If we took a holiday it would be so nice

Conservative Prime Ministerial hopeful Jeremy Hunt caused a stir this week when he announced that, if elected, he would cancel all Civil Service holidays in August in order to make sure that preparations for a No-Deal Brexit were fully implemented. But can an employer simply just cancel holidays, especially if they have already been authorised and staff may have paid out for a trip away?

It may surprise you, but legally the answer is yes. In fact, in certain sectors (e.g. the NHS or emergency services) it’s not that uncommon – think for example of nurses and doctors having leave cancelled because of a winter flu epidemic.

However, it’s not quite that straightforward. Firstly, there are minimum periods of notice which must be given to cancel someone’s holidays. Unless you have a different written agreement, this is the same length of time as the period of the holiday. So someone who’d booked a fortnight’s leave must be given two weeks’ notice of cancellation.  As the new Prime Minister is only expected to take office a week before the beginning of August, and unless the Civil Service has specific rules, Mr Hunt would not have time to stop someone taking two weeks off at the beginning of August.

Secondly, you need to have a clear and urgent business reason. Preparing for an imminent ‘disorderly’ departure from the EU in 12 weeks would probably fit this description, as might things like a high level of staff sickness, or a major and unexpected change in business. If you don’t have a valid reason, however, you might find yourself facing a claim for constructive dismissal.

Thirdly, cancelling someone’s holiday is not likely to motivate or endear them to your business. So you need to balance the short-term issue against the longer-term impacts.

This post doesn’t cover the issue of whether you are liable to compensate people for losses caused by a cancellation. Most travel insurance policies wouldn’t cover cancellation by the employer, potentially leaving your staff significantly out of pocket. Not being a lawyer, I can’t say whether individuals would have grounds to make a civil claim for their loss (if you are a lawyer reading this please feel free to comment) but if they can you might find yourself exposed to significant liabilities.

So, overall, cancelling holidays is something that can be done, but it is an extreme decision to take and would require extreme circumstances, and a proper evaluation of the pros and cons, before I would suggest you do it. As with so much of employment law, the rule is

“Just because you can doesn’t mean you should”

via GIPHY

 

Left Holding the Baby (and other employment problems)

There are certain questions that crop up regularly among my small business clients, and while every circumstance is slightly different, here’s some advice on how to approach some of these common issues if they occur in your organisation

I’ve an employee who always seems to need time off because of problems with her toddler. Last week she took two days off because he had an upset stomach. Her colleagues are getting a bit fed up with covering for her.

First of all, your employee has a legal right to take unpaid time off if an emergency situation arises with a dependant. This right is restricted to genuine emergencies (for example, if nursery ring to say the child is sick and needs to be collected) and not known issues (such as a hospital appointment for the child), and is also restricted to the time required to put in place alternative arrangements – which depending on the circumstances might be anything from an hour to a day – not to provide the care itself. It would be unusual for an ‘emergency’ to last more than a day. If the individual does need more time off, you may be prepared to allow them to take holidays or some other arrangement, but this is at your discretion.

If the employee seems to have ‘emergencies’ regularly, you can discuss with them the situation and look at ways of resolving it. Current case law suggests that the employee is not entitled to an unlimited use of this right. Consider ways that you might be able to get around the situation – for example short-term changes to working hours, or some other flexible arrangement. In the case of childcare particularly, you might want to discreetly find out if the employee’s partner could assist more (often in these cases it is the mum who ends up dealing with the problem every time, not the dad).

My business trades a lot with the EU and we’re badly affected by Brexit. A few members of our staff are vocally pro-Brexit. Can I sack them for promoting something which is damaging their employer?

Probably not. Although political views are not a ‘protected characteristic’ under the Equality Act, if someone feels they have been dismissed for holding a political opinion they can make an unfair dismissal claim even if they don’t have the normal two years’ service. You would have to have to show that dismissal was a reasonable response – and given that it’s unlikely that you can directly blame your employees for the current situation, it would be difficult to substantiate this.

What you can do is make it clear that people should not be using the workplace to promote political views. Someone who repeatedly broke this rule could be taken through the disciplinary procedure and ultimately dismissed. Make sure you apply the rule consistently though, not just against views that you disagree with!

I’m closing down part of my business in a few months and told the one employee in this area he’d be losing his job, and that he would be doing lower paid work somewhere else in the business. He got very irate and walked off the job, and has never returned. Now he’s threatening constructive dismissal – does he have a case?

Unless you were particularly abrupt or unpleasant in the way you told him or did it in a humiliating way (announcing it unexpectedly in front of colleagues for example), it’s unlikely. You are however putting him at risk of redundancy and needed to consult with him – including on whether the alternative work is suitable (if lower paid, it’s unlikely to be). That could leave you at risk of an unfair dismissal claim if the employee has more than 2 years’ service. As he’s walked off before you could undertake proper consultation, or even give him his legal notice, you are likely to have a defence against a claim, but it could get messy and time-consuming. If he does make a claim, consider settling through ACAS early conciliation or via a Settlement Agreement.

