The Association of Professional Staffing Companies and the Recruitment and Employment Confederation have surveyed 105 staffing companies and 348 individual recruitment professionals - finding that 41 per cent of recruitment firms are not recording any demographic data on their workforce and leadership teams. This has the effect of making it difficult to identify which demographics are not fully represented.

Time and resources for not recording the diversity of the workforce is cited by 6 per cent of respondents; 4 per cent feel that they do not have the expertise; 38 per cent considered that their organisation was too small and 26 per cent simply had not considered it.

Neil Carberry - Chief Executive of the Recruitment and Employment Confederation - says that recruitment, more than any other sector, sits “at the heart of workplace diversity and inclusion”, opening opportunities to millions of people every year, adding:

“The glaring finding of the report is a lack of effective diversity monitoring in some recruitment businesses. As the old saying goes, what gets measured gets managed, so effective data collection needs to spread more broadly across the industry.”

The bodies’ UK Recruitment Diversity & Inclusion Index shows that although most of the recruitment sector workforce is made up of women, at senior level there is an even balance between men and women.

The research also found that 65 per cent of organisations were not collecting data on the sexual orientation of their workforce and 55 per cent do not record this among their senior leadership team; 46 per cent were not recording the ethnicities of their workforce and 40 per cent were not collecting any information on age.

Religious beliefs at 90 per cent and staff qualifications at 73 per cent were the least likely data to be recorded.   However, responses from individuals show the recruitment industry is made up of 47 per cent Christian; 31 per cent atheist; 13 per cent agnostic and 7 per cent spiritual.

Although 47 per cent did not record the data, 33 per cent of corporate respondents say up to a quarter of their workforce had a disability.

Ann Swain - Chief Executive of the Association of Professional Staffing Companies - stated:

“When we first embarked on this collaborative research, our hope had been to identify what the current make-up of the recruitment sector looked like, any discrepancies between corporate and individual views and where diversity may be lacking. What we found, though, was a more pressing issue - a lack of information. Without a clear and honest picture of your workforce, it will be difficult for staffing companies to identify where there are gaps or what demographics are currently under-represented.”

She added:

“But there are restrictions on what employers can and can’t ask staff and how recruitment businesses approach the tracking of sensitive personal data will require careful management and guidance.”

At a recent online conference, Lord Hodge - Deputy President of the Supreme Court and EWI President - gave the keynote address, during which he explored the critical role of the expert witness in the administration of justice.

Lord Hodge then gave examples from several cases and on impartiality he cited the case of the ‘Ikarian Reefer’ - in which Mr Justice Cresswell laid out the judicial expectation of the expert witness.  This is now codified in England and Wales in practice direction 35, supplementing CPR part 35.

In addition, Lord Hodge went on to offer his own observations, stating that independence and impartiality - whilst appearing to be obvious - was causing concern in some cases.  He cited a 2019 survey of expert witnesses in which 25 per cent of respondents stated that they had felt pressurised to change their report in a way that damaged their impartiality.

An expert witness must also be an expert and additionally, whilst undertaking the task, must be aware and competent in their duties to the court and undertake continual critical examination of their own work or opinion.

Lord Hodge stated that clarity of thought and clarity of expression or presentation of the evidence will assist the judge greatly and stressed that it was imperative that expert witnesses take full responsibility throughout the process of preparation and presentation for his or her opinion evidence.

He went on to quote Judge Claire Evans, who had remarked:

“There are plenty not very good experts around. Some soi-disants experts are worse than not very good, they do great harm.”

Lord Hodge then praised specialist organisation and institutions - such as the EWI - for their role in minimising the occurrence of harmful expert witnesses by advocating high standards in expert evidence.

Discussing the part that lawyers and instructing parties played - not just by ascertaining that an expert did possess the necessary expertise and making them aware of their duty to the court - but by ensuring that the expert witness was aware of all the facts of the case, Lord Hodge referred again to the 2019 survey, stating,

“Lawyers must do better. They may obtain useful assistance on best practice on consulting experts in guidance issued by the Civil Justice Council.”

He continued to say that lawyers must improve their scientific and technical literacy to do their job effectively in cases concerning experts and testimony.

Whilst the task of policing compliance with an expert’s duties falls to the court, he said that “judges, lawyers and experts have to face the future together”.

Reflecting on the impact of Covid-19, Lord Hodge stated that he was aware that times had not been good for expert witnesses during the pandemic. He mentioned difficulty in carrying out physical site visits or examinations and the financial impact - either through postponed trials or delays in payment. However, he pointed out that not all consequences of the pandemic were bad. In the words of the Lord Chief Justice, it was “the biggest pilot project the justice system has ever seen.”  For example, online filing had been introduced at the Supreme Court and that practice would continue. This would save money and have a positive environmental impact.

Lord Hodge also said that he expected that remote hearings were here to stay - particularly for incidental and case management business and there was scope for more radical changes within the judicial system in the coming years.

He concluded by saying that the conference presented an opportunity to enhance the contribution of expert witnesses and those lawyers who work with them in support of that aim, re-iterating that “judges, lawyers and experts have to face the future together”.

According to research, a skills crisis is affecting productivity and growth in many UK industries and the education system is not providing their needs. Additionally, investment in skills development, by organisations, has not recovered since the 2008 recession.

A survey carried out by City & Guilds Group and Emsi - a labour market analytics company - revealed that 61 per cent of the 2,000 working age adults polled say they do not feel equipped with all the skills they will need for the next five years - with 64 per cent stating that they had not received any training in the past year and 30 per cent not receiving any workplace training in the past year.  The survey attributed this to budget restraint due to the pandemic.

To understand the impact of the lack of skills, over 1,000 UK employers were polled to find out how they are faring in terms of recruiting and training the skilled workers - and what challenges they see as being on the horizon.

• 90 per cent of employers said that they struggle with skills gaps.
• 47 per cent of employers stated that skills gaps were the internal factor most likely to impact their future productivity.
• 47 per cent of employers said that managers and team leaders were the most difficult jobs to fill. 
• 11 per cent of employers said that they never struggle to recruit the skilled staff they need.
• 19 per cent stated that they struggle all the time to recruit the skilled staff that they need.
• 66 per cent of employers anticipated the skills gaps will stay the same or worsen.
• 33 per cent of employers think that skills gaps in their business will improve during the next three to five years.

The report showed that just 9 per cent of workers said that they were confident they had advanced digital skills, whilst 22 per cent of employers surveyed wanted advanced digital skills.

Two in five - 42 per cent - of employers said that they intended to invest in training and development to tackle skills gaps; 36 per cent stated that they planned to recruit apprentices or trainees; 14 per cent planned to recruit or retrain older workers and 20 per cent stated that they would retrain or recruit older workers.

Kirstie Donnelly - CEO of City & Guilds Group - stated that individuals, employers and the UK government needed to change their attitude regarding skills. 

“It is no longer possible to leave full-time education at 18 or 21 and never reskill again. We will require people and businesses to upskill and reskill throughout their working lives.”

She added:

“It’s clear that employers and employees may both struggle to keep pace with the rapid changes in skills needs being driven by factors such as AI and the move to net zero.”

Jane Hickie - Chief Executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers - said that the present system for funding adult skills was “bureaucratic and too slow” to respond to the changes in the world of work. She recommended that more should be done to support acceptance of the government’s national adult digital entitlement.

During a High Court trial - Dana UK AXLE Ltd v Freudenberg FST GmbH - three expert witness statements were excluded after Mrs Justice Joanna Smith ruled that their opinions appeared to have been influenced by the party instructing them – resulting in multiple breaches of a pre-trial order; the rules on expert evidence and the 2014 guidance on instructing experts in civil claims.

Mrs Justice Joanna Smith stated “…… establishment of a level playing field in cases involving experts requires careful oversight and control on the part of the lawyers instructing those experts especially when the experts were from other jurisdictions.”

She added:

“For reasons which have not been explained, there has been no such oversight or control over the experts in this case. The use of experts only works when everyone plays by the same rules. If those rules are flouted, the level playing field abandoned and the need for transparency ignored, as has occurred in this case, then the fair administration of justice is put directly at risk.”

On day seven of the trial, Dana applied to exclude Freudenberg FST’s technical expert evidence.  At the pre-trial review, Mrs Justice O’Farrell ordered that Freudenberg FST would be permitted to rely on its technical experts, subject to meeting three conditions.

Mrs Justice Smith found that Freudenberg FST had committed a “serious breach” of the requirement to provide full details of all materials provided to the experts, as a disclosure of documents made during the trial showed that a significant amount of information was provided to each of the Freudenberg FST experts that had never been disclosed to Dana or otherwise identified.  The judge also stated that it was clear Freudenberg FST experts had “unfettered and unsupervised access” to personnel and were provided with information during calls and virtual meetings.

She stated:

“However, there is no record of any of these calls or meetings and no record of the precise nature of the information that was provided.”

Two witness statements about the evidence were provided by Alexander Wildschutz of City firm Fladgate – who act for Freudenberg FST.  In pre-trial correspondence, the firm had confirmed disclosure of all the documents which were the basis of the experts’ opinion.  Mrs Justice Smith observed that this was an assertion which seemed to be entirely mistaken.

The judge went on to say that it was “difficult to square” the first statement made by Mr Wildschutz – stating that the discussions made between Freudenberg FST and the experts were solely telephone calls to two of them requesting assistance with locating documents and technical information or logistical assistance – with evidence that “Mr Wildschutz already had this available to him at the time of his statement” showing that the discussions were far more detailed.

Mrs Justice Smith went on to say:

“Mr Wildschutz explains that he now regrets that he did not ask Mr Bauer (a Freudenberg FST contact) to keep a note of these conversations.

It is most unfortunate, to say the least, that Mr Wildschutz does not appear to have considered it necessary to supervise the interactions that were quite clearly taking place on a regular basis between FST and its experts.”

She added that Freudenberg FST’s failure to comply was “not just a technical or unimportant breach” adding:

“Where experts are liaising directly with their clients to obtain information which is not recorded (because there is no legal involvement and no vigilance on the part of the expert in keeping detailed contemporaneous notes of such contact and in providing those notes to his or her instructing solicitor), there can be no transparency around the information to which they have been privy and no equality of arms with their opposing experts of like discipline.”

The judge went on to say that the 2014 guidance specifically contemplated that instructions would be provided to experts by solicitors.

She added:

“However, it should go without saying that parties cannot get around this requirement for transparency by engaging directly with their experts and by-passing any involvement on the part of their solicitors.”

Mrs Justice Smith said she was “inclined to agree” when Dana’s solicitor, Ms Nicola Phillips of Crowell & Moring, stated that the failure to comply with the order was “unlikely to have been inadvertent” - as complying would have revealed breaches of CPR 35.  She found that “the experts’ analyses and opinions would appear to have been directly influenced by FST” and continued:

“I think there is some justification for the suggestion [by Ms Phillips] that FST has interposed itself in the experts’ reports to such a degree that they cannot confidently be said to be the result of the experts’ independent analysis.”

Research carried out on 750 senior financial and HR decision makers in UK small businesses between 14 and 22 March 2021 by 3Gem - a market research company - has shown that 21 per cent of small businesses expect to lay off staff by September.

