Nuffield Health have revealed the outcome of a study, showing that 80 per cent of employees feel that working from home has had a negative impact on their mental health.

Many businesses continue to operate in their usual manner without needing staff to be present in the office. The vast majority of the survey respondents - 80 per cent - who have been working remotely said that they are just as, or more productive and motivated at home.  Whilst working at home has distractions, the flexibility it provides means many employees are at least as productive than in the office.

With regard to the mental health of employees working at home, it was found that - as reflected in the findings of top mental health charities and services - two in five employees surveyed shared the opinion that lockdown and working from home have both had a negative effect on their mental health.

Over 40 per cent of employees report feeling disconnected to their business and culture whilst working from home - and a staggering 60 per cent of employees reported that their employers have not done anything to keep colleagues connected whilst working remotely.

Mental health charity, Mind, also found that 60 per cent of adults stated that their mental health deteriorated during the initial period of lockdown restrictions from April to mid-May 2020, whilst working remotely, making it clear that being away from the usual sights and sounds of the business can connect with businesses faltering.

It is suggested that something as simple as a Zoom quiz; virtual coffee morning or online teambuilding exercise can assist in helping employees to maintain relations with their employer.

Findings from O C Tanner’s 2022 Global Culture Report - which analysed the perspectives of over 38,000 employees, leaders, HR practitioners and executives from twenty-one countries around the world, including over 2,500 from the UK - found that 83 per cent believe that those who work full time remotely cannot meaningfully connect with workplace culture.

Of the UK respondents, 20 per cent believe that two days each week in the office is sufficient to feel connected to the culture - with 18 per cent feeling that three days is preferable and 16 per cent stating that just one day is necessary. Of the remainder, 8 per cent stated five days per week; 8 per cent said one day every two weeks; 7 per cent cited four days and one day per month was suggested by 6 per cent.

Robert Ordever - MD of workplace culture expert, O.C. Tanner Europe - stated:

“It’s no surprise that workers can see the difficulties of developing a strong connection to organisational culture when fully remote working. Being physically together in the office allows for collaboration, innovation and connection – all harder to achieve at a distance. In fact, the office is vital for facilitating social interaction, storytelling and memory making, all of which nurture a strong workplace culture.”  

He added:

“For the sake of organisational culture as well as overall business success, it’s important that a balance remains between home and office working, avoiding a shift towards total remote working. Offices are now cultural incubators, providing employees with the best opportunity to connect to the organisation, their leaders and each other. Should offices be taken away, corporate culture could be irreversibly damaged.”

Employment experts have been asked what they have learned about changes to working practices over the last 12 months. 

In fact, when 2,046 workers were surveyed by YouGov earlier this month, 51 per cent stated that that would consider leaving their company if hybrid working (or flexible working) was removed.

Over the last decade, hybrid working has gained in popularity and during the pandemic this popularity has accelerated to make hybrid working the preferred choice for many workers.

Some organisations have experienced success, with others having had an uncertain transition - but hybrid working has taught some valuable lessons. Many businesses are incorporating their employees desire for flexibility and rebranding as ‘work from anywhere’.

A panel of HR and employment experts were asked about what they learnt from the last 12 months - and what they considered businesses should take forward into 2022. 

Daisy Hooper - Head of Policy at the Chartered Management Institute - stated:

"One of the key things we've all learned in 2021 has been the value of trust in our working relationships.”

She says that having a hybrid - or remote working policy - requires a strong level of trust between employer and employee.  

However, she adds that not everyone can manage teams remotely and mentions how “we've also seen a realisation that some managers will need training and guidance on how best to handle their teams who are working in a hybrid or home-based model.”

Gemma Dale - Lecturer at Liverpool John Moores University - said:

“Most people only really began to work in a hybrid way from the summer, before it was interrupted with new home working guidance in December.”

She also commented on employee reluctance to return to their offices and says this is partly because of ongoing anxiety about Covid.  It appears that employees are questioning why they need to return to offices.

Gemma Dale added:

“This is a key challenge for HR when the current work-from-home period ends; how do we create meaningful face-time in offices, helping people to be more intentional about their time in physical workspace?”

Ben Willmott - Head of Public Policy at the CIPD - commented that in addition to hybrid working, employers should consider the different flexible working arrangements they offer.  This would ensure that everyone can benefit from flexibility - and not just those who can work from home.

He stated:

“Over the course of the year, many businesses have been able to test and develop effective home and hybrid working practices.”

However, he warned:

“Organisations will need to ensure they consult with staff as they go, to figure out arrangements that work best for both the business and employees”.

Alan Lewis - Partner at Constantine Law - said:

“Some employers have said they do not expect to go back to having staff in the workplace full time.”

He also pointed out that:

“The employer has little control over who is viewing data where staff work remotely.”

He stressed the importance of training about confidentiality, which “cannot be emphasised enough” - as well as being prepared to take any appropriate disciplinary action.

Alan Lewis also advised that “health and safety implications have to be addressed effectively, including carrying out risk assessments… providing the right type of equipment, perhaps even a special kit to enable remote working”.

KPMG and the Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC) have released their latest UK Report on Jobs survey. It showed a further sharp increase in hiring activity midway through the fourth quarter, with both permanent placement and temp billings continuing to rise strongly.

The survey - which drew its data from a panel of around 400 UK recruitment and employment consultancies - showed there were marked increases in vacancies for both permanent and short-term staff, which combined with a substantial drop in overall candidate supply is thought to have led to further increases in starting pay in an effort to attract and secure workers. Notably, the rate of starting salary inflation hit a fresh series record in November, even though it has risen each month since March 2021. Temp pay softened only slightly from October's all-time record.

Neil Carberry, Chief Executive of the REC, said:

“Today’s figures emphasise again how far we have come this year – it is certainly a great Christmas if you’re looking for a job. This is always the busiest part of the year for recruiters, but demand for new staff across the autumn has been exceptional. Because of this high demand, starting salaries and temp rates continue to rise, making it even more attractive to be looking for a new opportunity in 2022. Hiring companies will need to make sure they get their offer right – not just on pay – and take an inclusive approach if they are to avoid losing out.”

The data also showed that growth of demand was considerably stronger for private sector workers than public sector staff. The biggest increase in vacancies was recorded for permanent roles in the private sector, with the IT & Computing industry posting the steepest increase, followed by Hotel and Catering. The lowest upturn was for permanent staff in the public sector.

Claire Warnes, Head of Education, Skills and Productivity at KPMG UK, stated:

“The confidence of businesses to hire remains reassuringly robust. We’ve seen nine months of growth in permanent placements and rising vacancies for the past 10 months as the economy bounces back. The data points to a strong end to the year, but that hunger to expand could be tested as the jobs market becomes ever tighter. The pace of demand for workers is running far faster than supply can keep up with, which is draining an already diminished pool of available talent and feeding into inflationary pressures.”

However, in the last few days positivity over rising employment rates and the hiring spree over the past few months looks like it could be cut short, as the Omicron variant of Covid-19 threatens economic recovery.

According to a survey of more than 8,227 people by Entrepreneur Seminar - an education and mentoring programme - it was found that 80 per cent of employees were not satisfied with their jobs. Those surveyed were between the ages of 25-55 years - with a 60 per cent male, 40 per cent female gender split.

The majority - 78 per cent - were employed in small and medium-sized enterprises and of those, 60 per cent were in middle management roles; 27 per cent were of junior and entry level, with senior management accounting for 13 per cent.

Despite 82 per cent being fearful of an impending recession - brought about due to the pandemic - 68 per cent of workers were considering leaving their jobs and setting up their own businesses, maybe encouraged by the economists more optimistic predictions of a recovery and a surge in economic growth.

During the pandemic, many employees reassessed their priorities and career objectives, which led to 58 per cent of those surveyed stating that they were considering a change of skills and 55 per cent saying that it had made them more likely to start their own business. 

The survey found that the majority - 72 per cent - of workers wanting to start a business was with the intention of increasing their financial wealth despite the fact that 60 per cent of new businesses fail in the first five years. Lack of capital is often the reason for the failure - 95 per cent of those surveyed admitted to funding of less than £10,000 with 25 per cent only able to invest £5,000.

The biggest barriers to starting a business were found to be lack of business knowledge, as cited by 49 per cent of those surveyed; 32 per cent said lack of funding and 10 per cent lacked confidence in their business idea.

These findings correspond with data produced by HMRC, who report that more businesses were created in March 2021 than in any other month since records began. In 2020, a 14 per cent increase on the previous year brought the total of new businesses started to 835,000.

Martin Warner - founder of Entrepreneur Seminar - stated:

“This is an unprecedented era of opportunity for entrepreneurs and the pandemic has provided many aspiring entrepreneurs with an opportunity to pause and reflect on their careers. The world is open to new ideas, opportunities, and change, but jumping into entrepreneurship is a brave decision, regardless of the times. 

The most important thing for anyone starting their own business is to get the right advice and mentoring. With that support in place, anyone has the potential to run a great business, but without it the risk of failure increases significantly. 

It is heartening to see so many people looking to embark on the journey of entrepreneurship because small businesses are the backbone of the UK economy. But they will face challenges they have never encountered before and going alone requires not only courage, but a willingness to learn from others who have successfully completed that journey.”

The CIPD - the professional body for HR and people development - has released a new report entitled “What should an effective sick pay system look like?”  which claims the UK’s Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) system is “broken” and examines what reforms are needed. 

SSP was introduced in 1983 to provide a pay to employees unable to work due to short-term illness and in 1986 an employers’ liability to pay SSP was extended from eight weeks  to 28 weeks of sickness absence in each tax year.

In 1991, the rate of SSP that an employer could claim in reimbursement was lowered to 80% and in 1994 it was abolished for all but small employers.  

The eligibility criteria for SSP payments are that an individual must be an ‘employee’ or agency worker, earn on average at least £120 per week and have been ill or self-isolating for at least seven consecutive days. From the fourth day of sickness, SSP is paid at the rate of £96.35 per week (for April 2021 to April 2022) for a maximum of 28 weeks but this is raised annually every April.

To compile its report, the CIPD surveyed a sample of employers in its regular Labour Market Outlook survey, then consulted a range of stakeholders including HR directors, lawyers and policy experts through a CIPD Policy Forum roundtable.

Of the 1,000 employers surveyed  by the CIPD, nearly two thirds (62%) think the UK’s current statutory sick pay (SSP) rate of £96.35 per week is too low and should be increased – with 57% of small companies agreeing. In response, the CIPD has suggested the government raise the amount of SSP to the same as the national minimum wage or national living wage. For example, for someone aged 23 or over this would be £62.37 a day.

Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted those that are unable to access the scheme. The self-employed and those earning less than £120 a week do not qualify and these equate to around 5.6 million people, or 17.2% of the workforce. The CIPD suggests there is therefore a need for the self-employed to contribute to some form of income replacement support that they can benefit from when sick.

Rachel Suff, senior employment relations adviser at the CIPD, stated:

“The UK’s SSP system has been broken for a long time and the pandemic has only highlighted its failure to protect the lowest paid and most vulnerable members of our society.”

The CIPD’s recommendations based on the survey results are that the UK Government extend protection to those on the lowest incomes and act now to expand eligibility for SSP by abolishing the lower earnings limit (LEL) and the level of SSP is raised to be closer to the equivalent of someone earning the National Minimum Wage/National Living Wage (based on a pro rata daily rate covering time taken off work sick, for example, this would mean that if someone aged 23 or above normally works seven hours per day, their pro rata daily SSP rate would be £62.37 (7 x £8.91).

According to a survey by Spencer Stuart - an executive head-hunter company - women have passed men to now hold most non-executive director positions.However, the report also showed that almost 90 per cent of executive directors in the top 150 FTSE companies are male. This highlights the fact that men still dominate the management roles. A review of governance practice - excluding investment trusts - found that women now represent 51 per cent of all non-executive directors which is up from 18 per cent a decade ago.As stated by Spencer Stuart - for the first time since tracking began, 442 women occupied non-executive positions whilst those occupied by men numbered 422. It was also found that women occupied 36 per cent of all board roles - up from 34 per cent in 2020. But the analysis also found that 86 per cent of executive directors were male. Men held all four senior board positions in sixty-four of the top 150 companies, with no increase of women holding executive director positions over the last year. Tessa Bamford - leader of Spencer Stuart’s board and chief executive practice - stated:“…progress is limited to non-executive directors - the number of female executives in the boardroom and on executive committees remains very low.” She then called upon companies to continue focussing their efforts on developing female talent within the executive ranks.Shriti Vadera - chair of insurer Prudential - said that “diversity of thought and experience is paramount for the successful functioning of a board.” She added that the report not only highlighted the progress made but also showed “…where we need to go further and faster to achieve meaningful change.” According to the analysis, 61 per cent of FTSE 150 firms had at least one minority ethnic director sitting on their board, but 39 per cent had no minority ethnic representation. The proportion of first-time board directors from minority ethnic backgrounds rose from 17 per cent to 25 per cent during the last year.

The research identified that most directors with ethnic minority backgrounds do not hold leadership positions on the board - only one board chair amongst those surveyed was minority ethnic.Sandra Kerr CBE - race equality director at Business in the Community - stated:“Since mentorship and sponsorship opportunities have declined since 2018, we need more leaders to step up and support employees of ethnic minority backgrounds.” Dr Scarlett Brown - corporate governance lead at the CIPD - commented that more companies need to collect data on the diversity of their workforce, including disability, gender, sexual orientation, social background and cognitive diversity. She stated:“The real challenge is increasing the number of women in leadership roles, where progress is still low.”  But she added:“Diversity at board level - which is vital for effective decision making - also needs to encompass more than just gender or ethnicity.”

A new TUC poll - conducted by YouGov - of 903 HR managers, has revealed that 70 per cent said flexible working could work for their business.

The poll shows that employers attitudes towards flexible working arrangements have decidedly changed during the pandemic, with 49 per cent of respondents saying that - because of the pandemic - greater flexible working could work for their business. Added to that are 21 per cent who say that their business already allowed significant flexible working before the pandemic. 

Only 24 per cent of the HR managers polled said that - following the pandemic - they will not be permitting any significant flexible working at their company or business.

Regarding job adverts, the poll revealed that 62 per cent of the HR professionals stated that they could either include specific information about the pattern of home or remote working available in each role, or that they already did this. In addition, 59 per cent of HR managers polled said it would be easy to include specific information in each job advert about the types of hours-based flexible working arrangements available - or they already did this.

Peter Cheese - Chief Executive at the CIPD - commented that flexible working was here to stay, meaning that businesses need to discover what works best for them and their employees, adding that in a tight labour market, flexible working could prove crucial for employers facing recruitment difficulties.