MPs and Constructive Dismissal

MPs and Constructive Dismissal

One of the side products of this week’s decision by a group of Tory and Labour MPs to quit their parties and sit as an independent group was a somewhat heated discussion on parts of social media as to whether some of them, particularly Liverpool Wavertree MP Luciana Berger, would be able to claim constructive dismissal over their alleged treatment by their party organisations.

The first thing to say is that MPs are not employees of their political parties, so the simple answer is no. But as constructive dismissal is something that worries many small employers, it’s worth clarifying what it is – and isn’t.

Constructive dismissal is behaviour by the employer that is so awful that the employee can consider that they no longer have any trust or confidence in the organisation they work for and resigns as a consequence. It can be thought of in some respects as the opposite of gross misconduct (a situation where an employee commits an act that the employer can no longer have any trust or confidence in them, e.g. stealing, assault, leaking commercial secrets to a competitor etc).

It could be a single act by an employer, such as unilaterally reducing someone’s pay or demoting them to a lower grade. It might be humiliating someone in the presence of their colleagues and subordinates (this Gordon Ramsay clip is a good example – warning contains strong language). It can also be the final straw in a series of events which allows the person to conclude they can no longer work there.

It’s also worth remembering that an employer is responsible for the behaviour of their staff. So, if an organisation ignored or failed to deal with allegations of bullying, harassment, insulting or threatening behaviour against an individual employee by their colleagues, which then led to the individual resigning, they could be deemed to have constructively dismissed the employee.

Constructive dismissal isn’t a situation where an employer makes a decision that the employee is unhappy about (I’ve been asked questions about in the past about whether making someone move from a private to a shared office could be constructive dismissal for example – it wasn’t). And remember that if the person doesn’t resign there can be no constructive dismissal.

Constructive dismissal is also quite rare. There are, I think, two reasons for this. The first is that it takes a lot of courage, even in a very difficult situation, to simply walk out of a job.  The second is that to win a case at a tribunal, the onus is on the employee to show that the employer’s actions were such that they were justified in resigning, rather than a normal unfair dismissal where the onus is on the employer to show that its decision was fair and reasonable.  Even though the case is – like all employment matters – decided on the balance of probability (what the judge thinks is the most credible explanation of events) rather than the criminal standard of absolute proof, it still puts an additional hurdle in the way of a successful claim.

Based solely on the reports and social media postings I have seen, had she been an employee then Ms Berger certainly would have strong grounds for a claim. Whether she would have succeeded would have been up to a tribunal judge to decide. But it’s a useful reminder to employers that trying to ‘force’ someone  (or allowing colleagues to force them) out of an organisation can have far-reaching consequences.

Gordon Ramsay

The Luck of the Irish?

Here we are, only 5 months away from the Brexit date and, at the time of writing, no agreement on the arrangements for the UK to leave and the possibility of a “No Deal” Brexit still high. It’s small wonder that a number of my SME clients are considering options to set up operations in Ireland in order to continue trading seamlessly from April next year – especially when we read today that Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab is to order his civil servants to start issuing “No Deal” instructions to business.

But operating in a foreign country means following their employment laws. So how does Ireland differ from the UK?

The good news is that the Irish system – unlike many in the EU – is based on the same legal principles and processes as the UK. So it won’t look entirely unfamiliar to businesses and HR professionals. But there are some important differences, summarised below

Key Differences between UK and Irish Employment Law

Area of Law UK Ireland
Minimum Wage Different Levels based on age, and for apprentices Essentially an ‘under 18’ and ‘over 18’ rate although there are specific rates for those on training or in first two years of work after 18.
Working Time 20 minute Rest break entitlement after 6 hours working 15 minute rest break after 4.5 hours or 30 minutes after 6 hours
Pensions Auto enrolment No compulsory
Sick Pay SSP No compulsory
Holidays 5.6 weeks 4 weeks (with different  calculation rules for part-timers)
Zero Hours No guarantee (no work no pay) Guaranteed a minimum number of hours even if none worked (however, very few used – most employers would use “If and When” contracts – same as UK ‘casual’ – with no rights)
Agency Workers Rights only after 12 weeks with a company Rights from Day 1
Employment Status Employee, worker (limb b) or self-employed Employee or self-employed – no ‘intermediate’ worker status
Redundancy Payments Calculated on age and service Calculated on service only
Statutory Notice 1 week per complete year up to max of 12 Different ‘bands’ depending on service. Max 8 weeks after 15 years
Unfair dismissal Requires 2 years’ service Requires 1 years’ service
Working Time Can opt out of 48 hour max week No opt-out
Compensation No limit in discrimination or whistleblowing cases Limit of 2 years pay (discrimination) or 5 years pay (whistleblowing)
Settlement Agreements Can be used as an alternative to tribunal No such concept
Trade Union Right to recognition for collective bargain purposes if specific conditions met No statutory right to recognition
TUPE   More restricted definition of a transfer
Discrimination 9 protected characteristics 9 protected characteristics but some different to UK

·         Gender not Sex

·         Civil Status (= marital status in UK)

·         Family Status (parent of child under 18 – over 18 if disabled)

·         Member of Traveller Community

No: Gender reassignment, or pregnancy as a separate category (covered by gender)

Maternity Leave Pay Up to 52 weeks mat leave, 2 weeks after birth compulsory.