In addition, 90 per cent of those surveyed say that they have been approached by employees with their worries - 32 per cent have concerns about losing their jobs; 28 per cent have concerns about their personal finances after the pandemic and 21 per cent worry about a reduction in their salary.

Digital employee benefits service provider, Worklife, has based their Small Business Monitor on this research - which reveals that 29 per cent of small businesses have had to furlough staff since November 2020; 25 per cent have had to cut staff hours; 22 per cent have reduced pay and 20 per cent have been unable to offer an annual salary increase.

With the Bank of England predicting that unemployment will peak at 5.5 per cent when the furlough scheme finishes, Worklife’s analysis has found that 14 per cent of permanent small business jobs and 9 per cent of temporary small business jobs are potentially at risk.

Regarding income, 31 per cent believe that their revenue will increase, but 45 per cent think that revenue will remain quiet over the next year - pointing to the fact that the future for some employees will be uncertain.

Steve Bee - Director WorkLife - states that this demonstrates the need for employers to rebuild their businesses and the confidence and wellbeing of their staff, also. 

He commented:

“While the past year has been tough for bosses, things haven’t exactly been rosy for their employees, many of whom now face continued job insecurity alongside higher living costs due to rising inflation. So, while ensuring the business is equipped to meet future operational challenges will be crucial, just as important will be supporting the wellbeing of staff as we move through the recovery phase. For firms facing continued income issues and thinking they might need to cut employee numbers, it’s important to note that the most valuable support won’t come through direct and expensive remuneration, but rather by embracing flexibility and offering genuine understanding towards people’s worries and concerns. This might be achieved through allowing people time away from work to interview if they’re facing redundancy or looking at offering low-cost benefits such as shopping vouchers to boost people’s pay packets if they’re not getting an annual salary increase. 

Whatever situation the business is in, over the next few months a key priority should be providing an affordable but meaningful benefits package for staff that provides genuine support for the day-to-day challenges they might encounter.”

Between June 2020 and March 2021, software company, Culture Amp, carried out a global survey on 4,841 people, of which 683 UK HR professionals participated.  As a result of the findings, experts say that it is vital that people in the HR profession keep a check on their own wellbeing.

As HR professionals work with every department of a company - forcing them to be great at juggling different tasks and needs - and are often the people who create and implement wellness and mental health programmes, they often experience burnout themselves.

The survey showed that just 39 per cent of those polled thought that they felt well able to cope with the demands of both their work and personal life at present.  This is a fall of 7 per cent from the second quarter of 2020, when 46 per cent of respondents replied that they could balance their work and personal lives.

The same percentage - 39 per cent of respondents - agreed that they were equipped to deal with the requirements of their role, such as operational and people or cultural responsibilities.  This was also down from 46 per cent in the second quarter of 2020.

According to experts, short 10 to 15-minute breaks are essential for people to take a moment to relax and regroup. However, only 31 per cent of respondents stated that they were able to take regular breaks throughout the day. This was down from 43 per cent last year - whilst 31 per cent agreed they were able to effectively switch off from work, down from 36 per cent in 2020.

Nick Matthews - General Manager and Vice President for EMEA at Culture Amp - said the figures made for “concerning reading”, at a time when employers were preparing to bring their employees back to the workplace or were contemplating hybrid working.

He said:

“Business leaders need to be proactive in supporting HR teams as they recover from their heroic pandemic efforts and recognise that their roles have evolved and will be even more relevant in this new world. It’s imperative that HR takes the time to check-in on their own wellbeing and calibrate their work-life boundaries if necessary.”

Despite this however, it was found that 60 per cent of HR professionals said - in the first quarter of this year - that they could see that their work was having a positive difference.  This percentage had dropped though, from 73 per cent last year.

Since HR work is outside any other department, it can have access to more than just the HR team for assistance. When help is needed assistance should be requested - and 55 per cent of respondents did say they felt supported by the other people at work when they needed it. This figure is down from 67 per cent last year. Just 49 per cent said they were feeling productive - again, down from 67 per cent last year.

It will require close collaboration between business leaders and HR to ensure that employees know how to adapt appropriately to office reopening.

People Management surveyed 556 HR professionals and senior management to find out what apprehensions are being felt by both employees and employers - and what preparations businesses are already making to ensure success.

Last month it was confirmed by the Prime Minister that - provided the infection rates remained under control - the government’s advice that people in England should work from home, if possible, would be withdrawn in mid-June.

The survey found that 83 per cent of respondents said that their workforce was optimistic about returning - but there were some concerns.  HR professionals will be required to keep in touch with employees through frequent communication about upcoming plans, to help reduce anxiety about returning to the office. In extreme cases, if some workers do not want to return - and businesses force the issue - employees could decide to leave their jobs.

Of the respondents to the survey, 53 per cent said their staff were worried about contracting coronavirus in the workplace and 43 per cent said their employees were worried about contracting it on public transport. Another main concern for 21 per cent of respondents was childcare - with 46 per cent worrying about care for people other than children.

Rachel Suff - Senior Policy Adviser for employment relations at the CIPD - said that coronavirus was still an issue and work arrangements would still be disrupted - particularly for those with caring responsibilities for children, or others. 

She stated:

“People's circumstances in some cases have changed over the past 15 months, so their needs will have changed. Organisations needed to be proactive in having those conversations and giving guidance to everybody about what procedures to keep them safe will be in play and what role they as individuals have got to play in that as well.”

Extra mental health support for those returning from working from home was promised by 62 per cent of HR professionals; 34 per cent said they would provide it for workers returning to the office from furlough; 57 per cent said that their organisation would provide homeworkers with training on Covid guidelines and 35 per cent offered to provide Covid guidelines training to furloughed workers.

Most of respondents to the poll run by People Management - 94 per cent - said that staff would be able to work in the office, with 40 per cent saying that staff would be able to go in on days specifically chosen by them and 35 per cent saying that workers would be able to go in on days allocated to them by the business.  Only 15 per cent of respondents said that they planned to make attendance at the office mandatory - and 4 per cent said that staff were only required to go into the office to attend meetings.

When asked how organisations would manage employees who did not want to return to the office at all, 43 per cent said they would require staff to attend the office for a minimum number of days, whilst 40 per cent said they would support home working - provided staff were able to commit to frequent office visits for meetings.

According to the respondents to the survey, 57 per cent reported that their workforce was worried about the extra time taken up by commuting, whilst 44 per cent were concerned about reverting to more structured hours.

Gemma Dale - a Senior HR professional and co-founder of The Work Consultancy - said that giving workers autonomy in when and how they worked allowed for a productive workforce.

She said:

“When people have got lots of control, and lots of autonomy, that's a good predictor for wellbeing and good mental health. Think about flexibility in its broadest sense.”

She urged employers to consider offering flexible hours and not just the option of working from home.

According to a poll of 2,000 employees currently on the furlough scheme - carried out across the UK - over a third of them have been asked to undertake work by their bosses. This is in spite of the strict rules stating that employers are only entitled to claim money from the £60bn furlough scheme if staff cannot work during the pandemic. The job retention scheme is one of the biggest costs to the Treasury and any breaking of the rules is fraud.

The study - which was carried out by Crossland Employment Solicitors and surveyed staff from manufacturing, IT, marketing and PR companies - found that the comparison between large and small firms was fairly equal. 

It showed that 34 per cent of employees were asked to return to work either to do their usual job or to take on administrative tasks - with a further 18 per cent saying they had been asked to work for another company linked to their employer and 19 per cent were asked to cover another person’s job, within their organisation.

Beverley Sunderland - Managing Director of Crossland Employment Solicitors - stated:

"Like any fraud, this is a serious offence and an exploitation of employees.

As it is fraud on the Treasury then an employer could be imposed with a hefty fine, asked to pay past payments back, have any future payments withheld or even potentially face prison.

Since the coronavirus job retention scheme was launched eight weeks ago, we've received an avalanche of calls to our office from worried employees, all unrelated to our own clients and many with the same story, 'I've been furloughed but my employer has asked me to keep working’.”

She added:

“This is fraud that is impacting many industries, job roles and seniority levels.”

Similar to Crossland Employment Solicitors poll, the charity Protect reported receiving more than 215 calls to its whistle blower advice line, regarding furlough abuse. This accounted for 54 per cent of coronavirus-related calls received, overall.

Andrew Pepper-Parsons - Head of Policy for Protect - remarked that many whistle blowers were concerned they could be held liable for working whilst furloughed.

He stated:

“It is the employer that is committing the fraud and it is the employer that should suffer the penalty, but we are hearing reports that some whistleblowers seeking advice are being told they will be liable to pay back money fraudulently claimed.”

He called upon the government to assure those employees that they would not be required to make repayment.

However, Stuart Price - Payroll Expert at MHR - said that changes to legislation had required employers to react quickly; meaning accidental abuse of the scheme was understandable in some instances.

He said:

"Traditionally, when you've got new legislation, you've got a year's lead time to prepare because the government has had time to give great detail.  But because the rules can vary month to month, it has been difficult for businesses to keep up. You're being asked for information or checks where you might not even have needed that data before.”

According to a new report - Learning and Skills at Work 2020 - from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) and Accenture, two out of three businesses have no clear training plans for their employees.

The CIPD and Accenture - a multinational professional services company - surveyed more than 1,200 employers and found that only 29 per cent of organisations claim to have clear learning and development plans for their employees.

One in five organisations fails to use any technology to support learning activities and many tend to rely on classroom-based training. The report goes on to state that skills development is being frustrated by the pressures of the coronavirus pandemic and calls for organisations to use digital learning methods, especially as skills development is being highlighted by the pressures of the coronavirus crisis.

Nearly 80% of employers have taken up learning technologies, with leaders showing signs of growth in digital learning, but barriers still persist - with only a minority of organisations adopting augmented reality, virtual reality and mobile applications.

The report showed that many in-house learning and development roles are dominated by face-to-face trainers - digital asset creators/curator researchers are rare and the majority of employers lack the skills needed to deliver training.

A link between learning and productivity was also suggested - of those with above-average productivity, 84 per cent said that their learning strategy is connected to business needs, compared to only 43 per cent of those with below average productivity.

Peter Cheese - Chief Executive of the CIPD, the professional body for HR and people development – said:

“Learning has never been more important for business, the UK and working lives – we needed it before COVID-19 and we need it even more now. Yet this report highlights the gap between companies who know this, following through with strategic investment, professional practice, new technologies and time to learn – versus those who know the importance, but allow it to be the first thing cut from the budget. Within the report, there are some incredibly innovative examples of learning, which are developing new skills, behaviours and performance – at times like these we need these examples to be more commonplace.” 

Andy Young - Managing Director of Talent & Organization at Accenture - said: 

“Technology was already disrupting the world of work, and now with most of the workforce going virtual, the pandemic is accelerating the need to harness human and digital skills. While digital learning is commonplace in our personal lives, our report shows that many UK organisations have not invested in this as a competitive advantage, risking significant skills gaps. With new solutions such as virtual and augmented reality that simulate difficult situations, gaming technology, and films to encourage decision making and new behaviours, employers can revolutionise their training plans at a time when their people need it the most. The good news is that some leading UK organisations are getting learning right and seeing productivity gains as a result.” 

New research from Personio - the all-in-one HR software solution - finds that HR teams are keen to maintain a more influential and strategic role in the future.