However, he cautioned that it was vital for employers to consider all their workforce in offering a range of flexible working options - from day one of employment - to include flexitime; compressed hours; job sharing and term-time working.

He said:

“This means that everybody can benefit from flexibility, not just those who are able to work from home.”

Despite proposing several legislative changes, including giving employees the right to request flexible working from the first day of their employment, the government has made it clear that firms should still be able to reject flexible working requests if they have a business reason for doing so.

The TUC is asking the government to make flexible working a legal right from day one of the employment - unless the employer can justify the reason it is not possible. They are also asking for employees to have the right to appeal a rejection - with no limit on the number of times they can request flexible arrangements.

Frances O’Grady - TUC General Secretary - said:

“During the pandemic, many people were able to work flexibly or from home for the first time. Staff and bosses both saw the benefits this flexibility can bring, but the current system is broken. A right to ask for flexible working is no right at all – especially when bosses can turn down requests with impunity. 

Attitudes to all types of flexible working changed significantly in the pandemic. Ministers need to take advantage of this – and make sure all workers can get the flexible working they need. 

Flexible working is how we keep mums in work and close the gender pay gap. It enables dads to spend more time with their kids. It helps disabled workers and carers stay in their jobs – and in employment. 

Ministers must change the law - all jobs must be advertised with the possible flexible options clearly stated, and all workers must have the legal right to work flexibly from their first day in a job.”

The UK has already started to roll out COVID-19 vaccinations using the BioNTech-Pfizer vaccine. As a result of the recent approval of the Oxford University/Astra Zeneca vaccine by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, many more vaccinations will be offered to UK citizens, including workers in all organisations.

With some airlines and countries already suggesting that vaccinations may be a pre-requisite to travel and entry, it is critical for businesses to commence planning now for what it will mean to them.

As with the initial crisis response, when faced with decisions around vaccinations businesses will need to simultaneously protect their employees whilst abiding by government regulations - and playing their part in the protection of national healthcare infrastructure.

Planning for the growing implementation of the vaccine relies on trust and businesses who have spent time building trust with their workers could see it destroyed if the recovery period is not treated corrected.

Employees will want to understand what their options are and will look to their leadership for answers and guidance through the myriad of new and evolving regulations. This applies to both employees working on the premises and those working remotely.

HR executives need to ensure that protectionary measures are high in their physical return to work and travel plans, considering challenges such as how a vaccination, or a lack of a vaccination, will impact on return to physical work planning; what employee’s long-term preferences are and – for workers who choose not to be vaccinated – what will this mean for them.

For those who are located in different countries or expected to travel as part of their role, it will be essential to ensure they are protected, as rules across different jurisdictions can change quickly.

Strategic planning by HR executives should extend cross-border and consider multi-state regulatory frameworks – it is a truly global issue.

Sarah Calderwood - Human Resources and Employment lawyer at Slater Heelis - has discussed what the rules are when it comes to employers asking staff to get the vaccination. She states:

“Under current health and safety legislation, employers have a duty to protect the health of employees, anyone on their premises and anyone else effected by the business. Existing vaccination guidelines state that if a risk assessment finds a risk of exposure to biological agents and effective vaccines exist, employers should offer to provide immunisations to those who are not already immunised, however, employees are at liberty to refuse immunisation.”

When asked if an employer can add an immunisation clause to a job contract - she replied:

“If employers want to make the Covid vaccine a contractual requirement, changes in the terms of the contract would need to be agreed by staff. Employers enforcing this change without employees’ express and implied agreement would be in breach of contract and employees would be entitled to resign and claim constructive unfair dismissal. Employers could find it difficult to show this change in terms as reasonable and may struggle to introduce this type of agreement for existing employees. If employers were to introduce an immunisation clause into new starters’ contracts, it would have to be in a reasonable manner which would include consultations with any employees worried about the vaccine for any reason.”

There has been an increase in the amount of alcohol consumed at home since the start of the pandemic, as Health and Safety software company - Protecting.co.uk - found that that 90 per cent of workers admit to drinking alcohol whilst working, causing all sorts of problems such as worker health, the quality of work and deeper ethical issues.

Company spokesman - Mark Hall - said:

“The freedoms of working from home have allowed workers to behave in ways they wouldn’t dream of in the office. Just because you are in your own home alcohol and substance abuse policies still apply.”

Nearly 30 per cent of people said that they would go to the pub for after work drinks, but as huge numbers of the UK workforce have been on furlough or working from home this year, the opportunity to socialise and unwind in the pub with colleagues at the end of the week has all but disappeared.

However, this does not mean people have stopped drinking – 26 per cent of people in the UK said that they had increased their consumption of alcohol during the first lockdown when pubs were closed.  

Protecting.co.uk worries that the lack of structure in home working has left many clouding the boundaries between home and work life, with some not realising that they are breaking the rules.

A phone poll of 1300 people who are all working at home due to COVID-19 and carried out by Protecting.co.uk finds that nine out of ten people have admitted to drinking whilst working in their own homes this year.

Mark Hall stated:

“It ranges from just a glass for two with lunch, to getting through a whole bottle of wine a day, but the health implications are clear.”

Of the people polled, 87 per cent stated that they had drunk on more than one occasion whilst working from home; 83 per cent stated that they drank more than twice a week whilst working from home and 93 per cent admitted to consuming more alcohol during the pandemic, than previously.

There was also a 20 per cent increase in those seeking help from addiction services in April 2020.   

Mark Hall commented:

“It’s alarming to employers to hear that staff feel like they can get away with all kinds of behaviour while they are out of office. It’s going to be a hard habit to break once this is all over.”

Although most workplaces have a robust alcohol and substance abuse policy to keep staff in check when they are at work, it’s clear that the rules are not being followed at home and unfortunately for employers, it’s difficult to police what staff do at home during working hours.

Mark Hall has some advice to help employers. He suggests that communication is kept open and regular staff checks are made to enquire how they are getting on; they should be informed as what hours they are expected to work and let know that help is available if required. A more extreme option is to send home testing kits and request that they test themselves to make sure they can work.

He stated:

“The best approach is to talk to your employers and help them to understand why it is important to you and your business for these rules to be followed, but to also support those who may be struggling.  We all have our guilty pleasures and vices, but this should not impact our ability to work professionally, and if you find yourself unable to cope there are plenty of resources available.”

LinkedIn has surveyed more than 250 UK business leaders, finding that 31 per cent stated that their focus in the next six months would be on giving their employees the chance to move into different roles internally.

Reskilling and upskilling employees was cited by 32 per cent as a top priority for 2021. 

The research found that employers are prioritising talent within their existing workforce rather than hiring out of the company - because of the uncertainty caused by the coronavirus crisis.

Janine Chamberlin - Senior Director at LinkedIn - said the continued uncertainty around Covid-19 has meant many companies are looking to ‘tap existing employees for new opportunities within their organisations’ instead of hiring external candidates.

She added:

“Encouraging internal mobility not only boosts retention and improves employee engagement, but it can also help companies evolve their businesses from within and bridge any existing skills gaps. To ensure employees are set up for success and have the skills to support career transitions, reskilling and upskilling initiatives are vital and HR professionals will play a pivotal role in facilitating this.”

In addition, the research found that 34 per cent of leaders wanted to create a culture of learning to help employees develop the skills they needed for the future. 

Another 31 per cent said they were focused on closing the skills gaps within their organisations.  

Lizzie Crowley - Senior Skills Policy Adviser at the CIPD - warned against businesses being tempted to cut learning and development budgets following the pandemic. She stated that on previous recessions, learning and development budgets were ‘vulnerable’ as businesses attempted to cut costs - but she said doing so now could risk potential growth in the future, adding:

“It’s like shooting yourself in the foot a bit if you don’t invest in your staff during challenging times. Thinking creatively about how you redeploy existing talent within your workforce is what will give you that kind of competitive edge in what is a challenging market.”

Noelle Murphy - Senior HR Practice Editor at XpertHR - stated:

“Hiring internally ensures that one of the key elements of retention is in place – a good fit with the organisation’s values and culture. Investing in learning and development can be a far more effective use of funds than spending money on external recruitment and selection processes, and HR can make a powerful business case for investing in identifying talent internally, not only for roles available today but also future requirements of the organisation.”

She added that developing internal talent also built positive relationships with employees, demonstrating confidence in the skills and competence of the workforce. 

As a result of the pandemic accelerating changes to the world of work, a report from the Confederation of British Industry found nine in 10 UK employees would have to reskill by 2030. 

It is anticipated that in the next decade, 26 million workers would require upskilling in order to keep up to date with technological and business developments.  Another 5 million workers would go through a fundamental job change and require retraining.

Suzanne Hurndall - Relationship Director at HR Inspire Ltd - stated:

“Creating dedicated initiatives for key groups within the company to achieve this goal is vital – it shouldn’t be a ‘one size fits all’ approach and implementing real L&D can be truly transformational.” 

She added:

“This future of work is essential to foster a trust culture as we navigate our current landscape and create teams comfortable with grappling together with the unknown.”

At an employment tribunal heard at Exeter, a female executive - Ms Susan Coulson, aged 59 years - was awarded £64,000 after she was dismissed by a housing company. 

Ms Coulson made a claim for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination against RentPlus UK Ltd - a Plymouth based housing firm - after she was fired from her £100,000 a year job.  She stated that she was given the option of taking a job 250 miles away or taking a £35,000 pay cut, leaving her in a ‘perilous’ position because of her age.

Ms Coulson declined both offers and was dismissed in August 2018, after being employed by the company since 2015.  Previously, she had worked in social housing at a high level for 20 years.

When Ms Coulson joined RentPlus, Richard Connolly was the CEO and in April 2017, Steven Collins - who was a witness at the tribunal - was appointed as a consultant to secure strategic new business. Towards the end of 2017 Richard Connolly decided that for personal reasons he could no longer continue in his role as CEO and without advertising the vacancy, the board appointed Steven Collins to his position.  

Ms Coulson argued that she had been gradually ‘frozen out’ under the disguise of 'cost cutting' after the new chief executive had been appointed. The board consisted of all male members. She pointed out that she was well equipped to apply for the role of CEO - she is now CEO of a larger organisation in this field - but was denied the opportunity to do so, as the appointment was made by the board without anyone outside it knowing it was under consideration. The board say that the restructure was genuine, that her dismissal had not been to do with gender and that there was no post available at the same level.

In the judgment, the judges said that the company had argued against sex discrimination, claiming: ‘that all the board are male is simply a reflection of the fact that few women have the money and connection to attain such a position. That some may play golf or have yachts is not an indicator of sex discrimination’. They added that ‘while the tribunal is unanimous as to the findings of fact, and the assessment of them in relation to unfair dismissal, this was no more than a very bad case of unfair dismissal.  Rentplus’ case is one that would have applied to any person in Ms Coulson’s position such that there is no connection with gender.’

Employment Judge Paul Housego said:

“She is a resilient individual not afraid of, and relishing, hard work, but the ­tribunal fully accept her evidence that this was highly demoralising and depressing.

She was left at an age where she feared that she might never be able to get a similar role, and (rightfully in the tribunal’s view) considered that she was in an even more perilous ­situation than a comparable man because ageism is worse for women than men, and she would have the risk of double prejudice as a woman.

It is not necessary for her to prove that her fears are a correct assessment - the tribunal is fully satisfied that they were real, and genuine fears caused by the company’s actions, which had a great effect on Ms Coulson.”

The employment tribunal ruled that Ms Coulson was unfairly dismissed as well as sexually discriminated against.  

A survey by Aviva - who polled 2,000 workers - found that employees were happier before the pandemic.

The report revealed several key findings - including the fact that 52 per cent of employees agree that the boundaries between work and home are becoming increasingly blurred; 54 per cent state that their employer has worked hard to create a sense of company togetherness, despite only 15 per cent agreeing that their employer understands what motivates them - and whilst 43 per cent described their wellbeing as less than good, 84 per cent stated they would carry on working even if they felt unwell.

Almost half - 44 per cent - felt they never fully switched off from work. The problem was worse among 18 to 24 year-olds, 63 per cent of whom said they regularly checked their emails outside working hours.  Of those employees, 25 per cent felt they were unprepared financially for unexpected events, such as serious illness, accident or redundancy.

The poll also found that 58 per cent of employees felt they were neglecting their physical health and 55 per cent felt they were neglecting their mental health because of the pressures of work.  In addition, 43 per cent said they were troubled by how much their work interfered with their personal life.

Rachel Suff - Senior Employee Relations Adviser at the CIPD - said home working could lead to work intensification and urged managers to take action to prevent this.

She stated:

“Managers play a crucial role in helping to counter the ‘always on’ mindset by making sure their teams have a structure to their day that draws a clear line between work and downtime. It's also essential for managers to make sure workloads are manageable and that they have regular one-to-ones to check up on people's wellbeing.”

Kathryn Dombrowicz - Therapy Consultant at The Soke - said it was important to set clear boundaries around working hours, particularly in the current crisis.

She stated:

“Psychologically, employees might feel a need to prove their productivity while home working, perhaps feeling their jobs are at risk.”

She added that a lack of a ‘clear geographical boundary’ between work and home can contribute to staff finding they never fully detach. Employers should be aware of unusual employee activity - such as increased emails outside of working hours and during lunch and set boundaries. 

“Managers need to set realistic and clear expectations for their staff, to help them understand what exactly is required of them.  Additionally, managers could implement regular slots with their teams to touch base about how they are coping at home and identify how they can best support each other.”

Experts have warned that the coronavirus pandemic has ruined pension pots, although more people are choosing to work longer due to the rise in flexible working.

A YouGov poll of 2,114 UK adults - conducted for Smart - found that of the over 55’s who planned to retire in the future, 13 per cent had decided to delay their plans as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.

The poll also highlighted financial concerns among older employees planning to retire, with 52 per cent of all UK adults saying that they were concerned about only being able to afford a limited lifestyle in retirement.

Now planning to retire later than they had previously intended, were 8 per cent of employees - particularly those with a pension fund that has fallen in value and those working from home. 

Of those mainly from richer households - and those on furlough - 5 per cent are planning to retire earlier than they had previously intended.

Stuart Lewis - founder of Rest Less - commented that the over 50’s had been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. 

He said:

“Retirement incomes have been decimated, age discrimination is rife and the job prospects for the over 50s are particularly difficult in the current climate.”

He added that many clients who are employed and happy in their jobs are choosing to continue working to top up their pension pots while they still can and that the over 50s were more likely to be made redundant and find themselves ‘at the back of a very long queue’ for work opportunities. 

