by Emma | May 16, 2023 | Uncategorized
https://lnkd.in/esrYxDwE
The guidance emphasises that employers should take mental health problems as seriously as physical illnesses and points out that making reasonable adjustments for mental health can help employees to stay in work and work safely and productively, while also helping employers to retain employees and create a healthy work culture.
Examples are given of reasonable adjustments for mental health and employees are encouraged to talk to their employer if they need reasonable adjustments.
Tips are given on how to approach these conversations. The employer is also given tips on how to respond to requests for reasonable adjustments. If any reasonable adjustments are agreed, a trial period and monitoring is recommended bearing in mind that mental health problems can be long-lasting and individuals’ needs may change over time.
Guidance is given to managers on how to support those they manage to access the support that they need. Finally Acas recommends reviewing policies with mental health in mind, and suggests that employers have a policy in place that covers reasonable adjustments for mental health.
If you would like to implement a Mental Health Policy or would like any guidance, please contact me.
by Emma | Feb 16, 2023 | Uncategorized
|
Flexible working Courtesy of the pandemic, flexible working has been fairly high on most employers’ agendas for some time now. The government has confirmed in its response to its consultation, ‘Making flexible working the default’, that a number of changes will be affecting the flexible working regime. Flexible working will become a day one right, and while the eight business grounds for rejecting a flexible working request will remain as they are, there will be a new obligation on employers to consult with the employee to explore the available options before rejecting a request. In addition, instead of only being able to make one statutory request for flexible working in a 12-month period, an employee will be able to make two. Employers currently have three months within which to respond to the request; this will be reduced to a two-month period to make the process more streamlined. The changes are expected to be in law in 2023. The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill The Bill provides that all retained EU law contained in domestic secondary legislation (for example, the Working Time Regulations and TUPE) and retained direct EU legislation will be revoked on 31 December 2023 unless a decision has been made to preserve it. It allows for an extension of the revocation date of certain legislation to a later date (which must be no later than the end of 23 June 2026) to enable departments to have additional time, where necessary, to assess whether some retained EU law should be preserved. Consultation issued on calculating holiday entitlement for part-year and irregular hours workers The government has just launched a consultation on calculating holiday entitlement for part-year and irregular hours workers as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision last year in Harpur Trust v Brazel. The Court held in Harpur Trust that holiday entitlement under the Working Time Regulations 1998 for permanent part-year workers should not be pro-rated so that it is proportionate to that of a full-time worker. As a result of this part-year workers are entitled to a larger annual paid holiday entitlement than part-time workers who work the same total number of hours across the year. The government proposes introducing a holiday entitlement reference period of 52 weeks to ensure that holiday entitlement and pay is directly proportionate to time spent working. It proposes to include the weeks in which workers perform no work in the holiday entitlement reference period. The introduction of carer’s leave This Bill will introduce a new and flexible entitlement of one week’s unpaid leave per year for employees who are providing or arranging care and will be available to eligible employees from the first day of their employment. They will be able to take the leave flexibly to suit their caring responsibilities and will not need to provide evidence of how the leave is used or who it will be used for. Employees will be protected from dismissal or any detriment as a result of having taken time off. The new entitlement to statutory carer’s leave will rely on the carer’s relationship with the person being cared for, namely a spouse, civil partner, child, parent, a person who lives in the same household as the employee (other than by reason of them being their employee, tenant, lodger, or boarder) or a person who reasonably relies on the employee for care. It will also depend on the person being cared for having a long-term care need. Neonatal leave and pay Neonatal care leave will be available to employees from their first day in a new job and will apply to parents of babies who are admitted into hospital up to the age of 28 days, and who have a continuous stay in hospital of 7 full days or more. Parents will have a right to neonatal care leave of at least one week and up to a maximum of 12 weeks regardless of length of service, and parents with at least 26 weeks’ continuous service will have a right to receive neonatal care pay at a prescribed statutory rate. Parents taking neonatal care leave will have the same employment protections as those associated with other forms of family related leave, including protection from dismissal or detriment as a result of having taken leave. Sexual harassment in the workplace The Bill introduces a new duty on employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace and reinstates employer liability for third party harassment. If the Bill is passed in its current form, an employee would be able to bring a third-party harassment claim against their employer after a single incident of harassment by e.g. a client or customer. Previously the legal test only imposed liability after the third incident which meant that successful third-party harassment claims were rare. The Bill contains a 12-month delay period once it has passed, so it won’t come in until 2024 at the earliest. Consultation on Statutory Code of Practice on Dismissal and Re-engagement The government launched a consultation on a statutory Code of Practice on Dismissal and Re-engagement on 24 January. The Code sets out detailed steps that employers should take when seeking to make changes to contractual terms, including providing information, engaging in meaningful consultation and exploring alternatives. It makes it clear that employers should not use threats of dismissal as a negotiating tactic. Employment Tribunals will be required to take the Code into account where relevant in any proceedings and may adjust compensation by up to 25% to reflect unreasonable non-compliance. The consultation on the Code closes on 18 April. |
|
by Emma | Mar 6, 2017 | Newsletter, Uncategorized
Employment Law Update – March
Min Wage April 2017
Year | 25 and over | 21 to 24 | 18 to 20 | Under 18 | Apprentice |
October 2016 (current rate) | £7.20 | £6.95 | £5.55 | £4.00 | £3.40 |
April 2017 | £7.50 | £7.05 | £5.60 | £4.05 | £3.50 |
Unfair dismissal claims win!