The research surveyed 500 HR managers across the UK, with 51 per cent of respondents stating that the HR function cannot continue as prior to the pandemic. Eight out of ten of those surveyed declared that HR has been vital in helping the business successfully adapt to the new normal, with 91 per cent rating the HR function as good or very good.

Altogether, 71 per cent of those surveyed believe that HR has added tactical value to the business during the outbreak and 71 per cent also agreed that the HR function has been more closely involved at board and senior team level.

According to the research, 80 per cent of HR managers want HR to maintain the strategic role it played during the pandemic - with 33 per cent believing that the HR function should become more strategic and flexible in future.

However, 49 per cent of HR managers surveyed say that they do not have the HR tools and systems in place to be properly effective; 71 per cent say that they have difficulty accessing data or analytics, 42 per cent state they lacked the data and tools required to support the business efficiently and under 46 per cent have a specific recovery plan in place. This leaves question marks over the ability of HR to truly evolve and retain its more strategic partnership role in the long term.

It was indicated by 63 per cent of respondents that HR processes and systems carried out fully digitally helped HR teams to work more effectively and they cited the HR functions response as ‘very good’ during the pandemic – with 55 per cent more likely to have a recovery plan in place.   This compared with 41 per cent who cited ‘mostly’ digital and 48 per cent who had ‘few’ digital systems, with only 34 per cent of those stating they had a recovery plan.

The top steps that have been implemented by HR in the UK are 66 per cent support for remote working; 53 per cent increased internal communication; 44 per cent implemented additional health and wellbeing initiatives and 37 per cent provided support for parents.

Hanno Renner - co-founder and CEO of Personio - said:

“HR is a company’s backbone, and this is never truer than during challenging times like these. The Covid-19 crisis has given HR teams a unique opportunity to demonstrate what they’re best at – helping businesses make strategic decisions when it comes to their greatest asset: people. HR teams will be critical to supporting individuals’ and businesses’ return to workplaces and navigating the challenging time after the lockdown. But this more strategic HR role can only be achieved when organisations have the technology, data and systems in place that free HR managers up to focus on their people while providing them with the insights they need to be effective. Organisations must act now to ensure the HR function can continue to operate strategically in the post-pandemic workplace. Budgets may be under threat, but people strategy is one area that absolutely must remain a focus for businesses as we adapt to new ways of working.”

According to a poll of HR professionals it was found that only 4 per cent of employers have returned staff to a place of work following the relaxation of lockdown rules.    

The Prime Minister - Boris Johnson - had asked employees who were unable to work from home, to return to their workplaces. However, People Management readers found that employees were still being asked to work from home and that did not appear to be likely to change for the foreseeable future.

Various reasons were given by those polled - 24 per cent said they were waiting for the government to give specific guidance for their sector before returning staff to the workplace - as 38 per cent of the HR professionals had found the advice they had received not very or not at all helpful and 55 per cent expected that their staff would to continue to work from home for some time. However, 62 per cent had found the government’s sector-specific advice on returning to work very or quite helpful.

Some 17 per cent of respondents said that their staff had worked right through the lockdown.

However, Martin Tiplady - Managing Director of Chameleon People Solutions - was of the opinion that employers should be able to work out the specific measures that would be appropriate in their circumstances.

He said:

“I’m not the sort of individual who feels that every twist and turn should be covered by guidance; it’s got to allow interpretation and some wiggle room for people to use common sense.”

He added:

“I have talked to employers where they are looking for literally every turn to be expressed in a guidance note – but nobody’s been there, why would you want that? The guidance is fine but people have now got to use pragmatism about how best to apply it.”

Of the measures that the guidance recommended, 67 per cent of respondents stated that they were altering their workplace layouts to support social distancing; 54 per cent said they were staggering the shifts to reduce employees contact; 53 per cent said that they were planning to hold fewer and shorter meetings and 49 per cent were staggering break times.

Back-to-back or side-to-side rather than face-to-face working was one of the more controversial recommendations in the guidance for when social distancing - as keeping two metres apart could be impossible in a workplace. Only 19 per cent of respondents stated that they were introducing temperature checking of employees at their entrances, with only 6 per cent stating that they would be regularly testing the staff for the virus.

A major debate, when restrictions were first eased, was about how the staff could safely commute to work. The majority of employers - 66 per cent - reported having conversations about this with employees before asking them to return.

One of the recommendations in the guidance to help employees avoid peak commuting times was to stagger start and finish times and 59 per cent of respondents said they were introducing this.

Just under half - 47 per cent of those polled - said they were asking employees to walk or cycle more to work; 33 per cent said they were promoting cycle to work schemes more heavily, but only 6 per cent had offered to pay for taxis.

According to a CIPD survey, over the past two years the proportion of people who feel that work has impacted positively on their mental health, has fallen. One in four workers reported intense and stressful working conditions - such as feeling exhausted, miserable or stressed. The coronavirus outbreak has led to further concerns about the impact the virus will have on staff wellbeing.

In the Good Work Index report it was found that the number of people stating that work had a positive affect on their mental health dropped 9 percent over the last two years, going from 44 per cent to 35 per cent.

Jonny Gifford - Senior Research Adviser at the CIPD - remarked that even before the coronavirus outbreak, work was becoming worse for mental health.

He stated:

“As the full scale of the economic crisis unfolds, the outlook looks even bleaker. We’ll likely see employers trying to do more with less, which will only increase people’s workload and the pressure they are already under. Many people will also be worried about losing their job or living on a reduced income.” 

The CIPD and YouGov polled 6,681 workers in January of this year, finding that 32 per cent said that their workload was too great in a normal week and 24 per cent said that their personal time was not relaxing because of work. In the last year, 69 per cent said their work was contributing to the anxiety they were experiencing and 58 per cent said the same was true for their depression.

A further survey of 1,001 workers conducted in April and May of this year showed that the pandemic was heightening the employees’ issues. Of those with a mental health condition, 43 per cent say the pandemic has contributed to or worsened it.

However, 73 per cent feel their work is meaningful for their organisation - but 11 per cent lack the skills they need for their job and 37 per cent have underused skills.

Jonny Gifford said:

“While the government is right to focus on protecting as many jobs as possible, it should also be encouraging employers to look at job quality. Not only is there a moral imperative to do so, but if people are happy and healthy in their jobs they also perform better, take less time off and are less likely to drop out of the workforce. In the long run, this will help us get on the road to economic recovery sooner.”

Kelly Feehan - Service Director at wellbeing charity CABA - advised:

“If you haven’t done so already, you should look to produce a mental health at work plan or strategy, which you implement and communicate at all levels of the business. Check in with your staff at regular intervals as personal circumstances can quickly change. This will allow you to identify any issues at an early stage and make any adjustments where necessary.”

She added:

“Companies and employers that actively promote mental health in the workplace are far more likely to have a happier and more productive workforce. Employees will feel more supported to do their job, and are therefore less likely to take sick days or look elsewhere for another role.”

The CIPD and Workday latest annual People Profession Survey has been released – showing that there are plenty of ‘positives’ reported by those who work in the people profession.

Of those surveyed, 80 per cent state that it offers them a meaningful career and 73 per cent believe they have the opportunity to add value to their organisation, showing that the majority find enjoyment in their work.

YouGov surveyed 1,368 in-house people professionals of which 60 per cent said that they look forward to going into work most days; 73 per cent said that the profession offers good career prospects and 65 per cent said that the profession offers good earning potential.    

Areas where the profession can improve - particularly around people analytics and data skills - were highlighted. To help make business decisions, only 6 per cent use advanced analytical techniques, as opposed to 37 per cent collecting and using very basic HR data.

The CIPD carried out a separate poll in April - to discover the impact of the coronavirus on people professionals. It was found that 57 per cent of people professionals recognised that their people team are supporting line managers through the crisis - but only 41 per cent of all business leaders agreed with this. More than a third - 37 per cent - say that a key business challenge is helping people to manage the impact of home working on their mental health.  

The report also explored the change or improvement that people professionals would most like to see in HR capability. It was found that 32 per cent would like to see coaching of line managers; 26 per cent would like OD and management skills to be addressed and 25 per cent would like relationships with colleagues and understanding their priorities to be built. 

Peter Gamble - Regional Vice President at Workday, UK and Ireland - said:

“It has been a challenging year but one that has highlighted the importance of the people profession. Amidst uncertainty, people leaders have had to make confident decisions about the best way forward for their organisation and their workforce. In a fast-changing environment, leaders have had to help people stay informed, engaged and supported while adopting what have been entirely new ways of working for many. Responding to change quickly and effectively has been key. Businesses must strive to build a culture of agility, data-driven decision-making and automation to fuel the recovery from the effects of this year and to drive innovation in the future.”

Peter Cheese - Chief Executive of the CIPD - stated:

“There are plenty of positives to take away in the latest People Profession Survey. It’s good to see that so many people professionals get meaning and value from their careers, which is likely to be reflected back in them showing strong commitment and engagement. The demands placed on the people profession over the last few months have never been greater with the Covid-19 pandemic, and we have seen so many positive examples of how individuals and teams have risen to the challenge. It’s particularly encouraging to see the focus on supporting line managers, many of whom are now having to manage teams remotely for the first time and support workers through these anxious and uncertain times. However, there is always scope for development and, once again, the report highlights the need for people professionals to improve their analytics capabilities. The crisis has put people much more at the heart of business thinking everywhere, but we need to show we can engage with business leaders at all levels with clear and actionable insights to drive positive change. This will be even more important as businesses look to drive performance and productivity as they chart their way through more challenging and uncertain economic times, and must balance financial, legal and ethical perspectives in the decisions that impact their workforces.  People professionals will continue to face many demanding months ahead as we slowly come out the lockdown and the full impact this crisis has had on the economy is laid bare. We will be here to support them through it all.”  

New research from the CIPD finds that long hours, stress and poor work-life balance is damaging attempts to improve the job quality amongst UK employers.

A total of 5,136 people were surveyed for the UK Working Lives Survey, which is an assessment of job quality over categories ranging from pay and benefits, contracts and employment terms and job design to health and wellbeing.

Identifying poor work-life balance as a problem, 60 per cent of those surveyed stated that say they work longer hours than they wish to, with 24 per cent stating that they overwork by at least ten hours a week - and find it difficult to relax in their leisure time because they are thinking about work.

The report also highlights serious fears about the workloads and the effect it can have on the health of employees - with 66 per cent saying they have experienced anxiety and sleep problems in the last 12 months.

Peter Cheese - Chief Executive of the CIPD - said that the survey showed that work could sometimes be inclusive, putting too many demands on much of people’s personal time.  

He stated:

“At its best, work gives people purpose, a sense of identity and achievement, and allows them to contribute to society. But, as our research shows, work can sometimes be all-encompassing, demands too much of people’s precious personal time and takes too much out of them. It’s disappointing to see so many workers report they have a poor work-life balance and it is an issue which must be addressed by employers. They need to be offering all staff a wide range of flexible working arrangements and actively promoting their take-up.”

He added:

“As co-chair of the Flexible Working Task Force, we are working with the government and other business groups to bring flexible working to the masses and help reset the work-life balance. Not only will this help to improve people’s quality of life, but it will make their performance at work more sustainable over the long-term.”