He stated:

“Some are being forced into an early retirement they cannot afford, while others are turning to retraining or setting up on their own to make ends meet.”

“We would like to see the government offer similar tailored initiatives to support the over 50s back into the workplace as well as financial incentives to businesses to encourage them to hire older workers who bring with them a wealth of life experience and wisdom, which is essential to business productivity and growth."

Emily Andrews - Senior Evidence Manager at the Centre for Ageing Better - is of the opinion that the financial impact of the pandemic has hit some groups of savers particularly hard - which could have knock-on effects on retirement plans.

She added that the decision to retire was ‘very personal’, stating:

“There are positive and negative factors driving these decisions. For some, the mass experiment in flexible working brought about by the pandemic has made working for longer a more appealing prospect.

Our own research with the Institute for Fiscal Studies showed that older workers currently working from home were more likely to say they were now planning to retire later.”

An employee of Talbot Underwriting Services Ltd - a Lloyd’s of London underwriter - who suffered significant incidents of bullying and was ‘berated’ in front of his colleagues in the middle of an open plan office, has won an employment tribunal lawsuit.

According to a judgment by Employment Judge Emery at the London Central Employment Tribunal, Liam Vaughan - an accounts assistant - was subjected to ‘significant incidents of bullying’ from management during his employment at Talbot Underwriting Services.

Mr Vaughan had worked for his employer for four years with no formal issues before the bullying incident. In 2017 and 2018, his performance was described as good by his manager.  

However, in August 2017 a member of the same team went on long-term sick leave and Mr Vaughan undertook additional work for which he lacked the relevant experience.  In 2018, this was followed by another colleague leaving and Mr Vaughan then undertook further work in which he had no experience.  Two members of the finance team, at a grievance hearing, stated that they believed he had not been ‘given the appropriate training or guidance’.

In February 2019, an incident occurred where Mr Vaughan was called to his manager’s table in the middle of the open-plan office and ‘berated’ in front of his colleagues.  Mr Vaughan stated that her manner ‘was extremely shocking and belittling’.  He did, however, agree that she had good reason to raise the issues. Mr Vaughan told the tribunal.

“This is not the first time I have been subject to this behaviour …. With this continuous ridicule I am left in a vulnerable position which undoubtedly has an impact on the work I produce.”

Other staff members who had witnessed the incident stated that they were embarrassed and uncomfortable at Mr Vaughan’s treatment.

Later the same day, Mr Vaughan offered to resign and told the tribunal, …” with the benefit of hindsight given what happened afterwards I should have resigned at that point.” 

Mr Vaughan raised a grievance and was interviewed by a senior manager and an HR manager.  The grievance was upheld with the line manager in question being given a final written warning - with the recommendation of disciplinary action - and a different line manager was appointed. However, Mr Vaughan was signed off work for some weeks with anxiety, tension and poor sleep.

On Mr Vaughan’s return to work, he noticed that he was being treated differently by some staff, including senior management who would have acknowledged him prior to his grievance hearing.

In March 2019 it was noticed by a senior manager that Mr Vaughan’s performance standards had slipped. Despite that, the issue was never raised to Mr Vaughan for explanation and in early August 2019, his line manager also raised concerns.

During this time, Mr Vaughan had been involved in several conversations with HR and finance team managers – during which he told them he wished to resign.  He was persuaded to withdraw his resignation letter by the finance team senior manager - and he did so on the assumption the company would not pursue a formal capability process.  He thought he would be ‘given a chance on a fairer playing field’.  

In late August, Mr Vaughan received a letter inviting him to a formal ‘stage one capability meeting’ as his line manager felt he had an ‘attitude and negativity and there was no improvement’.   Mr Vaughan believed this was a deceitful act on the part of management - refusing his resignation letter in order to enable a written warning to be issued with intent to prevent him going to tribunal.

Mr Vaughan finally resigned in September 2019.

Judge Emery, in his ruling, stated that he was satisfied that the coldness shown to Mr Vaughan by senior management contributed to his view that his employer ‘was not happy with him following his grievance - and it contributed to his view that the respondent no longer wanted him to work for them’ and as such his claim of constructive unfair dismissal was well founded.

Paul Holcroft - Managing Director at Croner - said:

“As seen here, the company’s clear mistreatment of an employee as a direct result of their complaint was a critical factor that led to them being found liable. Employers should always remember that the way staff are supervised is crucial to their continued productivity, job satisfaction and retention.”

In an employment tribunal held before Employment Judge Matthews, the Judge ruled that the employer was liable for humiliating, degrading and offensive remarks made to Mrs M Compton, who was claiming that she was harassed and directly discriminated against because of her age. 

Mrs Compton worked for Eden Private Staff Ltd - who provide an introductory service for domestic staff - from March 2018 until her dismissal in June 2019. She was initially employed as an administrator but in August 2018 she applied for a job as a search consultant, which she commenced in January 2019. She was required to serve a further probationary period.

During the time that Mrs Compton worked there she stated that her manager made comments implying that her memory was defective because of her age and that she had Alzheimer’s which was linked to her poor performance. She was 57 years old at the time.

In March, two managers at Eden Private Staff met Mrs Compton as part of her probationary period and discussed errors that she made in welcome letters and CVs that she was sending out.  The feedback, however, was positive as the two managers who conducted the interview - Ms Wallbridge and Ms Burridge - stated that they did not wish to discourage Mrs Compton.

A further probationary interview with Ms Wallbridge and Ms Burridge took place in April, during which Mrs Crompton was again asked to check letters and CVs more carefully before sending them out and check that the most up to date CVs were used.  At this meeting, Mrs Crompton told Ms Wallbridge and Ms Burridge that Ms Burridge was angry and impatient towards her and despite enjoying her work, she felt tearful and nervous entering work each morning.

Towards the end of May, it was decided that Mrs Crompton was taking too long to learn the basics and had to be dismissed.  She was given a letter of dismissal - citing inadequate performance during her extended probation - with her notice period ending on 21 June.  She was signed off work on 3 June due to stress and did not return. 

On 14 June, Mrs Crompton sent a grievance letter to Ms Wallbridge stating that she felt that her performance had not been the reason for her dismissal and that she felt she had been treated unfairly in connection with age discrimination.

Eden Private Staff Ltd engaged an external HR consultant to investigate the grievance.  During this investigation, Mrs Crompton reported that Ms Burridge had suggested on several occasions that Mrs Crompton had Alzheimer’s disease and that she was also of the opinion that age may have been a factor in her dismissal.

Ms Burridge was spoken to by the HR consultant when she admitted that on one occasion she said to Mrs Crompton, “That will be the Alzheimer’s”. She then stated that she realised it may have caused offence and had apologised.

In August, the HR consultant submitted a report and subsequently Mrs Crompton was sent a letter upholding her grievance relating to the extension of her probation period but dismissing her other grievances.

At the tribunal, Judge Matthews found in favour of Mrs Crompton’s claim of direct discrimination finding that the Alzheimer’s remarks were an act of direct discrimination because they would not have been made to a younger search consultant.   The Judge said that he thought that Ms Burridge saw her remarks as no more than office banter – but this did not detract from the fact that the comments violated Mrs Crompton’s dignity.

However, the tribunal ruled that the extension of Mrs Crompton’s probation period was not because of her age and that her dismissal was based on her performance with age not being a factor.  

Eden Private Staff were ordered to pay Mrs Crompton £900 as compensation for the harassment and direct discrimination together with interest of £100.41. The evidence was said to suggest that any injury would have been slight and that no complaints were lodged at the time the remarks about Alzheimer’s were made.  The Judge added that Mrs Crompton’s complaint had always been that her dismissal was unfair.  Only when speaking to the HR consultant, did Mrs Crompton bring “the shift of emphasis towards age discrimination.” 

Paul Holcroft - Managing Director of Croner - stated that this case showed how banter is never an excuse for discriminatory comments and that tribunals were unlikely to uphold such a defence for this behaviour. 

He stated:

“It is therefore crucial that all employees, and managers, are aware of what constitutes acceptable conversation at work.  If allegations are made against any member of staff, they should be fully investigated, and disciplinary action taken if necessary.”

Experts have warned that surveillance of staff work communications has increased since the pandemic began.

A recent poll of more than 3,000 UK workers - which was part of a survey commissioned by the TUC to raise awareness of the experience of workers and trade unions when artificial intelligence (AI) is used by employers to carry out people-management functions - found that 15 per cent reported that employer monitoring has grown since March.

Work communication was cited as being screened by 27 per cent of respondents; 13 per cent had experienced desktop monitoring, whilst 8 per cent stated their social media had been screened.

The survey also found that 26 per cent of employers were using technologies to assess when employees started and finished work and 12 per cent monitored the amount of time taken on breaks.  One respondent stated that their workplace used monitoring software that logged hours worked; took photographic timecards every 10 minutes via a webcam; recorded social media usage and counted the number of keyboard strokes per hour.

When workers were asked about their experience of technologies making or informing decisions about them at work, 22 per cent of respondents said they had experience of use of technologies of this type for absence management, 15 per cent stated ratings; 14 per cent for work allocation; 14 per cent for timetabling shifts and 14 per cent in the assessment of training needs and allocation.

The research revealed that only 28 per cent of workers are comfortable with technology being used to make decisions about people at work, with 56 per cent saying that introducing new technologies to monitor the workplace damaged trust between workers and employers.

Frances O’Grady - General Secretary of the TUC - said worker surveillance technology had taken off since the start of the outbreak as employers grappled with the reality of increased remote working. She stated that businesses have invested in it to keep tabs on their workers; set more demanding targets and automate decisions about who to let go.  She stated:

“Workers must be properly consulted on the use of AI and be protected from punitive ways of working. As we emerge from this crisis, tech must be used to make working lives better – not to rob people of their dignity.”

Hayfa Mohdzain - Senior Research Adviser at the CIPD - urged employers to think twice before introducing any kind of monitoring or surveillance software to measure an individual’s productivity, highlighting previous CIPD research that had found that intrusive workplace surveillance can damage trust, have a negative impact on morale and cause stress and anxiety.  She added:

“Consequently, excessive monitoring can get in the way of performance. Employers may get much better results by investing in line manager training and supporting employees to maximise results.”

Padma Tadi - Senior Associate at Irwin Mitchell - stated that, on the face of it, using AI and technology for workplace monitoring can be a quick and objective way to maintain and monitor performance at work. However, she cautioned employers to always back up the AI’s findings with good management and workplace practices – saying: 

“The concern I would have as an employer is the wild objectivity of such data, and it could give rise to an increase in discrimination claims if decisions are purely based on gathering data. It’s not taking into account individual facts and circumstances, including protected characteristics.”

She warned that using such technologies may fall foul of GDPR regulation and compliance as there was specific wording in the data protection regulations about managing the ‘blurred line between personal and private life’ and also how you gather and retain that data.

The 2019 Times and Bond Solon Annual Expert Witness Survey - involving 569 expert respondents - was recently conducted online.

On being informed that there have been several cases over the past 12 months in which the expert witness has not understood the basic requirements of the role, the survey asked whether judges should have the power to permanently disqualify these experts. Nearly 60 per cent of respondents stated that they wanted all experts to understand their role and agreed that those who do not have the necessary understanding should not continue and that judges should permanently disqualify these experts.

When questioned regarding an expert’s non-qualification to give expert evidence and asked whether instructing solicitors should be liable for costs when they fail to exercise due diligence, around 70 per cent of respondents considered the instructing solicitor should be liable for costs under these circumstances. 44 per cent of respondents stated that they had come across experts who profess expertise despite not being qualified, or the area concerned does not warrant expertise.

The report stated that an ‘out of date or unsuitable expert witness is a dangerous expert witness’ and can create considerable risks for the instructing party – and it was suggested that a solicitor, before formally instructing an expert, should check that the expert is registered with their professional body confirming that the expert is up to date with continuing professional development; look for consistency in the way the expert’s details are presented to the public and - If reports are not court compliant - the instructing solicitor will need to guide the expert.

Of respondents surveyed, 20 per cent said that retired professionals should not continue to act as expert witnesses as the longer the potential expert has not been in day by day practice in a field, the greater the difficulty is to instruct that expert.

The survey showed that 61 per cent of all the experts surveyed act as expert witnesses in personal injury cases – making personal Injury cases a major area of work for expert witnesses.

51 per cent of experts stated that they acted in legal aid cases - but experts are not obliged to accept legal aid cases and in fact, 73 per cent of the experts surveyed indicated that they would not continue working in legal aid cases if expert witness fees were further reduced, meaning that expert evidence might not be available any more for legal aid cases.

Of the experts who act in personal injury cases, 31 per cent surveyed said that over the past 12 months they had been asked or felt pressurised to change their report in a way that harms their impartiality – as opposed to experts in other fields where it was only 14 per cent.

One expert reported that:

“A lawyer completely changed my report, put in extra paragraphs and deleted great chunks in order to make my opinion suit his client. We have historically been sending reports as Word documents, but now we will send everything as PDF files which cannot be altered.”

Almost 40 per cent of the experts surveyed indicated that the number of instructions they had received have gone up, whereas 36 per cent said the number had stayed the same. 70 per cent stated that their rates remain the same as last year.

On Thursday 12th December, Southwest Airlines announced that they would share compensation received from Boeing regarding the grounding of the 737 MAX with their employees.

While the total amount of compensation awarded remains confidential - as does what percentage of it that Southwest employees will benefit from - the airline are showing a $125 million charge as employee compensation in financial statements. The money will be given to the carrier’s employees in the form of incremental profit sharing. 

Southwest’s Board Chairman and Chief Executive, Gary Kelly, stated:

“Our people have done an incredible job managing through the MAX groundings, while providing the highest levels of customer service and one of the best operational performances in our history.”

He added:

“On behalf of the Southwest board of directors, we are grateful to our employees for their extraordinary efforts throughout the year and are pleased to share proceeds from our recent agreement with Boeing.”

In their investor update published on October 24th the US airline, a low-cost carrier, estimated a loss of $435 million in operating income through September and reported a loss of $210 million in revenue, which they attributed to the MAX grounding.

The airline, who operate a fleet of around 750 aircraft, only fly Boeing 737’s and about 34 of these are the 737 MAX model. They currently have around 260 MAX’s on order and so while the carrier continues to negotiate with Boeing for further damages, they could also accept other forms of compensation that Boeing may offer such as preferred delivery slots, or upgraded aircraft features. However, to date there is still no definitive news on when the MAX will be back in service with FAA Administrator Steve Dickson confirming on 11th December that the Max would not be cleared to fly until sometime in 2020.