 

Employer must pay Statutory Maternity Pay if conditions are met

Up to 42 weeks mat leave.

Compulsory period of 2 weeks before and 4 weeks after birth.

 

No requirement on employer to pay, state maternity benefits available.

 

As with the UK, there is nothing to stop an employer offering above minimum conditions, but you can’t go below.

Obviously, this is only a general summary – more information is available from the Workplace Relations Commission which is broadly speaking the Irish equivalent of ACAS (although with more powers to inspect employers)

As well as recruiting staff in Ireland, some organisations are considering posting or seconding UK based staff there. At the moment, as both countries are EU members, this isn’t an issue. But in the event of a No Deal Brexit, will this change?

Yes. If the UK is not a member of the EU, or the broader EEA (which it won’t be in a No Deal situation) then UK nationals will be classed as third country nationals and will require a work permit. The good news is that Ireland has a considerably more relaxed approach than the UK – anyone from a third country can apply for a general employment permit unless they are in an excluded category of work (which can be found here).

So, relocation to Ireland is not too difficult in legal terms, although companies will need to think about plenty of other employment and non-employment issues. But – as per the Brexit secretary – now is the time to make your decision.

Important – this post is for general advice and information and neither Ariadne Associates or the author can be held liable if you take action based solely on the contents of it. You should seek professional advice, especially as the situation is changing daily.

 

Radical or Bureaucratic? Why Labour’s HR proposals may be both

With the current political turmoil in the UK, and the possibility that we may see a change in Government in the near future, this post looks briefly at the HR and employment related announcements made this month by the opposition and consider their effects on the profession. I should stress that I’m not looking at this from a political view – HR professionals (and businesses more widely) have a responsibility to ensure our organisations work within the law, whatever our personal views of a particular piece of legislation.

Five key announcements have been made by Labour’s John McDonnell in recent weeks, in a series of speeches.

1.       Ban ‘zero hours contracts’. I’ve written before that this probably wouldn’t solve the underlying problem – since employers would either go down the route of full casualisation, or offer ‘1 hour per week with the option to do more’ contracts. But from an HR perspective, other than the admin time caused by changing existing contractual arrangements, it might cause businesses to rethink their reason why they use these types of contracts.

2.       Raise the minimum wage to £10 per hour. Not really an issue from an HR perspective, as the current Government have previously said they want to raise the level to £9 per hour, this is more a political argument as to what level the minimum wage should be.

3.       Sectoral Collective Bargaining. Collective agreements still exist on an industry wide basis – not just in the public sector – in some sectors. (I still need to dig out my ‘pink book’ – below – occasionally). But given that union membership is at a low level, doesn’t exist in certain sectors and employers aren’t currently obliged to participate in sectoral bargaining even if they do recognise unions, this seems to be more of a long-term aim than a change that will have an immediate impact on the way companies interact with their staff.

4.       Right to paid leave for victims of domestic abuse. I don’t think anyone would disagree with the principle behind this (and we will shortly have to implement paid leave for child bereavement, so it’s not really an extra administrative task). But I can see a whole host of practical difficulties. Will individuals have to pre-declare to their employer that they are in an abusive relationship? At what point will the right kick in (physical abuse? Mental cruelty?)? What evidence will be needed? This isn’t to make light of a very serious issue, but it is a subject that requires sensitive handling from HR and simply setting it up a ‘procedure’ doesn’t seem to be the way forward. (I haven’t seen a policy document, simply the announcement, so if there is more detail on how this would work I’m happy to link to it).

5.       Compulsory Share Ownership for Employees. This issue attracted the most media attention, primarily because employers with over 250 staff would be ‘forced’ to give employees a percentage of shares (up to 10% over a period of time), allowing them to earn dividends on top of their wages. Employee shareholding is not a new concept, there are many companies that operate schemes that allow some or all employees to be given shares in the organisation. Nor are ‘compulsory’ schemes anything unusual – companies are already required to enrol employees in a pension scheme and to make financial contributions to it, while a chunk of profits is already taken from larger companies in the form of the apprenticeship levy. In one sense the idea is simply a different approach to that taken by the Cameron government, but with the same aim – to allow workers a greater stake in their employer. From an HR perspective –  having spent several years working in an employee owned business – the major immediate challenges will be for learning and development professionals who will need to devise training on the different roles and responsibilities of an employee and a shareholder, and responding to the argument “you can’t sack me, I’m a shareholder” in disciplinary hearings.

And while we shouldn’t undersestimate the possible cultural effects of these proposals, the devil will be in the detail for most of them. Will they go the way of the ill-fated “Statutory Dismissal and Grievance Procedures” introduced – and quickly abolished – in the early 2000s? Or will they become just part of the regulatory environment for HR, like maternity leave or compulsory redundancy consultation? Only time (and the result of the next general election) will tell.

IMG_0036