Louise Aston - Health and Wellbeing Director at Business in the Community - approved the call by the CIPD for employers to offer improved flexible working practices, but stated that it is only one part of the solution to addressing the problem of UK job quality. 

She said:

“More and more people are using their annual leave or time at home to work and alarmingly, according to our research, only one in four organisations are taking any steps to discourage this. A seismic cultural shift is needed across the board because the trend towards people working longer and harder than ever before looks set to get worse. Long term, this causes burnout, is unsustainable and has a significant impact on recruitment and retention.”

The CIPD is also urging employers to fulfill their statutory duty of carrying out a comprehensive health and safety risk assessment and to provide effective training for line managers in people management practices.

In response to an unprecedented recruitment crisis, an emergency pay boost of up to 25% of salary has been introduced by the Ministry of Justice.

This is a recruitment and retention allowance representing a 25% increase for High Court judges and a 15% increase for Circuit and Upper Tribunal judges, but the extra money will not go to judges at the level where solicitors are most likely to be found - District and First-Tier Tribunal judges will receive only a 2% pay rise. It has been stressed that the allowance is only temporary until a solution is found to the recruitment problem.

About a quarter of the 1,850 salaried judges will be affected and around 60 will qualify for the 25% allowance.

At present, more than 10% of High Court positions are vacant with the Chancery Division being 20% below strength and – if recruitment is not more successful – by the end of the year the figure will have doubled to 40% below strength.

The Ministry of Justice have said that the new figures will ‘strike a balance between an appropriate investment of public funds and addressing serious recruitment and retention problems’. This is despite the new figures being below those recommended last year by the Senior Salaries Review Body in its government-commissioned report, which found that changes to tax and pensions mean that the total remuneration for a new High Court judge is worth £80,000 less than it was ten years ago - showing a 36% decrease.

David Gauke - Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary - said:

“Our judges are a cornerstone of our democratic society - their experience draws billions of pounds worth of business to the UK, and without them people cannot get justice. We have reached a critical point. There are too many vacancies and with the retirement of many judges looming; we must act now before we see a serious impact on our courts and tribunals.

Judges are in a unique position and once they join the bench are not permitted to return to practice. Without the best legal minds in these seats, everyone that uses our courts will suffer, as will our international reputation. This temporary allowance, pending long-term pension scheme change, will enable us to continue to attract the brightest and best and prevent delays to potentially life-changing decisions.”

Lord Burnett of Maldon - the Lord Chief Justice together with Sir Ernest Ryder - Senior President of Tribunals - welcomed the announcement.

They said:

“It is an important step which we are confident will have a significant effect on addressing critical shortages in the judiciary.

Judges understand very well how delays to the cases they decide can affect the people and businesses involved.  They do their utmost to ensure cases are dealt with both promptly and fairly, but are nonetheless concerned that there is an urgent need to recruit enough judges to tackle the workload in a sustainable way.

Judges are conscious that they are well-paid compared to most in the public sector. They are continually finding ways to make the administration of justice more efficient both through the modernisation programme being run by HM Courts & Tribunals Service and more widely. We are pleased that the government is taking action to address the serious difficulties faced in recruiting to the judiciary.”

The Court of Appeal have found in favour of paramedic Neil Flowers and 12 of his colleagues - who all work for East of England Ambulance Trust covering Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire. Mr Flowers and colleagues had argued that their holiday pay should reflect the hours they worked - including voluntary overtime - rather than being calculated on their contracted hours.

Lord Justice Bean said:

“The employment tribunal in the present case made no error of law in finding that the remuneration linked to overtime work that was performed on a voluntary basis could be included in normal remuneration for calculating holiday pay.”

Originally, the workers union - Unison - took the case to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) after they had partly won their employment tribunal cases - but lost the argument for voluntary overtime to be included.  Subsequently, EAT ruled that voluntary overtime should also be taken into account when calculating holiday pay, alongside mandatory and non-guaranteed overtime.

Unison stated that as a result of staffing shortages across the NHS, the workers regularly volunteered to work overtime to ease the pressure on their colleagues - and to increase their pay. The union cited the government’s failure to recruit sufficient workers as the reason that working overtime had become the custom for most members of staff.

Dave Prentis - Unison General Secretary - said:

"Before this judgment NHS workers who did regular overtime or often worked well beyond their shifts saw a drop in their pay whenever they took a well-deserved break. Leave calculations that weren't based on the extra shifts and hours they did week in and week out meant many were considerably out of pocket. Unison always believed that the rules around NHS pay already allowed for overtime and working beyond the end of a shift to be taken into account when calculating holiday pay. This judgment confirms that but does highlight another pressing problem. The NHS urgently needs to recruit more staff so existing nurses, paramedics and other health workers don't have to regularly work overtime simply to keep the service afloat. This is a victory for all those health service workers who regularly go the extra mile to make sure we receive the best care possible at all times of the day and night."

Employment lawyers have said that this judgment could have much wider implications for organisations - mainly, but not only - in the public sector, where the employees regularly carry out paid overtime. 

Helen Beech - Partner at Clarkslegal - said:

“Where the overtime, voluntary or otherwise, is sufficiently regular and settled, it implies that the employee relies on those payments as part of their regular remuneration, and the loss of such payments would result in a disincentive to take their annual leave which would mean the employer is in breach of the Working Time Regulations.”

She added:

“HR should also be mindful that under the Working Time Regulations, they should not be disincentivising employees from taking their holiday as this could lead to a claim.”

However, Beverley Sunderland - Managing Director of Crossland Employment Solicitors - stated that the ruling “flew in the face of previous cases and the direction of travel for holiday pay”.

She added:

“No doubt there will be numerous cases on exactly what is meant by this.”

More than 100 other cases awaiting hearings as a the result of this judgment may now face a longer wait as the East of England Ambulance Trust said it would be appealing to the Supreme Court and added:

"As a trust we are committed to offering our staff good rates of pay, a generous holiday entitlement and great working conditions."

A federal judge in northern Texas has granted American Airlines (AA), a temporary restraining order against two unions - the Transport Workers Union of America and the International Association of Machinists (TWU-IAM) - to block an alleged work slowdown by their members.

The TWU-IAM Association - which represents more than 30,000 employees in 12 work groups including mechanics, baggage handlers and airport ramp workers - have been told by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, to issue a notice to their workers to no longer continue activities such as slowing aircraft repairs (or indeed slowing any part of their job performance), refusing to work overtime or on assignments away from their normal location, or any other actions that would negatively impact AA’s operations.

In documents filed with the Court, AA maintained that the union’s “illegal conduct has dramatically escalated and has become devastating to the airline’s operations, customers and employees.” The airline claimed that before the union began their alleged campaign, staffing overtime or field trips had not been an issue, yet since February of this year there had been periods with no overtime shifts worked and no field trips undertaken. As a result, since filing the original lawsuit in May, the airline have had to cancel 722 flights over 23 days, disrupting travel plans of around 175,000 passengers.

AA therefore argued for the temporary restraining order, deciding that the trial due to commence July 1st was too long to wait. Court documents stated “illegal conduct has dramatically escalated” and that it is “creating an operational crisis causing significant damage to American, the traveling public and American’s employees.”

The slowdown, according to AA, was instigated by the union as a method of strengthening their position in new contract talks that began in late 2015. TWU-IAM is the only major union that has not been able to agree contracts with the airline - regarding issues such as compensation and health and retirement benefits - since their merger with US Airways in 2013. The union have however denied encouraging any slowdown, claiming that it is a result of low worker morale, partly caused by a plan to outsource thousands of US jet mechanic jobs to South America.

Patricia Murphy, who worked for Northumberland County Council from 1999 until her dismissal on the grounds of ill-health in 2017, won her North Shields employment tribunal hearing alleging discrimination and harassment.

A poor employee/manager relationship resulted in the claimant being asked how long “this disabled thing” was going to continue.

Miss Murphy, who has a physical impairment to her feet following an injury, worked for Northumberland County Council as a social worker until her dismissal. She started work for the council in 1999, becoming a social worker in 2001. In 2008 she became a team manager, responsible for 9/10 social workers. She had an excellent attendance record.

In 2014, Miss Murphy injured her foot.

In 2015, the council received complaints and Miss Murphy was suspended and given a written warning. She was demoted from team leader to an independent reviewing officer, a role that required Miss Murphy to be fully mobile and involved travelling across the county to see children. 

After the suspension, Miss Murphy had an x-ray taken which showed nerve damage. She was advised that surgery was needed to correct the condition and went off work in February 2016.

Miss Murphy met Karen MacDonald - her line manager - and Amanda Atkinson - the HR Adviser for the council - in October 2016.   She was informed that she could not return as a team manager and she replied that she could not return to a full independent reviewing officer role - but could do some work. The tribunal had the impression that relations were strained between Miss Murphy and her two interviewers.

It was agreed that Miss Murphy would to return to work on 7th November and a foot rest was provided for her. However, she was then away from work from 23rd December 2016 not returning until late in August 2017. During this period an occupational health report found that she was still unfit for work and despite two attempts by her line manager and HR Adviser, they were unsuccessful in arranging a meeting.

On 14th August, a meeting took place between the line manager, the HR Adviser and Miss Murphy - where Miss Murphy requested that she be able to use her annual leave to extend her return to work. The request was refused and she was told that she would be expected back to work in the role of independent reviewing officer taking on a full caseload, four weeks after her return – failing which she would be dismissed. During the meeting, the line manager stated that Miss Murphy’s behaviour was like that of an angry, stroppy teenager’ and that she felt like she wanted to ‘poke Miss Murphy’s eyes out’ because of her behaviour during her first return to work in November 2016.

On 21st August, Miss Murphy was given audit work to carry out. At the beginning of September, another occupational health report stated that, at that time Miss Murphy did not have the capacity to return to the independent reviewing officer role - and that this could be so for the following six months, with no certainty that she would be able to cope with all aspects of the role after that and suggested that the phased return should be extended by annual leave.

In September another meeting was held with the line manager and the HR Adviser at which Miss Murphy asked if there were any roles she could move to while her feet improved. The line manager replied by asking how long ‘this disabled thing’ was going on. Miss Murphy was then told she would be dismissed and - at a final meeting at the end of September she was dismissed on the grounds of ill-health capability in ongoing health. 

The tribunal found the council had failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments; discriminated against Murphy because of her disability and unfairly dismissed her. It dismissed the victimisation claim.

The Judge said that the line manager’s remark about feeling like poking Miss Murphy’s eyes out by reason of her behaviour ‘should never fall from the lips of a senior manager’ - but were not an act of harassment or discrimination. 

He added:

“The effect was to violate her dignity or at least to create an intimidating and hostile environment for the claimant. Instead they are indicative of the poor relationship which by then had developed between the claimant and her line manager.” 

Andrew Willis - Head of Legal at HR-inform - said the case is a reminder of the need for professional and appropriate communication between managers and employees - regardless of how frustrating the situation is.

“With disability discrimination tribunal claims notably on the rise, make sure managers have training on being emphatic, holding sensitive conversations and dealing with difficult members of staff. This can be the difference between an unlimited compensation award and managing the situation in line with best practice and the needs of your business.”