In total, Boeing have apparently set aside $5 billion to compensate airlines for MAX related costs, as well as around $50 million to compensate families involved in the Lion Air crash in October 2018 and the Ethiopian Airlines crash in March 2019.

New data recently published by the CIPD has shown that some employers could be relying on ill-equipped line management to speak to their teams about pay processes - resulting in a difference between their perception of pay in the organisation and that of the workforce.

The 2019 Reward Management survey reports that 75 per cent of HR professionals think that workers in their organisation are paid fairly - according to their experience and achievements. However, only 33 per cent of the workers agree and only 51 per cent think their own salary is fair.

Of the HR respondents, 86 per cent agree that their Chief Executive is paid about right - against only 20 per cent of the rest of the workforce.

Only a third of organisations were encouraging line managers to talk to their teams about pay fairness and of those who had, 60 per cent of the employees say their manager had done a poor or very poor job of communicating with them.

Charles Cotton - Senior Reward and Performance Adviser at the CIPD - said:

“Failure to be transparent about pay can make staff feel that they are being kept in the dark and feed a perception of unfairness. There’s a real opportunity for organisations to do a lot more around communicating their pay policies to staff, and encouraging line managers to talk to their teams about it, so staff understand how and why such decisions are made. But communication is only part of the story and won’t ensure people are paid fairly in the first place. Continued scrutiny over executive pay and gender pay gap reporting shows this is still an issue which many organisations are wrestling with, so businesses need to be on the front foot when it comes to understanding and assessing pay.”

Of the 60 per cent of HR respondents who state that their organisation talks about the fairness of pay processes and outcomes, only 30 per cent have a clear definition of fairness. Just 10 per cent of the workforce says that their line manager always or often speaks to them about fairness and it was found that only 23 per cent of employers survey their employees to check whether they think pay processes are fair, whilst only 39 per cent of employers have carried out an equal pay audit in the past three years to ensure they are complying with the law.

Just over half of HR teams inform staff about the factors they consider when deciding to increase employee salaries and around 50 per cent explain how their grade structures work - whilst 45 per cent tell employees what they need to do to increase their pay.

In 2020, new corporate reporting requirements will come into full force and are likely to reveal further opportunities to improve fairness in pay processes and outcomes.

Publicly listed companies with more than 250 employees are required to report the pay ratio between their CEOs and full-time workers - explaining how the pay-setting process for top executives compares with their pay policy for the wider workforce. In addition, they are also required to show how they take employee views and interests into account in business decision-making - to include views on how people are paid.

Recent statistics suggest that stress at work remains a growing problem.

In the UK, around 15.4 million working days each year are lost to stress, depression or anxiety, which accounts for 57 per cent of all absences and costs UK employers between £33bn and £42bn a year.

In addition to the financial costs, the undesirable effects on business of mental ill-health are employee absence; staff turnover; loss of skills and legal and reputational risks.

However, in a recent poll by of more than 1,700 workers with mental health problems – by the charity Mind – it was found that more than two in five people did not realise that they could be missing out on legal protections and helpful adjustments at work.

Of those polled, 44 per cent were unaware that they could be classified as having a disability if their ability to carry out day-to-day tasks were affected and their condition had lasted for - or was expected to last for - 12 months. After hearing the definition of disability - under the Equality Act 2010 - 54 per cent felt they met the criteria.

Vicki Nash - Head of Policy and Campaigns at Mind - stated:

“Among those of us with mental health problems, there is a huge gap in awareness that we could be covered by the Equality Act. This next government must commit to clarifying the definition of a disability under the Act. This will help to protect from discrimination in the first place and - if they are discriminated against on the grounds of a health condition - enable them to challenge this.”

She added that:

“....with the right support, those of us with mental health problems can and do make a valuable contribution to the workplace.”

Rachel Suff - Senior Employment Relations Adviser at the CIPD - said the survey’s findings showed the need for more education and awareness around mental health in the workplace. She said:

“The law doesn’t necessarily help because there’s quite a high bar in terms of a mental health condition meeting the definition in the Equality Act.”  

Stating that organisations should not wait for an employee’s condition to be classified as a disability before making reasonable adjustments, she added:

“It’s good practice for employers to make changes to support people’s mental health at work. Most conditions are at the lower end of the mental health spectrum, and just small changes to how they work can make a big difference to their ability to manage that.”

Emma Bartlett - Partner at Charles Russell Speechlys - said:

“Employers do not always understand that they do not need to have been told by the employee about their condition or have received a formal diagnosis for the employer to be fixed with knowledge that the employee should have the benefit of reasonable adjustments and protection from discrimination arising out of their condition.”

She added that every case should be treated individually, stating:

“Normal day to day activities for one person may not be the same for another, so you have to focus on how it affects each individual.”

David Price - CEO of Health Assured - said:

“If an employer were to take action against an employee for reaching pre-set absence levels, or deny an employee an attendance bonus based on a number of absences which included those related to mental health, there is a risk of a discrimination claim. Because of this, employers should think carefully when treating mental health days in the same way as all other sickness absence.”

 After a Reed HR survey found that a quarter of UK HR professionals do not feel included in strategic business decisions, a poll by Natural HR - a UK software company - of 219 HR professionals, found that 22 per cent of those professionals did not think their role was valued.

The reasons given by the 22 per cent of the respondents not feeling as though they are valued are not having a seat in board meetings and not being considered as part of the senior team in organisations - leaving them with a lack of respect for their profession. It also appears that many HR professionals believe that they are viewed as merely an administrative function.

Recruitment and retention of staff was found to have been seen as a priority for next year by 68 per cent of the HR respondents, whilst 42 per cent cited recruitment as the area of their work they found most challenging. A third of those surveyed found employee retention a challenge, with 36 per cent saying they struggled with engagement and experience. 

Tom Hadley - Director of Policy and Campaigns at the Recruitment and Employment Confederation - said:

“Good recruitment helps employers find the right person for the right job and actively ensures they settle in well. This involves advertising to a wide and diverse pool of candidates and selecting people based on skills. Recruitment professionals can help businesses get the hiring and on-boarding process right and this can make all the difference when it comes to employee retention and productivity.”

Sarah Dowzell - HR Specialist and Co-Founder of Natural HR - said:

“A recent survey undertaken by HR tech platform Natural HR has revealed only 78 per cent of HR professionals feel that HR is valued within their business, leaving nearly a quarter of those surveyed feeling as though it is not. The core tasks of HR professionals cover an array of activities from hiring the right talent; ensuring meaningful professional development; considering staff well-being, to acting as an internal coach. With recruitment and retention of people increasingly a top priority for businesses, it is shocking that so many HR professionals still don’t feel included in top level strategic decision making. A HR strategy must be aligned with the overarching business strategy. The more the administrative elements of HR roles can be undertaken by tech solutions, the more time can be spent on the important strategic role of HR – and hopefully, the old-fashioned perception of the profession can become a thing of the past.”

An NHS secretary - Eileen Jolly - who was sacked at 86 years of age has won a payout in an age discrimination case. She was awarded £200,000 which the Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust agreed to pay, despite saying that it was disappointed by the outcome.

Mrs Jolly, who had been employed at the hospital since 1991, was dismissed from the NHS trust in 2017 after she failed to upload details of cancer patients awaiting non-urgent breast reconstruction surgery into a new database. The result of her omission was that three patients waited 52 weeks from the date of their initial referral for surgery - a breach of NHS guidelines. The NHS trust also described Mrs Jolly as being stuck in old secretarial ways.

The Reading Employment Tribunal, led by Judge Andrew Gumbiti-Zimuto heard that in 2015 Mrs Jolly had been given a short training session on the computer when the waiting lists were made electronic. However, she told the tribunal that she had not been properly trained to use the new system, which led to mistakes being made.

Mrs Jolly also claimed that there had been unpleasant remarks made about her age and health - in particular questioning her ability to walk the length of the building. She told the tribunal that, despite suffering a cardiac arrest in 2006, she had not been off sick. She said:

“I felt as though it had been assumed that at my age and because of my health I was a liability and incapable of change, and had to go. It had been my intention to continue to work for as long as I could – until I was at least 90 years old.” 

In 2016 she was suspended and described being humiliated when she was told to collect her things and escorted from the premises. In 2017, she was dismissed for a "catastrophic failure in performance".

Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto agreed that her dismissal had been unfair and “tainted by discrimination”. He also found that her grievances had not been properly addressed and that sufficient training had not been offered to her.

His judgment stated:

“The claimant had not been carrying out the role in the way that the respondent wished the role to be carried out and had not understood the nature of the role that she was expected to perform by the respondent.

Instead of the respondent addressing that issue directly and either training her and then requiring her to do the role as directed the claimant was dismissed. This was because of her age.”

Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust was ordered to pay Mrs Jolly £200,000 within 14 days. A spokeswoman for the trust stated:

"The trust has complied with the tribunal's order to pay the agreed sum to Mrs Jolly by way of compensation. Given that these proceedings have been upsetting and distressing for all concerned, the trust is pleased this matter is now concluded and parties can move on. It wishes Mrs Jolly all the best for the future.”

The statement also said:

“The trust is disappointed by the outcome in this case. However, the trust has and operates an equal opportunities policy and, following a detailed review of the case, is taking steps ensure that lessons are learned and that all reasonable steps are taken to prevent any form of discrimination from occurring in the workplace.”

In November 2019, a federal court in Missouri upheld the jury verdict in favor of employee Linda King, who claimed that she was wrongfully discharged from her job with Southwest Foodservice Excellence, LLC.

The matter was originally tried by a jury who returned a verdict in King's favor and awarded her $156,500 in actual damages and $75,000 in punitive damages. The defendant - Southwest Foodservice - renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law and requested a new trial, which was denied. The employer’s contention that her recovery for emotional distress damages was barred by the state’s workers’ compensation law, was also rejected.

Whilst employed by Southwest Foodservice, Ms. King had been summoned by the Circuit Court of St. Louis City to undertake grand jury service. After being selected as a grand juror, she informed her employer of the days she was required to serve. Jury service - under Missouri law - was a protected status subject to non-discrimination protections and the defendant was aware of this.

Shortly after Ms. King began her jury service in early August 2014, she was informed by an HR representative that she would have to choose between her job and her jury duty.

On August 21, Ms. King's immediate supervisor issued a disciplinary notice for her failure to perform a specific job on August 14 - a day the supervisor was aware that Ms. King was serving on the grand jury. This supervisor wished to terminate Ms. King for this incident but the request was denied by the food director.

Ms. King’s supervisor then began to keep a detailed list of food deficiencies that occurred during the period of Ms. King's jury service. She did not, however, counsel Ms. King regarding these deficiencies - nor did she attempt to address any misconceptions regarding who had food-ordering responsibilities, as both Ms. King and a co-worker were subsequently found to be under the impression that the supervisor was equally responsible. The supervisor also complained that Ms. King's absence from the school during jury duty caused her to spend too much time at Ms. King's school, resulting in the other schools she supervised possibly being neglected.

On October 15, the supervisor - with the assistance of HR - prepared Ms. King's termination notice and this was then presented to the food director, together with the prepared list showing the food-deficiencies. The director signed the termination notice - without verifying who was responsible for placing the food orders - and Ms. King was given the notice on October 20. It was at this time that Ms. KIing found out that she was being held solely responsible for placing the food orders during her jury service, which completed in November 2014.

The District Judge, Catherine D. Perry stated - that from the evidence presented - “a reasonable juror could conclude that King's service on the grand jury was a contributing factor in defendant's termination of her employment, and that King showed with convincing clarity that such wrongful termination was, at the very least, in reckless disregard for her rights and interests, especially given defendant's knowledge that jury service is a protected status. Accordingly, given the evidentiary support for the jury's verdict, I must deny defendant's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on the bases claimed. I will also deny defendant's related request that I vacate that portion of the jury's verdict awarding King punitive damages.”

According to an update from the National User Group (NUG) regarding employment tribunals, some new claims may not be heard until 2020 – at the earliest. This is raising concern amongst employers that the system is losing pace.

The NUG held a meeting in September, the minutes of which stated that there had been an increase - compared to last year - of 165% in single claims. This figure repeats the recent figures from the Ministry of Justice, which advised that the number of outstanding single cases was 130% higher in the second quarter of 2018 than the same period in 2017.

Raoul Parekh, a Partner at G Q Littler, told People Management that employers should ensure – as a matter of urgency – that they have HR systems in place to stay out of the tribunal process. He said:

“If that’s not possible, one thing for employers to do is to gather and collect all notes and documents they can ahead of the tribunal hearing.”

He added that the longer the employers wait to gather the evidence, the more difficult it is to provide a defence to the case and can also increase the spending on legal advice.

During the NUG meeting, Judge Brian Doyle - President of the Employment Tribunals England and Wales - agreed that the lengthy tribunal times could be because of the reduced number of judges. He went on to say that, hopefully, the allocation of new judicial resources in 2019 would ease the problem. A recruitment campaign had been launched to recruit 54 salaried employment judges in an effort to meet the demands of the system.

However, some employment lawyers were not convinced that the appointment of the additional judges would solve the problem.

Employment law barrister at Old Square Chambers - Katherine Newton – tweeted that a colleague had a listing at Croydon Employment Tribunal for 2021 and also said that Manchester Employment Tribunal was listing 10 day hearings in 2021. She went on to remark:

“Are the 54 Employment Judges being appointed nationally in the New Year really going to make a noticeable improvement to these sorts of waiting times?”

Senior Associate at Winckworth Sherwood - Tim Goodwin - said:

“The employment tribunal system has been defunded when the fee regime collapsed. All elements of civil law have faced cuts and the government cut back on judges.”

Paul Holcroft - Associate Director at Croner - said he imagined that more employers would turn to settlements to “get rid of the issue at the earliest opportunity”. 

He added:

“While this may be good practice to get rid of the claim, it calls into question whether these delays are prohibiting access to justice, as neither party may have the opportunity to put forward their case where the matter is resolved through a settlement, for reasons of time.”

According to a survey - Voice of the Workforce in Europe - by Deloitte, more than 27 % of employees are not performing to their best and experts say that HR could play a strategic role in motivating staff – thus increasing business productivity.   The European average is 21% not attaining their finest.

The findings show that many employees lack enthusiasm - 32% of UK workers said that they are not stimulated by what they do. A further 36% said what they do is not meaningful, but in comparison24% European workers said they are not stimulated by what they do and only 18% believe what they do is not meaningful.

The report surveyed a total of more than 15,000 workers across 10 European countries, including 2,043 from the UK.

Workers in the UK said that they need to learn new skills to do their job effectively and when asked which key skills they needed to develop, 61% cited advanced IT; 57% technical knowledge; 35% said problem-solving skills and 31% said they would need teamwork skills.