Case 1:
An employee won in an unfair dismissal claim, due to the failure of the company to follow procedures. Flaws in their process included (but were, by no means limited to) using the same person to carry out the investigation and to hear the disciplinary hearing; using the person specifically referred to in the defamatory Facebook comments to hear the appeal and not warning the employee prior to the disciplinary hearing, that a possible outcome of the hearing could be summary dismissal, i.e. dismissal without notice.
So while the employer was within the law to dismiss the employee for posting defamatory comments on Facebook, the employer was still in the firing line.
Case 2:
A mechanic attacked another employee by putting his hands over his neck for a few seconds. The mechanic was dismissed for gross misconduct, the company stating that they had a zero tolerance to physical violence.
Because the company failed to take into consideration the employees long service and that there was no evidence that the company had a zero tolerance policy on physical violence.
These cases show that all circumstances need to be taken into account before making a decision to dismiss. It is also a reminder than an employer should be consistent in its treatment of an incident.
Please seek advice from ECHR on all disciplinary related issues prior to carrying out your process.
Whistleblowing
Whistleblowing laws have meant that a disclosure is not protected unless an employee reasonably believes that it is being made “in the public interest”. The laws have existed since June 2013, and have summoned a particular interest surrounding what exactly qualifies as being “in the public interest”. The case of Chesterton Global v Nurmohamed is listed to be heard in The Court of Appeal in June 2017.
The case will help to define what is considered to be ‘in the public interest’, which could influence what should or shouldn’t be reported by employees.
Apprenticeship Levy
An apprenticeship levy is coming into force for any employers with an annual pay bill for the previous tax year in excess of £3 million on 6 April 2017. All employers in this category, whether or not they actually use apprentices, will have to contribute 0.5% if their annual pay bill, calculated on the basis of all payments to employees (including wages, bonuses and commission) that are subject to employer class 1 NICs. Levied employers with apprenticeships will receive an annual allowance of £15,000 to offset against their apprentice costs.
Further information on the levy will be in our next newsletter.
Salary Sacrifice schemes significantly restricted
Employers may need to reconsider their benefit offerings as tax savings through many salary-sacrifice schemes will be abolished from 6 April 2017.
Schemes related to pension savings (including pensions advice), childcare, cycle-to-work and ultra-low emission cars will not be affected.
Schemes in place prior to April 2017 will be protected until April 2018, while arrangements related to cars, accommodation and school fees will be protected until April 2021.
Changes to Immigration
Employers sponsoring foreign workers with a tier 2 visa will be required to pay an immigration skills charge of £1,000 per worker (£364 for small employers and charities) beginning in April 2017. The immigration skills charge will be in addition to current fees for visa applications.
In April 2017, the minimum salary threshold for “experienced workers” applying for a tier 2 visa will also increase to £30,000. New entrants to the job market, and some health and education staff will be exempted from the salary threshold until 2019.
Tribunal Changes
The government has published its response to the consultation on reforming the employment tribunal system. The changes proposed included:
– Digitising the whole claims process;
– Delegating a broad range of routine tasks from judges to caseworkers; and
– Tailoring composition of tribunal panels to the needs of the case.
Responsibility for employment tribunal and EAT rules of procedure will be transferred to the independent Tribunal Procedure Committee, which will be expanded to include an employment judge and a legal practitioner with specific experience of the employment tribunal system.
All tribunal caseworkers will be legally “trained or qualified” and all decisions made under delegated authority will be taken under judicial supervision for quality control.
Plus the new maximum compensation limit as of 6th April 2017 for unfair dismissal will be £80,541.
Mobility Clause a waste of time?
You have decided to close one of your offices in which a number of employees work. You have a mobility clause in your employment contracts.
Now it may not be so simple – If they refuse to move, you may have to acknowledge they’re redundant and pay redundancy accordingly. Otherwise, you may find yourself at the wrong end of an unfair dismissal claim.
This is what happened in the recent case of Kellogg Brown & Root (UK) Ltd v Fitton. They dismissed 2 employees because they refused to relocate and ending up losing their case at tribunal!