that could not be applied to this particular workplace because if you applied the logic that because COVID-19 is a general risk in the world, making every workplace dangerous, then every single employee across the country would be able to refuse to attend their workplace. For that reason and the fact that the employee had not made any specific complaints about his workplace, he failed in his complaint.

Of course, that does not mean that every employee will fail in such a claim: the TUC has reported in the week commencing Easter Monday, that their data shows that a third of all workplaces are not complying with the government guidance on COVID safe working. Clearly employees who work in those sorts of workplaces may have been successful in a similar argument.

This particular employee did not have 2 years’ service, so he was purely bringing his automatically unfair dismissal claim. However, if he had had 2 years’ service, he may well have brought an ordinary unfair dismissal claim – the Tribunal commented in this case that they would have had procedural concerns about the way in which the employer had handled the dismissal. As well as the procedural hurdle in an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, a Tribunal is also going to think about whether it would fall within the range of reasonable responses test to dismiss an employee who was worried about his family. I would suggest that the rush to dismissal in this case would probably make it unfair. An employer who issued the employee with warnings and had taken every step to work with the employee to allay his concerns, meet with him and get him back to work would be in a stronger position.

You could also see how in some cases an employee with their own disability could also have Equality Act claims if their own health was at the bottom of their refusal.

In any event, this is only a first instance decision and at some point the Employment Appeal Tribunal will have to rule on these sorts of issues and give guidance for employers but it is heartening essentially that the employee was not seen as being reasonable in this case and hopeful that the EAT will agree with the logic that general COVID risks in the world at large does not qualify as serious and imminent danger in the workplace, as every employee would be able to refuse to work.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Absence Anna Denton-Jones Burnout Disability Duty of Care Employment Law Health Conditions HR Mental Health Remote Working Return to Work Risk Assessment Video Working from Home

Video | Working from home and ill health

YouTube video playing on a phone

Our latest video is available to view on the Refreshing Law YouTube channel — please click here to watch Anna discussing ‘working from home and ill health’ and the potential impact on individuals and businesses.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Brexit Employment Law HR Immigration Right to Work

Right to Work checks — What to do if you have an EU citizen starting

The British Union Flag flying from pole on building in London

At the moment, we are in something called the “grace period”. New rules are going to come into force from 1 July 2021. Up until that point an employer is allowed to continue to rely on the checks to an EEA or Swiss National’s EU Passport or National Identity Card to evidence their right to work in the UK ie:- not differentiating between those who arrived before we left the European Union or after.

Provided the check is done and the employer doesn’t have any reason to believe that the employee doesn’t have the right to work here, they will have a statutory excuse against the civil fines that can be applied if an employee is subsequently found to be working here illegally (£20,000).

If the EU National has already registered for and achieved Settled Status in the UK under the EU Settlement Scheme where if they have been here for 5 years they qualify, they can evidence their right to work to you, using the Home Office online service (www.gov.uk/view-right-to-work). Not everybody will have taken those steps yet, so in the meantime, old fashioned paperwork can apply.

If the EU National has not achieved Settled Status or obtained pre-Settled Status (which applies to those who haven’t yet been here for 5 years) by the 1 July 2021 they will no longer be entitled to work in the UK from that date, unless they are an Irish National (separate rules apply to those from Ireland who are entitled to work here). Thus employers will need to see evidence of that Settled Status or Pre-Settled Status from 1 July 2021.

Further guidance is expected to be issued for employers in relation to this issue nearer that time.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Age Discrimination Anna Denton-Jones Disability Diversity Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Equality Act 2010 Harassment HR Training

The requirement for diversity training

Royal Courts of Justice, London

As if everyone in HR and business is not under enough pressure at the moment, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), in a case Allay (UK) Ltd v Gehlen has confirmed that it regards training provided 2 years ago on equality and diversity “stale” and ineffective. This was in the context of a racial harassment case. You will be familiar with the idea that in order for an employer to escape liability, if there, is to say that they as employer took all reasonable steps to prevent employees from committing the particular discriminatory act.

It has long been the case that employers present the Tribunal with the fact that the employee protagonist in any harassment case has undergone training and that they have policies of not tolerating such acts of harassment.

If you had asked me to guess how long it took training to become stale and ineffective, I might have said 4-5 years. It is really interesting that the EAT wasn’t going to allow the employer to rely on having given somebody training 2 years ago and suggests that employers are going to need to make some sort of refresher training an annual event. This will of course go for all forms of harassment, so every protected characteristic, not just that of race.

In this particular case, the EAT found that the need for a refresher on a regular basis was amplified by remarks made in the case and the failure of other colleagues to react to the harassment they had witnessed or that had been complained about, and showed the training wasn’t in anyone’s minds. The fact that the protagonist felt that what they had said was just banter was further evidence that the training given had faded from memory and the managers didn’t know what to do when they observed harassment or it was reported to them, suggested that training had also faded from their memories. The particular employer had actually provided further training to the protagonist after the incident so that proved that they also thought further training was necessary, thus the employer couldn’t escape liability.