It was also found that UK workers were feeling the impact of automation - 44% said that robots or software had taken over some of the tasks they did five years ago. This compared to a European average of 38%. In the UK, 34% said that entire business processes relevant to their job have been automated and this compared to 30% for European workers.

UK Human Capital Leader at Deloitte - Anne-Marie Malley - said:

“Businesses are facing an uphill struggle to address these factors, which is leading to dissatisfaction, disengagement and despondency among employees. Employers must offer more support to strengthen their workers' skills and communicate the value their roles are bringing to their company, the economy and ultimately society as a whole.”

She added:

“It’s striking that the vast majority of workers do not expect to see any significant changes in their jobs over the next decade. The reality is that the future of work is now, and automation is already affecting day-to-day roles. Awareness will provoke action, so it’s important for businesses to educate workers on how their roles will be augmented by technology over the next decade. This will provide transparency within organisations; allowing them to transition their workforces through training opportunities and bolstering the skills that will be required as a result of automation.”

Career transition ​and on boarding coach at Rebel Road Coaching, Jenn Fenwick, said that although HR departments already knew the importance of investing in skills-related training in order to boost motivation, they were being let down by the failure of organisations to invest in their employees. 

Jenn Fenwick stated:

“I think this is where HR could play a really strategic role in businesses. For them to get the budget, it’s important for HR to investigate what’s impacting staff productivity, put monetary value on it and present that number to senior leaders as a worthwhile place to put funding.”

The research found that older workers were the most motivated with 87% of those over 55 years of age saying that they went the extra mile to deliver good work. Fewer than 18 per cent reported lack of stimulation in what they do.

Managing Director of McManus HRD - Laurell Hector - commented that it was important for businesses to invest in skills development for older generations in addition to younger workers and that senior business leaders need to understand that older workers want to add value.  

She added:

“Businesses also need to look to develop all people in the business to drive performance, not just “spotting talent in younger workers.”

Pre-hire assessment specialist, ThriveMap, recently commissioned a survey of HR decision makers – the results of which showed that 93% expected culture fit to become more important with regards to hiring in 2019.

As 96% are already saying that hiring for culture fit is crucial, the topic will doubtless be well discussed in the coming year.

Predictions made by ThriveMap are that describing what culture fit is and putting procedures in place that will measure it accurately and objectively, will be the focal point for employers in 2019.

At present, only 11% of employers are satisfied with how they assess culture fit in their interview process, leaving almost nine out of ten employers struggling to come up with a system that will do this accurately over their business.

Fifty-three per cent of employees are leaving their companies because their style of working does not fit in with their organisation - costing employers valuable time and money. Employers are now becoming aware of innovative assessments that will measure - not only whether an applicant is capable of fulfilling the role - but also whether they will flourish in the business as competition for talent is expected to be fierce in 2019.

Chris Platts - Co-Founder and CEO of ThriveMap - says:

“We believe employers should consider the following areas in 2019 to ensure they hire the candidates that are the best fit for their business.

Match the recruitment process to the vacancy – decide what are the most important skills and characteristics for the vacancy and create an assessment process that measures these.

Keep the candidate journey as short as possible – a candidate’s time is important too. Don’t lose the best talent by asking them to jump through unnecessary hoops.

Tell a consistent and honest employer brand story – everything is out there about your organisation. Don’t shy away from this, but face it head on and build a narrative that hiring managers believe and embrace. This will be far more appealing to prospective employees.

Add value for candidates – recruitment is a two-way process that should benefit everyone involved. A candidate is someone who has shown a desire to work for you - respect this interest and provide practical feedback on how they performed. Word will spread, encouraging more people to want to work for an organisation that is honest and fair.”

In the case of Samantha Walker v The Co-operative Group and Mr Richard Pennycook, Manchester Employment Tribunal has ruled that Mrs Walker - former Chief HR officer of the Co-operative Group - was discriminated against. They did, however, reject claims she had been dismissed for raising concerns about being paid less than male board members.  

After an annual review that ranked her performance as only ‘partially achieved’ her employment was terminated. Judge Sherratt, the employment judge, wrote in his judgment:

“Where they seem to have had performance issues, the comparators - or male employees - were arguably not treated as harshly in their assessments as was the claimant.”

In 2014, after Mrs Walker was appointed group HR Director of strategic projects and joined a newly set up executive team, she raised concerns about her pay to the then CEO Richard Pennycook. At this time, the business was facing considerable financial instability. 

Initially, Mrs Walker was given the title of Chief HR Officer with a proposed base salary of £500,000.   However, the group remuneration and appointments committee decided to reduce her base salary to £425,000 as they took the view that she was “newly promoted to the executive and unproven at that level, unlike everyone else on the team at that time.”  

In 2014, the Co-op Group instigated a new grading system and Mrs Walker told Mr Pennycook that it was “not looking good from an equal pay perspective”, despite an independent assessment finding that her role was equal or above some of the male executives. She added that she wanted to be recognised as being – at least – of equal value to the board and Mrs Walker’s counsel at the tribunal claimed that this statement clearly implied that Mrs Walker was the victim of unequal pay. 

In December 2015, Mrs Walker was told by Mr Pennycook that “he did not think that they would authorise any more pay for her and suggested that she consider other roles such as the MD of Co-operative Funeralcare or “‘something’ with the Legal Services business.” 

Mrs Walker stated that her heart was firmly in HR and that her desire was not solely about her wish for a pay rise, but also to be recognised as equal alongside her male colleagues and she said that Mr Pennycook clearly understood that.

Two dates for Mrs Walker’s end of year review were cancelled with no explanation and – in his judgment – the judge stated:

“Thereafter, their conversations were essentially about possible other roles rather than dealing with concerns over her existing role.” 

Despite Mr Pennycook’s evidence that he had concerns about Mrs Walker’s ability to fulfill the role of Chief HR Officer, the tribunal ruled that her work was equal to her comparators and that she had been directly discriminated against on the grounds of sex in relation to her performance rating.

Mrs Walker made a statement that the company had been found wanting and that she hoped it had changed as a result. She said:

“Going through this process has also revealed to me that the law is fundamentally flawed and must change.”

A partner at CMS – Anthony Fincham – said:

“The case serves as a reminder of the consequence of any study which amounts to a job evaluation, and the difficulty of resisting its conclusions by relying on the material factor defence. Equal pay law accords a proper job evaluation study, an almost infallible status and employers commissioning one should be fully alert to the fact that they are likely to be bound to implement the results. The case also serves as a reminder that certain claims run not only against the employer but also against the individual employee who may have been responsible for the matters in question. I do not imagine that the CEO had any inkling he was exposing himself to possible legal liability as he handled what must have been a challenging situation”.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has published - in relation to pension transfer advice - its latest rules and guidance.  

The FCA is going ahead with most of the proposals put forward for consultation earlier in 2018, mainly relating to transfers from defined benefit (DB) to defined contribution (DC) pension schemes.

This consultation suggested changes to its rules and guidance on advice being offered on transferring from safeguarded benefit schemes - where there is a form of guarantee about the rate of secure pension income that the holder of the scheme will receive, or have an option to receive.

After the introduction of pension freedoms, the demand for pension transfer advice has increased considerably, as have actual transfers.   The FCA are concerned that many persons may be receiving inappropriate advice when transferring away from their DB pension and may not be aware of the valuable benefits they could lose on the transfer of their DB pension.

The new rules should provide the holders of the schemes who are considering transferring, with improved advice. The changes will include a requirement for all pension transfer specialists to be in possession of a specific qualification - for providing advice on investments - by October 2020. This will enable advisers to recognise whether the proposed pension scheme and investment solution will suit the client’s needs and objectives.

The FCA will expect all advisers to take into account the client’s approach to - and awareness of - the risks of forfeiting safeguarded benefits in exchange for flexible benefits.

The FCA’s Executive Director of Strategy and Competition - Christopher Woolard - said:

“These new rules will mean advisers have greater certainty and confidence in what we expect when they offer pension transfer advice.

We expect our interventions to improve the quality of advice which will help to reduce the number of complaints against advisory firms. We will measure consumer outcomes through our supervisory work.

Any changes to our rules on contingent charging could have implications for the supply of advice. Because of the significance of this issue to all stakeholders in the market, we will carry out further analysis and consult on new interventions if appropriate in the first half of next year.”

According to a recent report from the CIPD entitled The People Profession in 2018: UK and Ireland - HR professionals are happy and fulfilled in their work.

Almost 1,000 HR, L&D and OD professionals across the UK and Ireland were surveyed to assess the current state of the profession.  It found that 70% of respondents said their work makes them happy and 67% felt energised. Most of those working in this area feel confident exercising their judgment and 64% are of the opinion that their job gives them the opportunity to fully express themselves as a professional, giving them a sense of purpose and a meaningful career.

Over two-fifths of respondents said they regularly challenged the purpose of the jobs they were asked to carry out and felt they could propose alternatives. They based their decisions on a several factors - with 76% citing personal experience, 55% organisational data and 49% intuition.

But the research does draw attention to the fact that there is room for improvement. The professionals could be more confident in showing courage and challenging unethical practices – 28% feel there is a controversy between their professional judgment and what is expected of them, resulting in a compromise of their ethical values. Nearly a third of the respondents stated that managers in their organisation often participate in behaviour that they consider to be unethical.

The report also showed that it was important to possess the right skills, with 38% saying they could cope with more challenging duties but with16% thinking they lacked the skills required for their current role – with this increasing to 22% among those with less than six years’ experience.

Research advisor at the CIPD - Louisa Baczor - stated:

“A career in the people profession is about working with people, bringing them into the right jobs and helping them reach their potential at work. But it’s also about applying expertise in people, work and change to ensure that work is a force for good for everyone. It’s great to see so many people professionals experiencing meaning in their work and feeling confident to stand up for what they believe in. The future of the profession is exciting and will require capabilities in managing new organisational models, the supply of skills, the shaping of jobs and improving people management and organisational cultures. But the skills mismatches and ethical conflicts highlighted by the survey show that there’s no room for complacency. Continuing professional development is the key to keeping our own skills current, so we can innovate and adapt as professionals, and champion better work and working lives in all that we do.”

CIPD Chief Executive - Peter Cheese - said:

“The role of HR is becoming increasingly vital as the world of work evolves and organisations and people need to adapt. People professionals have the opportunity to shape these developments by bringing their unique insight, skills and practice to create a future of work where organisations, their people, and the communities they’re part of can all thrive. Having confidence in our own professional judgment is crucial to making better decisions in the workplace. Even though it might challenge some of the norms or expectations, having the self-assurance with knowledge, insights and evidence, to make good and fair judgments is key to helping our profession build trust and credibility, and help us stay at the fore of business development and change.”

According to Government data, in the 3 months since Tribunal fees were abolished in July, the number of claims have risen by 66 percent – one of the strongest indicators that introducing fees for Employment Tribunals was discouraging employees from making claims.

Following a Supreme Court ruling that said the Government was acting unlawfully to introduce them, the Ministry of Justice “took immediate steps” to stop charging fees for tribunals and also rolled out a fee refund scheme for claimants who had paid fees between 2013 and 2017. Individuals who paid tribunal fees between these dates can apply to be reimbursed and it is estimated that 100,000 claims are eligible for a refund, which could cost up to £27m.

The newly released statistics show that the number of single claims for individual grievances such as unfair or wrongful dismissal increased dramatically, with claims for unlawful deductions from wages, for example, now re-emerging from a low of 549 in July 2017 to a high of 2926 claims in August 2017. It is thought that many workers found the cost of bringing a claim for something such as underpaid holiday often exceeded the amount being disputed and therefore did not proceed.

However, whilst single claims appear to be on the increase, multiple tribunal claims fell to 23,297 which is a decrease of 15 per cent over the same period as last year. Experts have reasoned that this could be because during the period when fees were charged, it was cheaper to work as a group, rather than bring a single claim, which would seem to be borne out by the recent rise in single claims.

Obviously these figures only reflect the very recent trend and experts have said that more figures would be needed before they could tell whether this is the new norm.

In order to understand how employers can improve engagement and retention of employees, FSG - together with Hart Research Associates - surveyed over 1,200 entry-level, hourly workers between the ages of 17 and 24 years of age.   Dozens of companies were also interviewed to find out how they have improved staff retention.

The young people that were surveyed worked in a wide range of jobs, which included health care, manufacturing, retail, and hospitality.  More than half of these 1,200 young people working in entry-level jobs said that was their intention to leave in less than a year. Less than a quarter stated that they were highly satisfied with their job.

As turnover can cost up to 200% of an employee's annual salary, depending on what their role is, it can therefore cost businesses billions of dollars each year.  

Employers wanting to improve retention were advised of key ways this could be achieved - by improving manager training; diversity and inclusion and scheduling – although it was found that some employers are already improving in these areas.

Job satisfaction amongst the young people surveyed was found, in a large part, to be determined by how they perceived the way their manager treated them, with being treated fairly and with respect often more important than income. Nearly 50% of the women and 40% of the men surveyed said that they had struggled at work because they felt they were treated unfairly by their manager and 32% said they had previously lost a job due to unfair or disrespectful treatment. 

HMSHost - the largest provider of food and beverage services for travelers in North America - used its Engagement Training Program to help frontline managers provide authentic recognition to its employees, to listen and solve problems and deliver specific, actionable feedback to their teams. Where it tested this training, it received enthusiastic feedback from managers and associates and saw early improvements in associate engagement and retention.

Research showed that young people are more than twice as likely to stay in their employment for more than a year if they see the job as a career - or a stepping stone to a career. However, only 35% of young people surveyed described their current employment in those terms. It was suggested that employers could offer meaningful opportunities for professional growth within the company.

In addition, employers can support educational achievement for young people, as 45% of those surveyed wanted to go to college and the responses indicated that those who enrolled in school whilst working are much more likely to stay in their current jobs.

Starbucks recently expanded its College Achievement Plan - offering free tuition for online classes and removing cost, knowledge and schedule barriers for employees. Early results show that the changes are paying off, as employees enrolled in the plan are being retained twice as long and promoted four times as often as employees not participating in the program.

Employers could also create a more diverse and inclusive work environment as there is clear evidence that doing so is good for business. For example, Gap Inc. is a leader in this area, creating a program called This Way Ahead for teens and young adults facing barriers to employment.  Sixty five percent of its participants are women, 98% people of color and all are from low-income backgrounds. After training and a 10-week paid internship, 75% of This Way Ahead graduates received offers of employment at Gap, Old Navy and Banana Republic stores. Gap Inc found it to be an effective talent strategy and the retention rate for these employees is double that of their peers. Their performance ratings are on par with their peers and graduates have higher-than-average engagement scores.