After an 11-month investigation by freelancer website ContractorCalculator, HM Revenue & Customs have released figures suggesting that thousands of contractors could have grounds to appeal against wrongful tax treatment. This is a result of unlawful blanket assessments conducted by public sector hirers.

A series of Freedom of Information requests from ContractorCalculator - which sought statistics detailing the results issued by the Check Employment Status for Tax (CEST) tool - were consistently blocked by HMRC, but an appeal which resulted in an intervention from the Information Commissioner’s Office finally provided the data requested.

HMRC have been accused of acting in a manner ‘akin to climate change denial’ in its defence of its Check Employment Status for Tax (CEST) tool.

Dave Chaplin - Director of the Stop the Off-Payroll Tax campaign and Chief Executive of ContractorCalculator - wrote an open letter citing ‘widespread and indisputable’ evidence of the shortcomings of CEST which he said HMRC ‘brazenly refused to acknowledge, let alone attempted to address’.

He stated:

“Our investigative work has unearthed a wealth of evidence exposing CEST’s inaccuracies and the unfair outcomes of the assessments, namely widespread false employment. To date, the taxman has repeatedly claimed CEST is accurate, despite widespread criticism of the tool and evidence suggesting otherwise. HMRC’s tin-eared stance on the matter is unacceptable and we are hoping that this open letter will prompt some answers.”

When carried out across a number of public sector organisations, the data requested disclosed CEST assessments showing nearly unanimous inside IR35 results. Nearly 4,000 CEST assessments were inspected and 94 per cent were found to fall within IR35, meaning that for tax purposes contractors are treated as employees.

Private sector companies will be responsible for determining the IR35 status of their contractors from April 2020.

Dave Chaplin has argued that the recent tax tribunal victories for Lorraine Kelly and Kaye Adams have shown up the shortcomings of CEST and that until CEST is changed, a private sector roll-out of the off-payroll rules should not even be considered an option.

He wrote:

‘How is the public expected to trust the output of a tool which has been shown to return the wrong outcome in the most straightforward of employment status cases? - or a tool developed by a government body which has only outright won one of its last 12 IR35 tribunal cases?’

He added:

“HMRC has had two years to provide us with evidence to support its claims that CEST has been rigorously tested and is accurate. Until CEST is fixed and the high risk of contractors being subjected to false ‘inside IR35’ assessments is negated, a private sector roll-out of the off-payroll rules shouldn’t even be considered as an option.”

HMRC said in a statement:

“CEST was rigorously tested against known case law and settled cases. It is accurate, and HMRC stands by the result if the tool is used correctly. CEST is not biased towards an employment outcome and in the last 12 months over 50% of determinations it has provided have been for self-employment or outside the off-payroll rules – this is in line with our expectations for the service. HMRC estimates only about a third of individuals working through their own company fall within the rules and should be taxed as employees. However, numbers will vary greatly between roles and sectors.”

In the public sector, at present there is no known HMRC appeals process for persons wishing to contest their IR35 status decision. However, litigation or claiming unlawful deductions from wages through employment tribunals are possible routes to follow.

Martyn Valentine - Director of The Law Place - said:

“A large portion of contractors have been wrongly assessed as caught by IR35, forced into false employment, and consequently wrongly and overtaxed. They can litigate against the client and/or agency for unlawful deductions of tax. Even some contractors who are genuinely caught inside IR35 could successfully bring action. We know of numerous instances where public sector bodies have deducted their own tax burdens, including employer’s National Insurance (NI), from the rates agreed with contractors. Provided expert legal advice is obtained, the affected contractors can reclaim what is rightfully theirs.”

A survey - conducted by ADP Research Institute - shows that the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force a year ago, has had a positive impact on employee confidence around data security.

In May 2018, the General Data Protection Regulation was implemented to boost individual data protection and to guarantee the privacy of those living within the European Union and Economic Area.

The survey found that 53% of the respondents said that their confidence has risen in the way their employer stores and secures their personal and private data - an increase of 6% on results from 2018.

The ADP Workforce View in Europe 2019 surveyed over 10,000 workers in Europe - with countries including France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the UK being researched. It reported that employees generally have been feeling more assured about their companies’ data protection efforts since the GDPR came into being.

However, 34% of employees in France still had some concerns about the safety of their personal data and over a quarter of the UK employee respondents are still worried about the security of their personal data - with the biggest worry for 11% of the employees being the lack of control that workers have over their data storage.

The next issue - reported by 9% of employees - is lack of confidence that the data is being held by systems in their organisations which are capable of withstanding cyber-attacks or data breaches. A further eight per cent stated that they are concerned that too much data is being held without proper consent.

Cécile Georges - ADP Chief Privacy Officer - stated:

“It’s highly encouraging to see that the implementation of GDPR has coincided with a significant rise in employee confidence, suggesting that employees feel more assured than they were prior to GDPR that companies will actually comply with Data Protection requirements that for the most part were already in force in the European Union.

It is crucial for both the organisations and their employees that the former are complying with GDPR and have a thorough understanding of the impact of wrongfully processing data on employees.

GDPR has already led to positive results but companies must continue to work to maintain data security and ensure their employees feel confident about the way their employers hold and process their personal data.”

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has recently released its long-anticipated final rule on Association Health Plans (AHPs).  This will allow small businesses to group together - by area or commerce - to create health plans as if they were a single large employer. Sole proprietors, as well as their families, will be permitted to join such plans helping millions of working Americans gain access to quality, affordable health insurance for themselves and their families.

Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta said:

"President Donald J. Trump is expanding affordable health coverage options for America's small businesses and their employees. Many of our laws make healthcare coverage more expensive for small businesses than large companies. AHPs are about more choice, more access, and more coverage. The President's decision helps working Americans – and their families – purchase quality, affordable health coverage."

The Association Health Plans will not be subject to the essential health benefits requirements of the Affordable Care Act, which necessitate cover for mental health, substance abuse, maternity care – amongst other matters. 

The DOL states that, as many small businesses and their employees have struggled with government restrictions that limit access to quality, affordable health coverage, this AHP reform will address many of the inequalities between small and large businesses in access to that coverage.  The reform allows small employers – many of whom are facing much higher premiums and fewer coverage options – a greater ability to join together and gain many of the advantages enjoyed by large employers.

The administration’s plan is to encourage competition in the health insurance markets and lower the cost of coverage.   In co-operation with the executive order - issued by the president in October 2017 – AHP’s will not be able to restrict membership based on health status or charge higher premiums to sicker individuals, which were two of the biggest fears about expanding AHP’s.

Alexander Acosta has stated that in the future, as many as 4 million people will take advantage of coverage under the new plan offerings. This is in accordance with the estimate of Avalere Health – a DC-based healthcare consulting firm – who has predicted that as many as 4.3 million people will leave the individual and small-group insurance markets to enroll in association health plans over the next five years.

The Association Health Plans will become available on September 1, 2018.

Self-employed workers can join the plans under the new regulation and in addition, groups that want to form an association plan do not need to have another purpose beyond providing health coverage to members.

The Labor Department's Employee Benefits Security Administration will monitor the new plans to ensure compliance with the law and protect consumers. Also, States will continue to share enforcement authority with the Federal Government. 

Research carried out by software provider, Workday - in association with the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) - revealed that only 52% of organisations were using people data to deal with issues in business.  This has resulted in experts calling for specialist data training.

Of the 3,852 business professionals surveyed in the study of HR departments’ experiences, it was found that 39% did not have access to people data for the purpose of making decisions but 35% of non-HR professionals thought that their HR team was expert in people analytics.

Workday identified a link between the use of people analytics and business performance, with 65% of the respondents who worked in people analytics cultures feeling that their business performed better than competitors who were less data-driven. 

Human capital and governance adviser for the CIPD - Edward Houghton - said:

 “We need to see greater investment in the skills needed to understand people data and we need to encourage the use of people analytics across different functions in organisations, and in finance in particular.  HR must lead the development of cultures that share a ‘common language’ when it comes to people data and a shared understanding and appreciation of the positive impact people data can have on business outcomes.”

Gonzalo Benedit - President of EMEA and APJ at Workday - stated:

“People analytics should be available in real-time, and on demand so that that they can be quickly used to make effective decisions. While the business case for people analytics may be clear, the data must be accessible and used as only then will businesses have the confidence to use it most effectively."

Bernard Marr - author of Data Strategy - speaking at the Cognition X conference in London, warned that “people people” were sometimes in want of the mathematical know-how needed to properly take advantage of HR analytics.  He argued that by splitting the function in two, those with stronger people support skills could create a positive employee experience and those who were more analytical could focus on capturing data and insight. He stated:

“The two functions don’t always blend well.”

Also warning that HR was currently failing to appreciate the true workplace potential of artificial intelligence (AI), Bernard Marr said they were “just jumping on the bandwagon” rather than taking time to assess the strategic points and identify the genuine issues that AI could solve.

Colin Strong - Global Head of Behavioural Science at Ipsos Mori - told People Management that he was not convinced that the case had been made for people analytics as a driver of business success.  He said:

“Workplace metrics are important but they are only part of the story. There’s more to people management than can be reflected in a set of data.”

According to a new survey by Total Jobs, one in four workers would leave their jobs if they were not allowed to work from home.  Amongst millennials, that percentage increases to 45 percent.

The survey - consisting of over 1,000 workers and 260 employers - showed that remote working is in the top five most important benefits when looking for a new job and surpassed other perks such as enhanced parental leave, travel allowances and learning and development.

Of those seeking employment, 20 percent said that they would choose to take employment where they were offered remote working in preference to one where they were not.  

Women were found to appreciate the flexibility that remote working offers, with 24 percent preferring the option of working from home or in the office compared to 16 percent of men.

Of the bosses surveyed, two-thirds stated that they offer remote working to their employees.  The reason given by 38 percent of bosses for offering this perk is that it assists staff in their work-life balance – whilst 25 percent stated that it was to reduce sick leave.

One-fifth of employers consider that their staff are more productive and happier when working remotely and that is why they offer it.   Employees agree with this – 21 per cent of workers believe they are more productive when working from home and 28 percent also believe that it is a show of trust from their boss.

However, contrary to this, 12 percent of bosses do not allow remote working – citing difficulty in managing those employees working from home.  In addition, colleagues of those working remotely do not believe that the home workers are putting enough effort into their work.

Two-thirds of UK employees are allowed to work from home whilst 35 percent are still not given that option. 

Analysis by the TUC shows that the number of people working from home has slowed down with one in 16 of the workforce working from home in 2016 and 2017 and with managers as the most likely to work from home - followed by Associate Professionals such as architects, engineers and designers.

The Group Marketing Director at Total Jobs - Martin Talbot, said:

“With the UK in the throes of a productivity crisis, now is the time for employers to find ways of addressing this issue. The research finds that many people work best from home, however, many employers don’t trust their team enough to work independently.  Companies, as well as the wider economy, would benefit from improving embracing remote working.  Our research also confirms a shift towards remote working, with an increasing number of millennials viewing the option to work remotely as a priority when looking for a new job.  With news that 28% of workers would change jobs if their current employer did not offer remote working, it is more important than ever for businesses to improve their work from home offering.”

Amongst the staff at recruitment agency Workchain – who were prosecuted for illegally opting staff out of workplace pensions – was an HR and compliance officer.  She was one of five senior employees, who had been encouraged by two directors of the company, to mislead the National Employment Savings Trust (NEST).