Having seen a real shift as a result of the MeToo movement, attitudes towards sexual harassment in the workplace and a further big shift as a result of the Black Lives Matter movement means that there is a huge spotlight at the moment over conduct in the workplace and a real sea change in what is expected to be tolerated. It could be that as the generations move into the workforce who are more likely to refuse to accept old norms or tolerate what they see as inappropriate, we see a sea change but for now the employer needs to be driving the change and reinforcing the message whenever it can.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Articles Compensation Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 HR Pay TUPE

Post-TUPE transfer — P45 issues

View of the City of London at sunset

One of the niggly little issues that often arises when there is a TUPE transfer is around the issuing of P45s (or not) to those staff whose employment has transferred.  Often the transferor, who has just seen a group of employees depart, or their payroll provider will insist that they are going to issue P45s to the staff. This is the wrong approach and just upsets people.

There are two approaches to take depending on the circumstances. One is for the new employer to just provide HMRC with a spreadsheet of the information that would otherwise have been on the P45s, the other is to argue there has been a succession – which route is right will depend on eg:- whether the employees are being subsumed into a much larger payroll or whether just part of an employer’s employees are transferring.

The succession route is deal with in  the PAYE regulations Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/2682) where Regulation 102 provides that the transfer of a business is deemed to make the transferee or employer who has inherited the employees a successor business. No-one’s employment has ended, so no P45s should be issued.

Under Regulation 102(8) the Transferor has to give the Transferee ‘any particulars’ needed for them to continue processing payroll. Often, if there is a formal document dealing with a transaction, there may also be contractual promises that, for example, the seller of part of a business has made agreeing that they will make available such National Insurance and PAYE records as are necessary for the buyer.

Given that this is quite an esoteric area, if this issue arises it may well be a simple explanation to the Transferor is all it takes to get their co-operation to provide the information that you need and to prevent them from erroneously issuing P45s.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Alternative Dispute Resolution Anna Denton-Jones Communication Confidentiality Conflict Disciplinary Disclosure Dispute Management Duty of Care Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Grievance HR Investigations Privacy Procedural Fairness

Showing the complaint to the employee

View of the City of London at sunset

You will be familiar with the idea that in a disciplinary process the person who is accused of wrongdoing should hear the case against them or should hear or be told the important parts of the evidence in support of that case so that they are given the opportunity to criticise or dispute that evidence and put forward their own arguments. This comes from a case of Spink -v- Express Foods Limited 1990.  But what about the situation where there is a grievance investigation?

The Acas Code is silent on this issue but focuses instead on the person who has raised the complaint. However, as part of the investigation into the complaints that that person has raised, you will need to interview anyone that they have accused of wrongdoing.  For example, there may be an allegation of bullying and harassment.

One option would be to simply show the person, perhaps the line manager, the grievance letter. This is the most open and transparent position and one would hope that any line manager would behave professionally, see the grievance for what it is, and be prepared to answer those allegations in full. This position accords with the concept of ‘natural justice’ – nothing is being hidden and the accused has full opportunity to have their input to what is being said about them.

However, there may be cases where there is a concern that to take this open position would perhaps inflame or fundamentally damage the working relationship between the person who has raised the grievance and, for example, their line manager. The investigator may feel that a better approach would be to not show the full letter to the person who has been accused but rather to take them through the contents of the letter through a process of questioning so that they still have full opportunity to answer what is being said, but perhaps in doing this they can soften the language a little and take some of the ‘heat’ out of the matter.  If the investigator does go down this route they will need to be skilled in questioning and make sure that they do give the full picture to the person so that they are being fair to everybody.  For example, it wouldn’t be appropriate to just say ‘what happened on 5th August?’ You would need to go further and ask ‘Joe Bloggs has stated that there was an argument between the two of you on 5th August. He has said that your voice was raised and that other people noticed that you were shouting.  Is that true?’

If the complainant’s letter refers to complaints against a number of different people then, again, it may be sensible to separate out the allegations so that you are only interviewing an individual about those matters that are relevant to them.

In any event, if the individual (for example, the line manager) is named in a grievance letter, strictly speaking, under the Data Protection Act, they can make a Subject Access Request requesting to see the contents of the letter.  For that reason, again, the employer may want to choose the most open position.

It could also be damaging, as regards the relationship between the employer and the person who has been accused (such as the line manager), if the employer does not disclose the contents of a grievance letter. The line manager may feel that something is being hidden or that they are not being given a full opportunity to answer the case against them, even though at this stage there is no hint of a disciplinary.

The employer will need to carefully weigh all of these issues before deciding how to proceed.  If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law