Of the youths surveyed, 83% said they would be more likely to stay in their current job if they had more control over their work schedules. Predictability and flexibility were most important - they want to know, in advance, the days and times they are going to work and they also want their managers to be flexible when unexpected events such as sickness or transportation challenges, arise outside of work.

Young people value good benefits and wages, however research showed that whilst they value benefits like overtime pay, a 401k retirement-savings plan and paid time off, the most important benefit by far is health insurance. That is why companies like UPS, Lowes, REI, and Starbucks are in high demand - they all offer some form of health insurance for part-time, hourly employees.

More than 50% of the youths surveyed wanted to more work hours and research suggested that offering existing workers additional hours, rather than hiring new workers, may be one way to save on costs and improve employee satisfaction.

There is also a business case for raising wages. In 2014, IKEA decided to raise its minimum wage, which led to a 5% improvement in retention in less than six months. It was so successful from a business perspective that IKEA raised wages again in 2015. Other low-cost retailers, from Costco to Trader Joe's, have also shown that raising wages can create a competitive advantage.

Research finds that there is a clear business case for putting these ideas into practise and employers who are leading the field in these areas are surpassing industry averages when it comes to retention and employee engagement. This not only makes them better places for young people to work but it also makes them stronger businesses.

According to APA’s 2017 Work and Well-Being survey - released by the American Psychological Association - half of American workers (50 percent) say that in the last year they have been affected by; are currently being affected by; or expect to be affected by organizational changes.  The survey was conducted online by Harris Poll among more than 1,500 American adults who were employed full time, part time or self-employed.

The survey findings show that workplace changes may affect employees’ job attitudes and experiences.  Staff who reported being affected by organizational change (71 percent) currently - or within the past year - reported lower levels of job satisfaction compared with employees who reported no recent, current or anticipated changes (81 percent).

Also, Americans who reported recent or current change (34 percent) were almost three times more likely to say they have no trust in their employer (12 percent) and more than three times as likely to say that they intend to seek new employment within the next year (46 percent) compared with those who suffered no recent, current or anticipated change.

David W Ballard, PsyD, MBA – head of APA’s Center for Organizational Excellence, states,

“Change is inevitable in organizations, and when it happens, leadership often underestimates the impact those changes have on employees. If they damage their relationship with employees, ratchet up stress levels and create a climate of negativity and cynicism in the process, managers can wind up undermining the very change efforts they’re trying to promote.”

Other findings of the survey are:

• 78 percent of U.S. workers reported average or better levels of work engagement - as characterized by high levels of energy - when being strongly involved in their work and feeling happily engrossed in what they do.
• 22 percent reported low or very low levels of engagement at work, but 30 percent of workers who felt they were treated fairly by their employers were more than five times as likely to report high or very high levels of work engagement, compared with 7 percent of employees who felt unfairly treated.
• Although 71 percent of employed adults felt that their organization treats them fairly, 21 percent said they did not trust their employer.
• Employees who had no trust in their employer (70 percent) were likely to say that they were tense and stressed at work – and indicated that they intended to look for a new job within the next year - compared with 23 percent who trust their employer.  

Trust and engagement play important roles in the workplace.  In predicting well-being, engagement and trust accounted for 53 percent of the variance. Employees reported having more trust in their organizations when their contributions are recognized and opportunities for involvement are provided. 

Employees also experienced higher engagement when they had more positive perceptions of their employer’s involvement, growth and development and health and safety practices.

 “For organizations to successfully navigate turbulent times, they need resilient employees who can adapt to change,” David W Ballard said. “Disillusioned workers who are frustrated with change efforts, however, may begin to question leaders’ motives and resist further changes. To build trust and engagement, employers need to focus on building a psychologically healthy workplace where employees are actively involved in shaping the future and confident in their ability to succeed.”

The CIPD - the professional body for HR and people development - have published new research showing the value of strength-based performance conversations.  It shows that line managers can improve their staff performances by focusing on their strengths and not their weaknesses.

This method endeavours to move away from a ‘shortfall’ approach, which is focused on identifying and fixing the weaknesses of team members; analysing what is wrong and deciding how that can be avoided.

Jonny Gifford, Senior Research Adviser for organisational behaviour at the CIPD, said:

“The strengths-based approach marks a big shift in mind-set for many, if not most of us. Our default mode when looking for improvements tends to be deficit-oriented – we hone in on what’s gone wrong and consider how we can avoid that in the future. There will always be cases where it’s imperative to do this, but our research shows the benefit of making the norm in performance conversations to reflect instead on what worked well, why, and how it can be replicated. The research demonstrated that by focusing on the positives and building on what works, we can actually boost employee performance and help with the learning and development of our teams.”

The research done by the CIPD concentrated on workplace involvements in three government organisations:

• Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
• The National Offender Management Service (now called Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service - or HMPPS)
• The Valuation Office Agency (VOA), as well as work with the Civil Service Employee Policy team.

The study involved before-and-after measures comparing control groups who were not given any training or support, with treatment groups who attended a training workshop on leading strengths-based performance conversations.

In the Valuation Office Agency there were added interventions, including a change in HR policy on performance management.

After the study, it was found from employee feedback that there was a marked improvement in the usefulness of performance conversations when they were focused on strengths rather than weaknesses – 9.7% of employees agreed with the statement, “My meetings with my line manager help me learn and develop as a professional”.  It was also found that 7.4% agreed with the statement, “My meetings with my line manager help to improve my performance”.

In the civil service, it was shown that employee performance improves with simple training which focuses on building strengths and not dealing with weaknesses.  It is also possible to increase the results with changes to HR policy and further training for managers.

The published report also shows how robust and useful research can be conducted into people management practices.  HR and people development needs more research of this nature. 

Andrew Kean, Deputy Director of Civil Service Employee Policy, said:

“In the Civil Service, we know that the quality of the performance conversation between the manager and their employee is fundamental to any good performance management approach. So we are delighted that this research, which has centred on the nature and quality of performance conversations, has provided such clear results. In particular, that a simple training intervention focused on building strengths instead of fixing weaknesses positively influences the performance conversations that take place between managers and their staff.” 

David Ede, Director of People and Organisational Development at the Valuation Office Agency, stated:

“It has been a really useful experience to have the CIPD research running alongside our own internal performance management pilot. This has allowed for a comparison between a holistic approach to performance management (complete policy change and cultural shift to coaching conversations) and a more discrete strengths-based intervention where the policy has remained unchanged. VOA has been doing its own internal evaluation of our pilot and worked alongside the CIPD to feed into their research.” 

Paycor, a Human Capital Management company, have released the results of a survey they have conducted about the present and the future of HR.

The nationwide study - conducted by Harris Poll - surveyed 500 HR professionals and C-suite executives and was undertaken to understand how HR leaders in small and medium businesses saw the future of the industry in five years and how they could prepare for changes.

Approximately half of the HR and business leaders who were surveyed believe that many core HR functions will be automated by 2022.  Whilst being optimistic about their businesses in 2018, 45 percent are apprehensive about recruiting and retention of staff.  The two major concerns they have are finding the right people for the job and then keeping them motivated.

The survey also reveals that small and medium size businesses will focus more on using information that can be interpreted quickly and used to drive business decisions and help solve challenges without widespread vetting from the leadership.

Experts stated that Initially HR technology was built to guarantee conformity - but that is rapidly changing.

Karen Crone, Chief HR Officer of Paycor stated:

"Most people embark on a career in HR to make a difference, but many get stuck in the administration.”  She added "HR technology wasn't built to make HR's job easier or to give HR time back to focus on people. Over the next five years, look for the most successful teams to embrace technology and focus more on performance."

She added: "Armed with the tools to add more strategic value, HR leaders will be able to evangelize a holistic approach to the entire employee life cycle—from hiring and on-boarding through career development, learning and training—so they can spend less time on the administrative work that has kept HR in a box and more time enhancing their company's people power."

According to the survey, 82 percent of respondents say ‘soft skills’ will become more important as HR becomes less administrative and 47 percent expect their roles to become more data-driven strategic. By 2022, HR professionals predict that their teams will have three top priorities - training and development; employee morale and employee retention.

Stacey Browning, President of Paycor stated:

"As technology continues to disrupt the HR status quo in ways big and small, it's critical that small to midsize business HR professionals are able to minimize their focus on administrative tasks and achieve a more strategic position in their organizations."

The survey report indicates that HR leaders are gearing up for the challenge - but many HR leaders will find it difficult to invest in the necessary tools to assess data as they could be obstructed by cost, especially if they are unable to power new technologies - and new systems are unaffordable.

Karen Crone stated:

“HR leaders should start small……they do not necessarily need a system to look at data in new ways. Take attrition data, for example. We often look at the monthly rate or voluntary versus involuntary, but what about other factors?”

She added, “Just by stringing together data that is seemingly unrelated, you might find a meaningful pattern for your business."

This month, Judge William L Witham Jr of the Delaware Superior Court granted a request to block the testimony of a doctor appearing as an expert witness in a medical malpractice case.

The plaintiff, Amanda Norman, filed the lawsuit against Dr. Christine Maynard and the clinic All About Women.  She claimed that, while performing a diagnostic laparoscopy on Amanda Norman in October 2013, Dr. Maynard perforated the plaintiff’s bladder.  The mistake was not realized prior to completing the procedure – which led to further surgery and hospitalization for Amanda Norman.

The defendants sought to exclude evidence and testimony concerning their write-off and payment of medical expenses; limit the testimony of Dr. Kenneth Woo; exclude apologies; exclude evidence of other injuries and exclude the evidence of Dr. Jeffrey Soffer – the expert witness.

Resident Judge William L. Witham determined that there was no evidence that Amanda Norman’s expert witness - Dr. Soffer - had based his definition of the standard of care on information broadly accepted within the medical community. Therefore, the judge granted Dr. Christine Maynard - and her clinic All About Women - their request to exclude his testimony.

The order states that Dr. Soffer was offering expert testimony for the plaintiff to support the argument that Dr. Maynard had violated the standard of care while performing the surgery on Amanda Norman. The defendants argued that Dr. Soffer’s testimony lacked foundation - being based only on the fact that the bladder injury occurred - and that he had failed to explain in which way Dr. Maynard’s actions did not comply with the standard of care.

The decision states, “In this case, Amanda Norman has failed to meet her burden because no evidence has been presented that Dr. Soffer’s opinion is ‘based on information reasonably relied upon by experts’ in his field.  Therefore, the court must exclude Dr. Soffer’s testimony.”

Dr. Christine Maynard and the clinic had argued that Dr. Soffer’s testimony was only reliant on the fact that Amanda Norman’s bladder had been injured but did not elaborate on what would have been required of Dr. Maynard to abide by the standard of care. They added that he had failed to provide any explanation as to how he reached his standard of care opinions. 

Conversely, Amanda Norman argued that Dr. Soffer’s testimony indicates that a doctor exercising care and diligence would not injure a patient during a diagnostic laparoscopy.  She also stated that the evidence pinpointed specific deficiencies in Dr. Maynard’s surgical procedure.

In considering the argument, the court used a five-step test set out in the U.S. Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals to determine the admissibility of the expert testimony.

The order states that to be allowed –

• the witness must be qualified as an expert:
• the evidence must be relevant
• the opinion must be based upon information that other experts in the field rely upon
• the testimony must help the court understand the facts of an issue
• it must not create unfair prejudice

The court found that Dr. Soffer’s testimony was inadmissible because it failed on the third point of the test.

According to Judge Witham’s decision, Amanda Norman had not shown that Dr. Soffer’s opinion was based on information that experts rely upon. In fact, he had stated himself that he did not rely on any publications in reaching his conclusion and that it was based on his own knowledge.

Judge Witham wrote, “This contention in no way alludes to whether his analysis of the facts in this case is consistent with other experts in his field.  Therefore, the court must exclude Dr. Soffer’s testimony.”

The Court issued the decision on November 16.

The Ministry of Justice has announced that applications for refunds of Employment Tribunal or Employment Appeal Tribunal fees, will now be processed.

Employment Tribunal fees that were charged between July 2013 and July 2017 will be considered for refunds, after the Supreme Court found, on 26th July 2017, that the Employment Tribunal fee system was unlawful. As the rule of law requires people to have access to the Courts unless Parliament has clearly said otherwise, the introduction of fees was found to have obstructed access to justice. A review of the impact of the fees appeared to support this, as it showed there had been a 70 per cent drop in the number of cases brought in the Employment Tribunal since fees were first introduced.

After the ruling, Justice Minister Dominic Raab stated: "The Supreme Court recognised the important role fees can play, but ruled that we have not struck the right balance in this case.”

Initially, there was a four week trial phase before the scheme was fully rolled out, where around 1,000 people were contacted by the Government and offered the chance to apply for reimbursements. It has been estimated that 100,000 claims could be eligible for refunds now the scheme is fully open.

Applicants can apply for a reimbursement through the gov.uk website but if an employer was ordered by the Tribunal to reimburse a fee paid by the Claimant - and the employer can prove they did so - the employer instead of the Claimant can reclaim the fee. In addition to being refunded their original fee, successful applicants will also be paid 0.5 per cent interest, which will be calculated from the date of the original payment up until the refund date.

It has been reported that since the ruling, the number of Employment Tribunal claims is beginning to increase. However, it is conceivable that fees may be brought into force again in the future, as it was only found that the fee system from July 2013 was unlawful, not that any type of fee system is. This was highlighted by the Lord Chancellor David Lidington during a justice select committee recently, when he verified that the Government were intending to charge in the future

Workers all over the world should brace themselves for what human resource experts are referring to as “inflation-adjusted wage increases” in 2017.  In 2016, workers received wage increases of about 2.7 percent but should only expect an average of 2.3 percent in the coming year.

Luckily for North America, the rapid rise in market pay in certain countries over the last few years is helping dissuade US businesses from outsourcing jobs to other countries.  Moving jobs to countries like China typically benefits the US because they are low-wage nations, but this wage gap is closing quickly.  Ultimately, the case for sending work overseas is becoming less clear from a financial perspective. Next year alone, salaries in Asia are expected to increase by 6.1 percent.  Latin American workers are forecasted to see the largest salary increases in 2017 at a solid 7 percent.   

The US and Canada will see slower salary increases overall when compared to other regions, according to regional and country-specific global pay findings released earlier this month.

The data comes from Hay Group’s client database and analyzes pay information for over 20 million job holders across 110 countries.  One HR expert explained that while salary increases will be lower this year, there will still be salary increases – this is really a glass half full or a glass half empty kind of scenario.  