By logging in to the organisation’s online pension system and using employees’ personal details followed by termination of temporary employees’ workplace pension membership, the company failed to pay money on employer pension contributions.  If employees wish to opt out of the pension, auto-enrolment regulations state that they have to do it personally. 

After concerns about Workchain by NEST to TPR - the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate - Derbyshire Constabulary and Nottinghamshire Constabulary conducted an investigation which resulted in prosecution by the Pensions Regulator (TPR) - the first that they had ever instigated.  The accusation was that the parties used unauthorised access to a computer programme under section 1 (1) of the Computer Misuse Act 1990.  By using the pass codes of 67 workers to log into NEST’s online portal, the senior staff members of the company had opted them out of their pension.

Darren Ryder, director of automatic enrolment at TPR, said:

“Workchain’s directors saw denying their temporary workers pensions as a quick and easy way to save the company money. Both they and their senior staff thought nothing of misusing NEST’s online portal. Thanks to the vigilance of NEST, their attempt to cheat the automatic enrolment system failed.  Automatic enrolment is not an option; it’s the law and the law is clear – no one can opt a worker out of a pension scheme, even if the worker agrees. Those who try to avoid their pension responsibilities in this way face prosecution.”

All seven of the defendants pleaded guilty at Derby Magistrates’ Court and District Judge Jonathan Taaffe committed the case to Derby Crown Court for a sentencing hearing on 28 June 2018.  In the Magistrates’ Court, the maximum sentence for computer misuse is six months’ imprisonment and an unlimited fine.  However, if sentence is passed in the Crown Court, the sentence can be up to two years’ imprisonment and an unlimited fine. 

Nathan Long, Senior Pension Aanalyst at Hargreaves Lansdown, stated:

“The Pension Regulator rightly continues to clamp down on rogue employers who ignore or disobey workplace pension rules. The country’s retirement prospects depend on everyone squirreling money away for the future and unscrupulous employers simply cannot be allowed to undermine this vital initiative.  Employers are responsible for enrolling their staff into pensions, but staff have ultimate responsibility for their financial future. This particular case involved treating temporary [employees] differently to permanent staff, which given more modern, flexible working patterns makes it particularly important. Any employers who are not doing their bit should get their house in order quickly, as the regulator once again shows it is not to be crossed.”

Rolls-Royce have announced they are to cut 4,600 jobs over the next two years, with full implementation by 2020.

Chief Executive Warren East stated that the reorganisation will be the company’s biggest in the last 20 years and will affect around 10 per cent of management and back-office staff. About two-thirds of the cuts will be at their Derby headquarters, with around a third expected to happen by the end of this year.

Since the first of five profit warnings were given in 2014, 5,000 jobs have been cut, with a saving of £250m. Whilst this restructuring will cost £500m to carry out, it is expected to save the company £400m a year by the end of 2020 and will allow for future investment in civil aerospace, defence and power systems. Warren East state:

“We have world class technology [but] we are just not a world class business to go alongside it.”

Added to Rolls-Royce’s difficulties have been the cost implications associated with the issues on the Trent 1000 engine. Parts on the engine - which powers Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner - have been wearing faster than anticipated, causing more than 30 aircraft to be grounded. The problems of premature corrosion will take years to modify and has been estimated by some experts to cost in the region of £1bn to rectify.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) have stated that - for business owners - talking to HR professionals can be enlightening.

More than half the UK’s employment and turnover is comprised of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) – but at the recent meeting of the business, energy and industrial strategy (BEIS) committee, it was suggested that there were a number of barriers preventing the achievement of better productivity.

The scope of the inquiry was to look at what the Government can do to help small businesses improve their productivity, particularly through access to management training; the latest best business practices; and information on the availability of financial support.

In addition, the enquiry would also look at the subject of late payments to small suppliers and study the role of the new Small Business Commissioner in tackling deliberate poor treatment by major companies.

In its evidence to the enquiry, the CIPD argued that the majority of SMEs required constant external support to improve their management and development capabilities – and added that the government should be prepared to offer this.

Ben Willmott, Head of Public Policy at the CIPD told People Management:

“Many owner-managers of SMEs have very limited experience around managing people and, if you ask them about the challenges facing their organisations and businesses, they won’t say they’ve got people management issues, they will talk about the business challenges. But if they talk to an HR consultant who recognises these challenges as people issues, they can have that ‘eureka’ moment. This is why a relationship with an HR consultant can, for SMEs, be as important as a relationship with an external accountant.” 

Further evidence submitted repeated the suggestion made by the CIPD that HR managers should be given additional skills, but also stressing the requirement for a system that accommodates the miscellaneous needs of SMEs.

Professor Mike Wright, fellow of the British Academy of Management stated:

“If we are to improve management capability, it is important to recognise that not all SMEs are the same and they require training and support targeted to their specific needs.” 

He added:

“There is a need to develop support mechanisms that improve the high-level management skills of family-owned SMEs, and enhance their understanding of governance options through better training.” 

The BEIS Committee has published submissions - in writing - from a range of businesses and organisations including Zurich Insurance; the Rail Supply Group and the CIPD.  At the beginning of June, they will hear from SMEs and training providers with witnesses including representatives from the CIPD; Goldman Sachs; Open University; Monster Group UK and the Federation of Small Businesses.

The Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee - Rachel Reeves MP said:

"SMEs make up more than 99% of private businesses and account for more than half of turnover and employment in the UK. Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy and it's vital that that we get the business support right to boost innovation and the productivity of our SMEs. The written evidence we've received highlights a range of issues which hinder small businesses and damage their productivity, but two main themes emerge - the often crippling impact of late payments by major companies and the lack of effective management training.
 
The devastating problems for small firms posed by delayed payments by large suppliers were highlighted by the recent collapse of Carillion, which left unpaid debts running in to the millions of pounds. We've questioned the Small Business Commissioner on what is being done to tackle the poor treatment of small and medium-sized businesses and we shall continue to monitor action in this area during this inquiry.

In our evidence hearing on Tuesday, we will focus on the issue of management training, hearing from SMEs and from training providers about some of the issues in providing effective management training to help develop leadership in SMEs.”

The rights of tens of millions of employees have possibly been limited after the US Supreme Court ruled that employers can force workers to use individual mediation instead of class-action lawsuits to press legal claims.

By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled - for the first time - that employees cannot join together to challenge violations of federal labor laws if they sign employee agreements to arbitrate claims.

This is a ruling based on the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) - which could affect the rights of tens of millions of private-sector workers who do not belong to a union - and the ruling develops previous Supreme Court decisions that let companies channel disputes with consumers and other businesses into arbitration.

The decision applies directly to wage-and-hour claims.  But in addition, it is thought that it may let employers avoid class-action job discrimination - although the court did not directly address that issue. Civil rights advocates have suggested that the ruling will threaten class-action discrimination lawsuits. 

Fatima Goss Graves - President of the National Women’s Law Center said:

“The Supreme Court has taken away a powerful tool for women to fight discrimination at work. Instead of banding together with co-workers to push back against sexual harassment, pay discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, racial discrimination, wage theft and more, employees may now be forced behind closed doors into an individual, costly -- and often secret -- arbitration process."

On behalf of the majority of judges, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote:

".......The policy may be debatable but the law is clear: Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must be enforced as written.  While Congress is of course always free to amend this judgment we see nothing suggesting it did so in the NLRA – much less that it manifested a clear intention to displace the Arbitration Act. Because we can easily read Congress’s statutes to work in harmony that is where our duty lies.”

Employment groups and attorneys everywhere celebrated the ruling and employers are now likely to get their employees to sign the type of employment agreement that the High Court has ruled effective.  This will have great power in protecting businesses from costly wage-and-hour lawsuits.

An attorney who represents management in labor-management disputes - Ron Chapman – stated:

“It gives employers the green light to eliminate their single largest employment law risk with the stroke of a pen.

According to a People Management poll of 600 people, HR and L&D professionals frequently feel overwhelmed by work-related stress. This may put their mental health under greater pressure than the rest of the population. 

The poll consisted of 641 individuals who were questioned in depth about their working lives, aspirations and personal background.   It was found that 37 percent felt extremely stressed or overwhelmed - because of work - at least four times a month and 50 percent at least once a month. 

The results offered an insight into the good and bad of HR life. Findings showed that flexi-work is being embraced, with 56 percent taking the opportunity to work from home.  Automation was welcomed – again, with 56 percent seeing it as a positive for HR and generally, it was found that their pay and progression opportunities were viewed as being satisfactory.

However, for 44 percent work is too often detrimental to their mental health and for 38 percent to their physical health, with concerns over bullying and - in some cases - lack of access to learning opportunities.  Only 26 per cent of those in the study gave a positive reaction to the question on mental health and 20 percent on physical health.

CIPD’s UK Working Life Survey found that 22 percent of the general working population was of the opinion that work was bad for their mental health, which pointed to the fact that HR professionals reporting negative mental health was significantly higher. 

In the CIPD magazine, chief executive Peter Cheese wrote that:

“It is noticeable that perceived levels of stress and concerns around mental and physical health are higher among our profession than we observe in the population as a whole.”

“This is such an important issue in the wider workforce today, but we must also make sure we look after ourselves – we can’t be the cobbler’s children.”

“We need to ensure the proper training and support is in place to be able to manage our stress, particularly as we are also a key point of support for many in the workplace.” 

At an event to mark the launch of the report, Peter Cheese stated:

“The lower end of the workforce spectrum are not always feeling well supported, not given a lot of resources in terms of training, and lack sight of progression. Then above them you have managers who are very broadly stressed. That’s a pretty heady mix.”

He added:

 “The reality is if you’re over-stressed as a management team, you’re not going to be so good at managing or looking after your people, and stress flows downhill. Those are some very important dilemmas to understand.”

The changing nature of HR duties was also highlighted, with a report that an average of 32 percent of the day was spent answering emails and 22 percent in meetings.

Mike Sinnett, vice president of product development at Boeing Commercial Airplanes, recently announced that in the next two years they plan to flight-test an artificial intelligence system capable of flying a civil aircraft. Having already started simulations and ground-based experiments this year, they aim to progress to flight tests on real aircraft by 2019, with the tests proving whether or not aircraft with reduced crew or even no pilot could be operated safely for passenger and freight flights.

Since US airlines have not had a fatal accident since 2009, the safety standards for autonomous flights will need to be “as good as zero” said Sinnett. He added “There’s going to be a transition away from the requirement to have a skilled aviator operating the airplane tactically, to having a system that operates the vehicle autonomously – if we can do that at the same levels of safety, integrity and availability that we have today.”

Aviation industry trends appear to be the driving force behind these tests. Boeing forecasts sales of about 40,000 new aircraft in the next two decades and Sinnett believes that “More of those will be growth than replacement.” He added “It begs the question, where are all those experienced pilots going to come from?” Whilst historically airlines have looked towards the military to fill their pilot shortages, recently the military have implemented changes in a bid to level the playing field so that leaving for an airline career becomes a much tougher decision.

The use of autonomous systems is not a new experience for Boeing - earlier this year for example, a research project demonstrated a robotic system called ALIAS (Aircrew Labour In-Cockpit Automation System) which helped a pilot fly and land a Boeing 737.