A study from Stanford University revealed managers of both sexes might be inadvertently pushing women into supporting roles and lifting men into leadership ones.

A Stanford research team analyzed hundreds of performance reviews and found that women were often described as “collaborative”, whereas men were often described as “driven.”  While both of these adjectives are positive, when it comes to promotion time some characteristics hold more weight than others.  The study explained that because women are praised more for being good team players they are placed in more supportive roles because this is where they “excel.”

On the flip side, men are more often promoted because they are described as driving outcomes for the business.  One HR expert explains there is another reason this happens – the Meritocracy Paradox.  Even though we want to believe we judge on merit, studies show this just isn’t true. 

Fortunately, human resource professionals recommend a few steps that can help members of management avoid any kind of unintentional bias.  First, it is important to stick to the facts and get multiple opinions.  If a manager hones in on hard performance data and sticks to the facts, there will be little room for bias based on anything.  Additionally, employers should encourage workers to give anonymous feedback on management so that biases can reported.  Finally, HR experts encourage management to assess employees based on multiple reviews.

The number of people saving into workplace pensions is still on the increase with 15 million people and counting.

A primary reason for the 4.4 million-person-increase since 2012 is the amount of people being auto-enrolled.  The Institute for Fiscal Studies recently completed an analysis that revealed between 2012 and 2015, 95% of the rise in private sector membership was attributed to auto-enrolment.

Auto-enrolment was launched in 2012.  The plan is to have it fully rolled out by 2018.  The fact that millions of people are set up in a workplace pension means that workers will be able to benefit from years of saving, thus granting them a more secure retirement. 

Minister for Pensions, Richard Harrington recently chimed in on the subject singing praises of auto-enrolment.  He also explained how the long-term plan is to build on the success of auto-enrolment by finding new and innovative ways to continue to encourage people to save.

In April 2018, minimum contribution rates are scheduled to rise from 2% to 5%, and then from 5% to 8% the following year.

Before the year comes to a close, the Department for Work & Pensions will announce the scope of the 2017 review on auto-enrolment.  This review will be make sure auto-enrolment continues to work for everyone involved.

The minimum income standard (MIS) in 2016 as defined by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation equates to just £9,500.  Unfortunately, 1.6 million people out of the 25.5 million in the workforce are at high risk of falling short of this minimum income standard in retirement. 

The Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association (PLSA) recently did an analysis of the incomes of different UK generations and what they can expect in retirement. The Retirement Income Adequacy: Generation by Generation report found that well over 13 million people are still considered at risk of not meeting their target replacement rate, or TRR. 

Millennials:  This generation is considered the auto-enrolment generation.  Millennials are actually the first generation to experience the UK pensions system the way that reforms intended it to be.  Unfortunately for Millennials, those in a defined contribution scheme will need to do more than just that to achieve their TRR.  They will need to contributmore than the minimum and probably work longer.

Gen X:  This is the generation that falls in the middle of all of the reforms.  They are witnessing the slow decline of defined benefit schemes and the introduction of auto-enrolment.  Many people in Gen X didn’t start saving in their pension early on and are now saving at a lower level via auto-enrolment.  Just an increase in contributions is definitely not enough to achieve TRR.  They may need to dip into assets like property to generate a higher retirement income.

Baby Boomers: This generation is split.  Baby Boomers who have accrued defined benefit pension entitlement have great retirement income prospects.  Those on the flip side, though, are facing grim conditions. Any Baby Boomer who does not have a defined benefit scheme could enter retirement with less than 10 years of savings through auto-enrolment and will probably end up depending on State Pension.  This generation, however, is synonymous with property wealth which may be enough to generate a comfortable retirement. 

Less than two weeks before it was supposed to get implemented, a federal judge in Texas halted the Department of Labor’s new federal overtime rule.

This new rule would have doubled the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) salary threshold for exemption from overtime pay.  Twenty-one states submitted an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction back in October to stop the rule from passing, claiming the DOL exceeded its authority.  These cases were consolidated with another lawsuit filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, among other business groups, which raised similar objections to the rule. 

This new overtime rule was set to take effect on December 1 and would have significantly raised the salary threshold.  Judge Amos Mazzant of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas said the preliminary injunction “preserves the status quo while the court determines the department’s authority to make the final rule as well as the final rule’s validity.”

Many human resources experts and professionals have rallied together to showcase the difficulties of the rule and the negative impacts it would have had if it took effect.

The preliminary injunction isn’t permanent, though.  While the overtime rule didn’t take effect on the first of this month, that doesn’t mean it won’t take effect at a later date.  Employers will be able to follow the existing overtime rules until further direction is given. 

Some employers have already either raised exempt employees’ salaries or already reclassified employees who are still earning less than nonexempt workers.  HR experts are urging these employers to leave these decisions in place, especially if they already provided salary increases.  In the event there are exempt employees who are going to be reclassified but haven’t been yet, these are cases where employers should consider holding back until litigation plays out.

Since the election in the United States, the total UK defined benefit deficit has gone down by £35bn. 

Additionally, according to Hymans Robertson, the defined benefit deficit is also down by over £200bn from a record high of over £1 trillion in August.  Human resource experts explain this is driven by rising bond yields, partially due to inflation expectations from the policy pledges promised by President-Elect Donald Trump.

One partner at Hymans Robertson goes on to say that there have been signals from the Federal Reserve of higher economic growth and rising interest rates which have been “amplified significantly by what the market has been calling the ‘Trumpflation trade’.”

The real question remains, though: what does this mean for defined benefit schemes?  HR experts unfortunately cannot give a straight answer.  If anything, what we already know about deficits is that they can be extremely volatile.  Scheme holders should still keep their eye on the long-term goal and try to remain unaffected by short-term political uncertainties.

HR experts advise that in order to maintain a long-term focus it is important to know what your long-term target is, and what the measurements of success look like.  

It appears that just under half of United States employees believe they are not being paid fairly compared to workers who hold similar jobs, new research shows.

Managing director of talent and rewards at consultancy Willis Towers Watson, Laura Sejen, explains how pay equity is becoming one of the highest priorities for employers.  This comes as no surprise when you consider the fact that base pay continues to be the most cited reason employees choose to join or leave a company.

The firm’s 2016 Global Workforce Study polled over 3,000 employees in the United States earlier this year and found that while a large percentage do not feel appropriately compensated, over half of respondents reported believing they are paid fairly.  Among other things, the survey set out to measure whether employees actually understand how their base pay is calculated.  A whopping 65% of employees said they do understand how their salary is determined.  On the other hand though, only 39% of polled employees understand how their total compensation compares with other “typical” employees within their organization.

A companion study found that employers haven’t really laid much groundwork when it comes to ensuring employees are paid fairly.  In this study, only half of senior executives polled reported having a formal process in place to ensure fairness in pay.  Given the increasing competition in the workplace and the way that millennials function, this will have to be on the radar of any company that wants to attract and retain talent.

Multiple states have adopted pay equity laws which require companies to disclose the ratio of CEO pay to median employee pay.  This kind of transparency will likely fuel already existing concerns over pay equity and employee understanding.

It has now become abundantly clear what an employee must allege in order to successfully file an employment discrimination or retaliation claim against an employer, thanks to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2^nd Circuit.

In April 2009, Dawn Littlejohn (an African American woman) started work as the director of the New York City Administration for Children’s Services’ (ACS) equal opportunity office.  Littlejohn was the employee who investigated claims of discrimination and was responsible for staff training, monitoring hiring practices, organizing diversity activities and advising the rest of the staff on equal employment opportunity policies.

About 8 months after Littlejohn joined the team, her boss (also African American) was replaced with Amy Baker, a Caucasian woman.  Shortly after joining the Administration, Littlejohn alleged that Baker distanced herself from her and began treating her with a lack of respect.  Baker, according to Littlejohn, demanded work to be redone, wrongly reprimanded her and started taking away some of her responsibilities.

Littlejohn also alleged that Baker had an overall attitude when she interacted with her.  She quoted Baker as saying that she didn’t “understand the culture” at the ACS.

In 2010, New York City announced that the ACS would merge with the Department of Juvenile Justice.  As with any merger, there were multiple changes about to take place.  There would be layoffs, demotions, reassignments, transfers, etc.  Littlejohn alleged that she asked to be a part of the decision-making process to make sure that there was EEO compliance.  Littlejohn claimed that Baker and other white managers worked to prevent this from ever happening.

Littlejohn felt that Baker and other upper management favored other white employees during the merger and continuously mistreated employees of other races. 

Littlejohn ended up being involuntarily transferred and demoted.  Her old position was then filled by a white female who allegedly had zero previous EEO experience.  Littlejohn also revealed that this other woman was getting paid significantly more than she ever was in that position.

Littlejohn sued the city claiming discrimination and retaliation.  The city, of course, requested that the court dismiss her claims citing her lack of sufficient evidence.  The court agreed and dismissed the case, but Littlejohn appealed to the 2^nd Court.

Ultimately, in order for an employee to demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination the following criteria has to be met: 1) the employee must be a member of a protected class 2) qualified for the job 3) it has to be proven that the employer took an adverse action against the employee 4) a connection must exist between the allege adverse action and the protected class.

The court also clarified that an employee “need not give plausible support to the ultimate question of whether the adverse employment action was attributable to discrimination.”

When it came to Littlejohn’s case, the 2^nd Circuit found that the allegations were, in fact, sufficient to support her claims of discrimination and retaliation because she was able to prove everything she needed to.  In regards to the retaliation claim, the court rejected the so-called manager rule, which excludes from protected activity any EEO opposition that falls within an employee’s scope of duties.  The 2^nd Court felt that her complaint was against what she viewed as discriminatory conduct, which was technically protected.

The 2^nd Circuit ended up throwing out the order dismissing the claims and sent Littlejohn’s claim back to the lower court.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Workforce Freedom Initiative released a report called, Theater of the Absurd: The NLRB Takes on the Employee Handbook, which reviews cases where the NLRB negated workplace rules, amongst other things.

The author illustrated many examples of how the NLRB interprets policy language.  The report outlines cases where the NLRB found that policies against disruptive behavior like: intimidation, harassment, insubordination and profanity were unlawful. The study also looked at other cases where the agency voided policies requesting things like protecting trade secrets and confidentiality rules.

Some human resource experts feel as though the NLRB is using an interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act to negate commonplace handbook policies.

Below is a sample of company policies the NLRB has ruled on:

Illegal Handbook Policy: “You must not disclose proprietary or confidential information about [the Employer, or] other associates (if the proprietary or confidential information relating to [the Employer’s] associates was obtained in violation of law or lawful Company policy).”

Legal Handbook Policy: “Misuse or unauthorized disclosure of confidential information not otherwise available to persons or firms outside [Employer] is cause for disciplinary action, including termination.”

Illegal Handbook Policy: “[Be] respectful to the company, other employees, customers, partners, and competitors.”

Legal Handbook Policy: “Each employee is expected to work in a cooperative manner with management/supervision, co-workers, customers and vendors.”

HR experts aren’t really sure how the Chamber report will be received as the NLRB doesn’t appear to care about the report’s release or to be changing their course of actions.

A McKinsey study found that women have become more confident about career opportunities and that signs of “real progress” in gender equality exists for leadership roles.

Many employers have moved gender diversity to the top of their priority list.  The study was performed on behalf of the 30% Club and was first presented at its Leadership Forum.  The research dissects gender balance in the United Kingdom, honing in on the professional services sector.  The report acts as a follow up to research published by the 30% club almost four years ago.

Since 2012, the promotion gap between men and women in law firms has started to close.  The expectation that men were more likely to be promoted than women fell from 10 times more likely to just three times more likely as women push themselves to the forefront of opportunity.

Women are also showing equal career confidence and ambition in sectors like accountancy and consultancy firms.

Chair of the 30% Club Professional Services Firms’ Initiative, Caroline Carr, said, “It is good to see that three years from the first results we are seeing improvement in the rate of getting more women into UK partnerships in law firms and a consistent focus on gender balance as a business priority across the sector – although there is of course still some way to go…”

While this data shows an increase with positive results, a separate report by Clyde and Co shows there have been zero increases in the proportion of female high earners in the past four years.  The employment law firm analysed data from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and found that while the number of higher rate tax payers has become larger, women accounted for less than 30 percent of higher rate tax payers in each of the past four financial years.

Human resource professionals are urging employers to focus on diversity programmes that will help close the gap and get them ahead of the game.

Facebook is making headlines once again, but this time for something HR related.  The social media company has extended its global paid paternity leave to four months for new fathers.

The decision comes after Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg took two months leave after the birth of his daughter, Maxima.

Starting on January 1, 2016, all new dads and same-sex partners (including those who adopt) will be eligible for this paid leave.

Facebook’s vice president of Human Resources and Recruiting, Lori Goler, made the following statement:

"I am proud to announce today that we are extending our parental leave policy for full time employees to cover four months of paid baby leave for all new parents, no matter their gender or where they live."

The final decision to bring males into the mix was made because the company simply felt like it was, “the right thing to do”.  The new benefit really affects men and people in same-sex relationships out of the United States since the new rule won’t affect the maternity leave rule currently available.

Human resource experts explain that when working parents take time off to be with their newborns overall outcomes are better for the children and families.  The United States Department of Labor revealed that, currently, only 12% of private sector employees are entitled to paid family leave through their employment. 

Last April, the United Kingdom introduced a new rule on shared parental leave, allowing men to top up their right to two weeks of paternity leave with up to 50 weeks of leave shared with the mother.  HR experts say that this leave can be split between the couple and can be taken at any time before the child’s first birthday (or within the first year of adoption).  It is reported that fathers have been slow to start using their new entitlement.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit ruled that if an action isn’t based or motivated by a person’s sex, than it may not be considered sexual harassment.

Loretta Rester was a graphic designer for the Hot Springs Village Voice, an Arkansas newspaper owned by Stephens Media.  At one point, Rester got into a heated argument with her supervisor William Elderton over a project.  During this argument, Elderton “slammed his hands on the desk and began screaming and cursing at her,” as per court documents.  When Rester tried to leave and remove herself from the situation, “Elderton put his hands on her three times, and physically prevented her from leaving until she began ‘wailing and cursing and screaming and hollering.’”

Not long after the altercation, Rester filed suit against Stephens Media claiming she was the victim of sexual discrimination and citing that the company forced her to work in an environment that was nothing less than hostile.  Stephens Media requested to have the claim thrown out.

The company prevailed on both counts and the court decided to toss Rester’s lawsuit.  The court decided that in order to prevail on sexual discrimination claims Rester would have to prove that she suffered some kind of adverse employment action and that she was treated differently than other employees.

The court said that “Rester suffered no termination, did not lose pay or benefits, and her job duties or responsibilities did not change. Thus, she cannot establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination.”

In order for Rester to prove that she worked in a hostile environment she would have to prove that there was an occurrence of unwanted sexual harassment, that the harassment occurred because of her sex and that the harassment affected a term or condition of her employment.  Ultimately, the court said that the incident related more to a work disagreement and did not relate to a sexual discrimination claim.

While it may not be 100% professional to get into a workplace disagreement to this extent, it isn’t illegal either.  In the words of the court, in order for a work environment to be deemed “hostile,” there must be “extreme” conduct “rather than merely rude or unpleasant” conduct.

While the United States economy and job market are both on the incline, salary increase budgets continue to remain stagnant with few (if any) signs of growth.  This lack of growth is causing companies to tie base pay increases to performance as well as providing alternative forms of rewards.

Mercer’s 2015/2016 U.S. Compensation Planning Survey reveals that next year’s average salary increase budget is expected to increase by a mere 0.1% from 2015 to 2.9.  Human resource experts explain that the Planning Survey includes respondents from approximately 1,504 midsize and large United States employers, reflecting pay practices for over 17 million employees.

The lack of growth is forcing human resource management within companies to look for other ways to retain talent.  Differentiating salary increases by employee performances still seems to reign supreme with companies rewarding top-performing employees with more significant pay increases than lower performers.  Mercer’s survey shows that top-performing employees received average base pay increases this year that were nearly quadruple what low performers received.

Although this may seem like a short-term fix to the lack of budgets, some human resource departments feel as though this is a fairer way of providing increases to employees.  Why should a low performing employee be rewarded the same as a top performer who may value their position more?  This methodology also allows companies to vary increases by category, segment or department.  Companies are able to weight the importance of an employee based on where they are in the company hierarchy.  So while it appears to be a supplement, these short-term incentives might not go away any time soon, regardless of budgets.

JLT Employee Benefits revealed that employees who have been auto-enrolled into the lowest performing defined contribution (DC) default funds have been losing out on approximately 6% return per year, or approximately £500,000 over a lifetime.

Aside from pointing out the differences between the lowest performing and the top ten defined contribution default funds, the research also uncovered massive variations in volatility levels ranging from 5.3% to 11.3%.

According to human resource experts, this clearly outlines the importance for companies to choose the best default strategy and the best provider for their employees when they are setting up DC pension schemes. It also defines the importance of monitoring performance on the default fund. While it is understood that providers and default strategies are initially chosen for a reason, it is becoming increasingly more obvious that these things should be regulated on a consistent basis to account for any changes in regulations and other variable factors.

When an employee is unknowingly losing out on a 6% return per year, their retirement funds could be severely affected, having an adverse effect on their quality of living later in life.

Volkswagen (VW), is seemingly giving their blessing to whistleblowers. They are urging employees with information about the emissions scandal to blow the whistle before November 30th so that they do not lose their job or face damage claims.

VW brand chief Herbert Diess sent a letter to employees letting them know that union employees who contacted internal investigators would be exempt from dismissal, although this does not apply to managers. Although some employees, per this letter, would be exempt from being dismissed, they wouldn’t be exempt from the possibility of being transferred to another position with different duties.

A few months ago it was revealed that VW cars were producing approximately 40 times the nitrous oxide emissions legally allowed in the United States. The German car manufacturer is now under investigation by American law firm, Jones Day. VW has yet to produce an explanation as to what happened or who in the company is responsible.

Diess’ letter urged employees who are covered by collective bargaining agreements to get in touch promptly, but no later than November 30th, 2015. Unfortunately for whistleblowers, VW can protect their jobs but the company cannot protect their employees from criminal charges.

This is the reason human resource experts feel as though some employees will feel overwhelmed and confused over if or how they should act. It is expected that most of higher management probably knew what was going on behind the scenes and neglected to say anything due to reputation.

HR experts also feel as though there is a double-edged sword for whistleblowers that do come forward in this case. Although they won’t necessarily be losing their jobs, they can be charged criminally which to most people is worse. It is more of an ultimatum and less about employee rights. It is only fair to assume that some lower-level employees who knew about the emissions were bullied into remaining quiet. Although they are not any less guilty than any other person who chose to remain quiet the question remains whether they should be held as accountable as those in higher power.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as an agency, feels that an employer’s use of an applicant’s criminal history in making employment decisions might be in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

On December 9th, a federal court ordered the EEOC to disclose its own background check policy to an employer.  In EEOC v BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC, the EEOC filed suit on behalf of a class of 69 black employees working for a contractor that staffed a BMW-owned warehouse.  Once the contract came to completion between BMW and the contractor, the employees were required to reapply for employment via a new contractor in order to continue employment at the warehouse.  The contract though, was required to implement BMW’s own screening policy.

As a result, many black employees that had previously worked at the warehouse under the first contract were denied employment with the new contractor.  The complaint filed on behalf of these works claims that BMW’s background check policy creates a “blanket exclusion” without an “individualized assessment of the candidate or the nature of the position.”

At one point the EEOC was ordered to produce all documents that “constitute, contain, describe, reflect, mention, or refer to relate to any policy, guideline, standard, or practice utilized by the EEOC in assessing the criminal conviction record,” of a potential applicant for employment within the EEOC itself.  The EEOC refused and declined citing that the request had nothing to do with the case at hand.

The court, on the other hand, firmly disagreed with the EEOC and felt that it shouldn’t be too burdensome to turn over its own policies.

Human resource experts explain that in this case, BMW was able to present an interesting question about the EEOC’s ability to enforce its position on background checks.  Is the EEOC actually having issues with its own policy, and is it so different from every other company?

In Judge v. Landscape Forms one former employee posed the question: Does an employee have to specifically ask for additional leave once Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave is exhausted, in order to receive it?

Mark Judge took his FMLA leave after a shoulder surgery that stemmed from a non-work injury. Judge informed his employer, Landscape Forms, that the recovery period was expected to be about four to six months long.  Once Judge’s 12 weeks of FMLA leave expired, he did not let his company know about his expected return date.  He also did not specifically ask for any additional leave time as accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 

Based on a conversation he had with a benefits specialist for the company, Judge was eventually fired.  The work benefits specialist informed Judge that Landscape Forms decided it “couldn’t accommodate his existing restrictions, could not leave his position open indefinitely and needed to maintain appropriate staffing levels.” At this point, Judge filed an ADA lawsuit, claiming that the company should have accommodated his disability by granting him a leave of absence.

In this particular case, the court was in favor of the company ruling that it had zero obligations to accommodate this employee.  The court cited the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations regarding the ADA.  Essentially, the court ruled that unless an employee makes a specific request for additional leave as an accommodation, employers never have to grant it.  Unfortunately, this type of ruling is truly a case-by-case basis.  Many other courts have sided with the employee saying that employers need to be all but clairvoyant when it comes to extended leave.

In the case of Sefton Borough Council vs Wainwright, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) analysed the rights of women on maternity leave to be offered a suitable available vacancy in a redundancy situation.

Suitable available vacancy is best defined as a job that is both suitable and available. 

The employer in the case came to the conclusion that two jobs would be replaced by a single and newly created position.  Wainwright, who was on maternity leave and the employee who occupied the other position made redundant, were both interviewed for the new position.  Wainwright was not offered the job and was made redundant.  She claimed discrimination and unfair dismissal. 

Wainwright’s claim succeeded mainly due to the fact that her employer did not comply with its duty to offer her a suitable vacancy where one was available.  In this particular situation, the redundancy arose as part of a restructuring and reorganisation.  The EAT said that “where this involved a reduction in employees doing a particular type of work, without any change in the terms and conditions of those who retained their jobs,” there was no right to be given preference in the redundancy selection processes. 

In Wainwright’s particular case, the new post was a suitable available vacancy. Had she been the only candidate she would have been slotted automatically and wouldn’t have had to compete for the position.  In this case, if the employer offered Wainwright an appropriate job, not a new role, it could have possibly avoided any liability of unfair dismissal. 

The EAT did overturn the tribunal’s decision that the employer’s failure to offer the vacancy also constituted maternity discrimination.  

A recent verdict shook up the human resources industry after one jury severely punished a business found guilty of sex and pregnancy discrimination.

A California jury awarded Rosario Juarez $185 million in punitive damages in her sex and pregnancy discrimination lawsuit against a large retailer.  Juarez worked for AutoZone in National City as a store manager.  Her lawsuit claimed that after she informed her district manager of her pregnancy, her work conditions took a drastic change. 

In one verbal exchange, her manager even said, “I feel sorry for you.”  After the exchange her work responsibilities nearly doubled.  Additionally, even though Juarez met all of her sales goals she reported being constantly berated by her manager.

Juarez was eventually demoted.  At that point, she filed a complaint with the state and was fired shortly after.  She then filed a civil suit claiming gender and pregnancy discrimination.

HR experts believe that while Juarez will receive money, the $185 million award probably won’t stick, as punitive damages must bear some sort of relationship to the compensatory award.  Typically, these can’t exceed a 9:1 ratio.

Unfortunately for AutoZone, the case did make national headlines and while the $185 million payout might not stay, they still have to deal with public opinion.

The Society for Human Resource Management, SHRM, said that roughly 1% of companies nationwide offer unlimited vacation.  This list of companies includes heavy hitters like Netflix, Ask.com, and SurveyMonkey, all which have been named some of the best places to work.  The question still remains, though, whether this kind of rule really encourages good or bad behavior within the workplace.

Lotte Bailyn at Quartz said that “numerous studies have found that time away from the office and more frequent vacations lead to greater productivity, improved job performance and lower levels of stress.”

Obviously, unlimited vacation time is great for an employee.  Workers who have kids or lots of extended family often find themselves eating up their precious days off with kindergarten plays or family functions.  What if unlimited vacation actually has the opposite effect though?  What if the absence of a vacation policy actually discourages employees from taking any days off because they’re unsure of what normal time off looks like?  This has become a real problem for companies that have unlimited vacation. 

Most of the time data shows that companies who offer unlimited vacation know that their employees probably won’t take advantage of it.  Employers offering unlimited vacation usually have workers with A-type personalities.  These workers are driven and successful and the health of their job is of the utmost importance to them. 

If looking at unlimited vacation from an employer’s perspective, a company that offers such a perk will never be hard-pressed to find employees.  This is an excellent recruiting tool.  Once employees are hired, companies are also more likely to retain employees because of this policy.

This kind of policy can actually save companies money, too.  Employees, in these cases, aren’t responsible for tracking vacation days so there is no concern over paying employees for unused time off.

HR experts explain that ultimately the success of the approach within any company really depends on how well it fits the company’s business model.

After rigorous initial testing and 10 years of R&D, Shell’s new lead-free formulation is finally ready.  Shell has officially become the first major oil company to develop a lead-free replacement for aviation gasoline.  The new fuel will now begin a strict regulatory approvals process.           

Avgas is one of the last common transportation fuels that contains lead and is used by light aircrafts and helicopters.  It only includes lead to meet fuel specifications and to boost combustion performance.  To counter these issues, Shell developed an unleaded Avgas that meets all of the key properties needed to achieve an acceptable and exceptional Motor Octane rating. 

Shell’s aviation technologists have carried out intense laboratory programs to ensure that the fuel would pass any regulatory processes needed for approval.  The program included in-house altitude rig and engine testing.  Alliances were formed with aviation companies like Piper Aircraft Inc. and Lycoming Engines to achieve industry opinions and concerns.  Shell was able to have the fuel successfully evaluated in an industry laboratory engine test by Lycoming and flight tests by Piper.

Senior Vice-President and general manager of Lycoming Engines, Michael Kraft, said that Lycoming really commends shell on this launch and achievement.

“They engaged Lycoming to test their fuel on our highest-octane demand engine and we can confirm that it’s remarkably close to Avgas 100LL from a performance perspective,” Kraft said. “This initiative is a major step in the right direction for general aviation.”

Shell is now ready to fully engage the entire aviation industry, regulators and authorities (US Federal Aviation Administration, American Society for Testing and Materials and European Aviation Safety Agency) in order to achieve approvals for their unleaded gas.

On December 7, Bangladesh Biman Airlines said that it would pull from service what is believed to be the last McDonnell Douglas DC-10 still carrying passengers.            

The McDonnell Douglas DC-10 originally entered service in 1971, flying passengers between Los Angeles and Chicago.  The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) once grounded the entire fleet of DC-10’s for more than one month after a crash where an engine separated from the airframe during its takeoff run.

The landmark move on behalf of Biman is part of routine commercial service.  Aviation experts and fans are hoping that they will have at least one more chance to fly on the craft…and they might just get their wish.

The big jet is primarily used for cargo carriers, like FedEx.  The major airline said however, that fans and experts interested in flying on a passenger version of the airplane will get their chance to live out their dream in February 2014.  Biman plans on making seats available on the jet for a final flight from Bangladesh to England.

In the event that interest persists, some scenic flights may be flown from England, as long as enthusiasm encourages this.

McDonnell Douglas produced its last DC-10 in 1989 after a run of nearly 450 examples.

Chancellor George Osborne announced a “job-rich recovery for all” while he outlined the government’s future economic plans in the Autumn Statement.           

The key announcements included a few plans that came much earlier than expected.  The first are the plans to increase the state pension age to 68 in the mid 2030’s and to 69 in the late 2040’s.  Under the new rule, the age will vary based on an average life expectancy.  Ultimately, people will spend no more than a third of their expected life drawing a pension.  The “rule” is set to be reviewed every five years.

The second announcement that was released earlier than anticipated is the personal tax allowance plan.  This is said to go up to £10,000, meaning that a typical basic rate taxpayer will pay £705 less income tax per year compared to 2010-11.

The Chancellor also addressed the high levels of youth unemployment and the plans to require any young person (18-21) to undertake training from their first day of claiming benefits.  If they fail to do so, they will lose their entitlement.  Furthermore, funding for an additional 20,000 Higher Apprenticeships over the next two years will be increased.

The hope is that this measure will encourage many businesses to take on young people, to help reduce risk and cover the costs of the additional training that under-21’s require.

Osborne’s confirmation that the state pension age would increase attracted criticism from multiple unions.  One human resource expert said that the new plans would condemn millions of people to work until they drop.  This will effectively mean poorer people with lower than average life expectancies, which will fund the pensions for the more wealthy.

As the workforce becomes more age diverse, the workplace will need to adapt in multiple ways, including management and development.  This proves especially true when the average working life span of a person could last over 50 years.

While the overall impact of a growth on reducing the fiscal deficit is welcome, HR experts are still adamant about addressing this management deficit.