However, while pilots already use autopilot systems and fly-by-wire controls for level flight and landings, Sinnett believes that in time automation could handle auto-takeoffs as well “The airplane is capable of doing it, but not capable of doing it at the same level of integrity as with a pilot in the loop,” he said. Ultimately, Boeing needs to develop artificial intelligence tools that can replicate the same decision-making processes that pilots use

At a meeting held in Washington, D.C. entitled ‘The ADEA @ 50—More Relevant Than Ever’, which took place on June 14, experts told the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that age discrimination and typecasting of older workers continues to steer older workers out of the workplace – thus limiting further economic growth.

Acting EEOC Chair, Victoria A. Lipnic stated, “With so many more people working and living longer, we can’t afford to allow age discrimination to waste the knowledge, skills, and talent of older workers.”  She went on to add that “….outdated assumptions about age and work deprive people of economic opportunity and stifle job growth and productivity”.

In a 2017 AARP Foundation study, nearly two-thirds of workers age 55-64 reported that their age is a barrier to getting a job.  Laurie McCann, a senior attorney for AARP Foundation Litigation, stated that hiring discrimination and obligatory retirement are constant problems that older workers face across industries. She called on the EEOC to strengthen ADEA protections and enforcement, saying, “The ADEA should not be treated as a second-class civil rights statute,” and went on to tell the Commission, “On this 50th Anniversary of the ADEA, AARP Foundation urges the EEOC to take bolder action to ensure older workers are treated fairly at work.”

Jacqueline James of The Center on Aging & Work at Boston College said that “….employers have been slow to innovate,” as far as it relates to addressing older workers’ preferences in recruitment and hiring; retention and preventing age bias. The Center and AARP have teamed up to develop a standard tool to assist employers to manage the current multigenerational workforce as experts anticipate that the older worker population will continue to grow. 

A director of the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement, Sara Czaja, told the Commission that research has disproved assumptions that older workers are less productive, technophobic or inflexible. She illustrated the practical ways in which employers better integrate older workers into the workforce - by recognizing their value and by complementing their skills and abilities with work environments.  She said, “Unfortunately, numerous negative stereotypes about older workers still exist that often prevent or have a negative impact on employment opportunities for older people.  These stereotypes can also prevent organizations from realizing the wealth of positive assets, such as wisdom, experience, and reliability that older workers can bring to the table.”

John Challenger, CEO of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc. informed the Commission that a combination of communal tradition and damaged business practices “….that channel older people out of the workforce, especially skilled workers, is damaging the economic health of our country.”   He quoted this from the Bureau of Labor Statistics data and went on to suggest that if older workers were allowed to remain in the workforce, it would significantly reduce the skilled worker shortage in the United States.

According to research by the Pensions Management Institute (PMI), one third of pension professionals believe in employers having more power to renegotiate defined benefit (DB) schemes.   During their research the PMI surveyed 235 UK pension consultants, in addition to trustees, administrators, actuarial, legal and investment consultants.

At the PMI’s annual conference the president, Kevin LeGrand, stated that those sponsors wishing to see more flexibility were concerned for the security of members.  He said, "This is a big issue that has been debated a lot over the past year or so, particularly in regard to the impact on deficit reduction.  Not surprisingly, there was a strong majority for not allowing employers to renegotiate DB pensions and accrued benefits. The implications here are to ensure that members' benefits are properly protected."

There is a reluctance to permit DB pensions reviews and this could be explained by the fear - expressed by 94%  surveyed - that unscrupulous employers could set up a state of affairs that would enable them to renegotiate accrued DB benefits and reshape or reduce them.

When asked whether the Government should consider a statutory override to allow schemes to move to a different index - provided that they are still protected against inflation - 55% of pension professionals stated that the Government should be allowed to reassess both the preserved benefits and the indexation of benefits in payment.  However, 31% stated that it should not be allowed.

Views were equally divided in response to the question of whether schemes should be allowed to suspend indexation in some circumstances, with 57% of pension professionals against.  Of the 43% in favour to suspend indexation, 34% would permit it to keep a stressed scheme out of the PPF and 21% would allow it when funding levels fall below a prearranged threshold.

Kevin LeGrand declared,“Defined benefit pensions are often seen as sacrosanct, therefore renegotiating accrued benefits or reducing them is a very controversial issue. They are all too aware of how introducing a degree of flexibility could open Pandora’s box, leading to various unintended consequences or risks, most notably abuse.  However, our survey shows that pension professionals are willing to be pragmatic in extreme situations in order to protect benefits and secure the best outcome possible for members.”

New research findings show that providing financial wellness training and tools was expected to be a key workplace trend for 2017.   Forty nine percent of employers offer some type of financial advice - which included providing resource materials or referrals; online assessment; advice tools; group instruction and one-on-one advice with a financial counselor.

The Society for Human Resource Management's (SHRM's) 2017 Employee Benefits survey report - based on a survey of SHRM members conducted earlier this year - found that more organizations are offering financial advice compared to 2016 and to five years ago.

SHRM researcher Tanya Mulvey, the survey project leader said, “"This benefit can help employees improve their financial management skills, plan how to manage debt, and hopefully alleviate stress and worry as a result."

Carla Dearing, CEO of SUM180, an online financial wellness service in Louisville, Kentucky, stated, "We are seeing a big jump in the number of companies saying they intend to offer financial wellness support to their employees,"  She added, "For those employers that 'get it right,' financial wellness has tremendous potential to drive engagement and retention."

“For one company, financial wellness may be managing day-to-day finances," Carla Dearing said. "For another, it may be providing employees with a comprehensive financial plan that includes tax strategy and estate planning."    She then advised that a three point action plan should be followed to “cut through the confusion”.  This would incorporate defining financial wellness, reviewing current offerings and determining financial wellness goals.                                                                   

A recent survey by financial services firm Charles Schwab shows that fifty-nine percent of U.S. and Canadian corporate executives say the best way to structure financial wellness programs is to integrate the offering with the rest of the employee benefits package. When discussing the fact that 37% of employers expressed concern over the potential cost of implementing a financial wellness program, Nate Bidner - managing director of workplace financial solutions at Schwab - said, “.......many of the features typically overlap with those already used by employers."  He went on to say, “Today's 401(k) and equity compensation plans are already structured to arm participants with knowledge and encourage active engagement, and as such, these plans may be leveraged to build a financial wellness program without adding cost or significant resource demands. Implementing a financial wellness program doesn't need to be disruptive to existing benefits and compensation programs - it should complement them," and added. "Current programs should be evaluated for their effectiveness in meeting the challenges, whether simple or complex, that employees face. Employers can then incorporate additional elements to help educate employees and enable them to make better use of company offerings." 

Other research also shows why these benefits are needed - PricewaterhouseCooper's (PwC's) 2016 Employee Financial Wellness Survey, with responses from 1,600 full-time employees, showed that 52% of workers overall are stressed about their finances - and the younger the worker, the more likely they are to be worried; 46 percent of workers spend three or more hours during the workweek dealing with or thinking about financial issues and 45 percent said their finance-related stress had increased over the last 12 months.

Andrew Brickman - Wayne, Pa. based director of benefits administration at consultancy Corporate Synergies - noted that PwC's survey found that 14% of employers had a budget for financial education and another 25 percent were looking to add budget dollars for these programs.  He said, "But as with health and wellness programs, it can be daunting to encourage upper management to allocate dollars for financial education and support programs and then motivate employees to participate once executives give the nod." He added, "How well your plan is designed can impact employee participation."

Andrew Brickman noted that as with most benefits programs, "an effective financial wellness program won't be one-size-fits-all and will depend heavily on the resources made available to it."

According to a recent survey from CareerBuilder, the percentage of US employers that intend to employ college graduates is at a 10 year high. Seventy four percent of employers say they plan to hire recent college graduates this year, which is up from 67 percent last year. Half of those employers plan to offer recent college graduates higher pay than last year and 39 percent of employers hiring recent college graduates will pay a starting salary of $50,000 or more - this compares to 27 percent last year.

Roberto Angelo, CEO and co-founder of AfterCollege, a student and graduate career network based in San Francisco stated, "I'm hearing employers saying that they're not finding the right people so they are turning to new graduates. You can either poach workers-which is hard-or you can go out and recruit them on campus." He added, "Traditionally, large companies have done a really good job of campus recruiting. I'm hearing that small ones are doing better than in the past."

Heidi Soltis-Berner, evolving workforce talent leader and managing director of Deloitte University for consulting firm Deloitte in Westlake, Texas states, "They're bringing new thinking, new ideas and new ways to innovate." She also remarked that, "We're continuing to look at how and when we visit campuses," and added that she has witnessed that the norm for employers is to approach students "earlier and earlier."

Initial indications are that the classes graduating in 2017 comprise the leading edge of Generation Z, who could possibly differ from the Millennials inasmuch as they would be prepared to remain with a new employer for a decade or more and in addition to receiving a sturdy education, many students have demonstrated - by entering internships and co-op programs - that they have work-ready skills.
The Career Builder survey reports that the IT and customer service functions are those that employers most want to staff with new graduates. Top of the list of functions for which employers are looking to recruit recent college graduates are Information technology (33 percent) and customer service jobs (24 percent). Also, there are opportunities in business development (23 percent), finance and accounting (20 percent) and production (18 percent).

According to a previous college graduate employment study by Accenture, four out of five graduates said they considered the availability of jobs in their field of study before deciding on their major and that pragmatism appeared to have paid off.

According to reports, it is suggested that Matthew Taylor’s review into modern employment practices – due to be published this summer – could give workers on zero-hours contracts the right to request a fixed number of working hours. The right to request more hours will be along the lines of the regulations such as the right to request flexible working, as employers will have to base their refusal on specific grounds such as the burden of additional costs; a detrimental effect on the business’ ability to meet customer demand; or an inability to reorganise work among existing staff.

Almost 1 million people now rely on a job that does not give them any fixed hours for their main source of income, leaving many without the security of knowing they will be able to pay their bills. In addition, critics say that the contracts allow employers to avoid their responsibilities towards workers - including paying holiday and sick pay - and make it difficult for people to plan for the future.

It is reported that the leader of the inquiry, Matthew Taylor, who is the head of the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, will say that some employers are using the controversial contracts to exploit workers and he suggested that non-guaranteed hours could command a higher minimum wage, although he also said, “.......we don’t want a proliferation of different minimum wages, because there’s something good about the fact the minimum wage is simple and everyone understands it.”

Sources have revealed that Matthew Taylor was impressed by MacDonald’s Restaurants, who offered workers at 23 restaurants - on zero-hours contracts - the option of changing to fixed contracts with a minimum number of guaranteed hours. This was a pilot scheme reporting that 80% chose to remain on their zero-hours contracts, whilst 20% opted for the fixed number of hours. As a result of its success, the fast food giant announced it will offer its 115,000 UK employees the opportunity to switch from zero-hours contracts to fixed hour contracts. It is reported that the Taylor review will make a recommendation similar to that adopted by MacDonalds Restaurants. Mr Taylor’s plan is aimed at retaining flexibility for those workers who value their zero-hours contracts, while also opening up more options for people who need more certainty in their employment.

In its manifesto, Labour has pledged to ban zero-hours contracts.

However, the CBI states in a written submission to the Taylor review that a policy to reduce the number of flexible contracts or to increase the number of guaranteed hours in employment contracts would be misguided, as “it assumes that all employees want the same thing”.

The Liberal Democrats have announced their plan to introduce mandatory reporting on the ethnicity pay gap for organisations with 250 employees or more.

Jo Swinson, the former Business Minister, commented:  “....the country is failing to make the most of talent in the workplace. Information is powerful, and while organisations are allowed to get away with keeping patchy records, we'll never know the full extent of the gap.”    She continued: “Transparent data on the Black and Minority Ethnic pay gap will help employers focus on what they need to do to ensure equal opportunities at work for people of all ethnic backgrounds.”

According to a Fawcett Society report, Pakistani and Bangladeshi women see the biggest overall gender pay gap at 26% and Black African women experience the largest full-time gender pay gap at 19.6%.  Black African women have seen virtually no progress since the 1990’s in closing the gender pay gap with White British men, with a full-time pay gap of 21.4% in the 1990’s and 19.6% today. When part-time workers are included, this figure rises to 24%.

The report by the Fawcett Society – the UK’s leading charity for women’s equality and rights at home, at work and in public life - monitors the progress over more than 25 years and the analysis reveals real inequalities.  As the data is not routinely collected by the Office for National Statistics, it was calculated using the Labour Force Survey.

The report shows that:

• Pakistani and Bangladeshi women experience the largest aggregate (i.e. including full-time and part-time workers) gender pay gap at 26.2%.
• Indian women experience the biggest pay gap with men in their ethnic group at 16.1%.
• White British women have a larger pay gap than Black Caribbean women, Indian women or those who identify as ‘White Other’.
• Women who identify as ‘White Other’ are the only group who have seen their pay gap widen since the 1990’s from 3.5% to 14% today. This is mainly because the composition of this group has changed over time and today it is largely comprised of central and eastern European migrant women - many of whom are in low paid work.

Sam Smethers, Chief Executive of the Fawcett Society commented, “This analysis reveals a complex picture of gender pay gap inequality” and added “For these groups this is a story of low labour market participation and low pay when they are in work together with high levels of unpaid caring work.”

However, the report also reveals some women experiencing real progress.  Black Caribbean women in full-time work have overtaken Black Caribbean men so that they now have a reverse pay gap of -8.8%. They also fare better than White British women when compared with White British men (a 5.5% versus 13.9% pay gap).

Gender Pay Gap by Ethnicity in Britain calls for the gender pay gap ethnicity to be routinely measured and, after calculation, the ONS should release figures on a regular basis.  In addition they say, pay for the lowest paid should be increased - as many of those women experiencing the largest ethic gender pay gaps are working in some of the lowest paid jobs.

As part of their manifesto, the Labour Party is stating that they would introduce a civil enforcement system to ensure compliance with gender pay gap reporting and the Conservative Party have also pledged to introduce ethnicity pay gap reporting if they come to power in June.

Dr. Jill Miller, diversity and inclusion adviser at the CIPD, states that a Tory or Lib Dem government would inevitably consult with the HR community to ensure that race pay gap reporting proposals were “fit for purpose”.   If they were not, Dr. Miller fears that “pay reporting could end up being seen as a burdensome tick box exercise that’s another cost of doing business, rather than a driver of workplace, economic and societal change”.

Willis Towers Watson is reporting that the cost of employee healthcare benefits around the world is trending higher, mostly driven by increased costs of hospital and inpatient services, different technology and overuse of services.

Willis Towers Watson completed a survey called The Willis Towers Watson Global Medical Trends Survey, between October 2015 and November 2015.  The results reflect the responses from 174 medical insurers from 55 different countries from all over the globe.  Many of the participants have at least a 10% share of the group medical insurance market in their respective country.

The results revealed medical insurers are estimating the cost of healthcare benefits to increase by almost 10% this year.  Insurers in certain areas, like America and Africa, are projecting double-digit average increases for the third year in a row.  European regions, however, continue to show the lowest level of increase. 

Human resource experts feel that medical costs will continue to rise as long as hospital and inpatient service prices continue to increase.  When it comes to the most significant cost drivers outside of employer or vendor control, more than 50% of respondents cited the extreme costs of medical technology, with providers’ profit motives as a close second.

The National Charity Partnership recently conducted a survey of 1,700 workers to determine what employees are actually doing with their time during lunch.

The survey found that almost 30% of employees work through their typical lunch break, while almost 50% of respondents said they spend their lunch break on the Internet.  Following this data, human resource experts are urging employers to encourage their employees to take proper lunch breaks since unbroken days in an office could affect an employee’s mental and physical wellbeing. 

Potentially the biggest question among human resource professionals is why employees are choosing to stay inside during lunch.  More than 30% of the workers polled said they simply had too much work to do, one in eight blamed stress levels and workplace culture.

When gender was analysed, women were found to spend their breaks inside more often than men.  Employees older than 24 were also twice as likely to work through lunch when compared to 18 to 24-year-olds.

Those who did take lunch breaks, however, said that going outside made them feel happier and more positive.  One human resource expert said that managers and staff all have the responsibility of making sure everyone takes regular breaks throughout the day.  Employers need to work on creating an environment where people feel comfortable leaving the office for lunch.  Encouraging healthy activities may also benefit an organisation.  If workers are happier when they are able to take breaks and go outside, they will often times be more productive once they’re back in the office.

A lawyer of the European Court of Justice ruled it is acceptable for an organisation to prevent Muslim female employees from wearing religious headscarves, as long as all religious and political symbols are banned across the entire organisation.

This type of ban would not be considered “direct discrimination” and could be “justified in order to enforce a policy of religious and ideological neutrality,” according to the non-binding decision.

This particular case follows Samira Achbita, a secretary who worked for G4S.  Achbita was dismissed in 2006 after she refused to remove her religious headscarf.  Although at the time of the dismissal this rule was unwritten, the company claimed her refusal to remove the headscarf violated their dress code. 

The day after Achbita’s dismissal, G4S updated its code of conduct to ban “any visible signs of their political, philosophical or religious beliefs.”  Achbita sued the Belgian division of the company with the support of the Infederal Organisation for Equal Opportunities.  Achbita claimed she was discriminated against on religious grounds.

A G4S spokesperson said that all the company was trying to accomplish by implementing such dress code rules was to create an inclusive environment where people felt comfortable.

Achbita v G4S won’t see a final resolution or ruling until later this year, but it is sure to be a landmark human resources decision.

Numerous employment tribunal cases have challenged the widely accepted and longstanding idea that employees with regular working hours should not have variable payments included in any holiday pay calculations.  In Bear Scotland v Fulton, the EAT was given the daunting task of hearing the evidence, to make a final decision on the subject.  The EAT confirmed in this case that non-guaranteed overtime should be included in holiday pay, but did not provide any ruling that could apply to voluntary overtime.  White v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council helped provide some clarity on this pressing issue.

Voluntary overtime is best defined as work an employee can technically refuse and work the employer isn’t obligated to offer.  Non-guaranteed overtime is work the employer does not have to provide but employees are obligated to work if required.

White v Dudley (2016) was based around 56 employees who were working on repairing and maintaining the local authority’s social housing.  These employees had the option of working additional time on Saturdays, but could also choose to go on standby every four weeks to deal with emergency callouts and repairs.  When it came to pay, the local authority calculated their holiday pay based on their basic pay alone.  Were these hours being worked during on-call rotation and voluntary overtime considered ‘normal pay’?  It turns out, yes.  The employment judge ended up ruling that since the hours worked became part of the normal workweek, it should be reflected in their holiday pay based on time period and regularity.

Whilst a ruling was made here and while there is a little bit more clarity surrounding this issue, human resource experts are urging the court to determine what can be considered “regular” since it would factor into “normal pay”.  In this particular case, working Saturdays or working on-call was easily proven to a regular occurrence.  In other cases, however, it may not be as black and white.

HR experts feel that after this landmark win employees will feel liberated and be more prone to challenging their organisations.   The problem is that regularity has yet to be defined.  Additionally, human resource professionals feel as though a blanket rule cannot even be applied to determine regularity, since each business in each sector operates differently. 

The possibility of an appeal is still imminent and employers are all waiting with bated breath to see how this will truly pan out.  In the meantime, clarity from the EAT certainly wouldn’t hurt as it will be hard for businesses to protect themselves if there isn’t a clear understanding of the rules.

The Annual Fraud Indicator 2016 found that businesses in the private sector are losing billions a year through fraud, with £12bn being lost through payroll fraud and even more being lost through procurement fraud.

The report was conducted by the UK Fraud Costs Measurement Committee in conjunction with Experian, PKF Littlejohn and the University of Portsmouth’s Centre for Counter Fraud Studies.  The report found that the annual total cost of fraud in the United Kingdom is as high as £193bn per year.  Payroll fraud was found to be responsible for just below 10% of all losses in private businesses, but the largest source of loss was related to procurement.

Human resource departments play a pivotal role in combating fraud.  It is a human resource department’s duty to educate employees on acceptable behaviour and spot potential scams.  If this department isn’t the first line of defence, human resource experts feel nobody else will step up to the plate.

Businesses generally split fraud into two camps, low-level fraud and high-level fraud.  Low-level fraud has minimal affect on a business.  This could be an employee adding a few extra miles onto an expense report.  High-level fraud occurs on a much larger scale and has more intense affects on the overall business. 

Of course every business is susceptible to fraud.  Payroll fraud is a regular occurrence in businesses with employees trying to trick the time clock to get paid more for less hours worked. 

HR experts suggest implementing some kind of audit system for employees and for the systems they use.  It’s important for a business owner, or person in charge, to understand who is responsible for what within a business.  Audits should look for things that are out of place like duplicate bank transfers, or duplicate employee numbers.

When it comes to procurement audits, management should look at all costs listed on an invoice and make sure to keep track of any completed work.  In this line of fraud, scammers are banking on employees not keeping track of work that’s been completed, work that’s been paid for or work that just never existed. 

HR professionals suggest the strongest way to avoid being a victim of fraud is to make sure procedures are in place.

The Voyager, which is a modified version of the A330-220 airliner designated KC-30, has performed five out of 20 planned test flights and the final test to achieve F-35 tanking certification should be completed by mid-June this year.

The Voyager has a maximum fuel capacity of 111t and will be a vital asset when it comes to the future RAF and Royal Navy short takeoff vertical landing F-35B operations from RAF Marham.  Refuelling is also extremely important since it is a necessary step on the path to the 617 Sqn declaring initial operational capability in just a few years.

The United Kingdom currently has just under 20 personnel assigned to the Lighting II development team at NAS Patuxent River.  Most of these personnel will take part in the third and final F-35B sea trial aboard a Marine Corps Wasp-class assault ship later in the year. 

The Royal Australian Air Force has its own version of the Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT).  It completed its F-35A refueling trials in California late last year.  An Italian Air Force KC-767A was actually the first tanker not owned and operated by the United States military to receive the F-35 certification.  

Over the past decade the number of employees who say they typically work from home has increased by almost one fifth, finally passing the 1.5 million mark.

Research conducted from the TUC found that 1.52 million employees categorised themselves as working from home last year and millions are expected to follow this trend.  To no HR expert’s surprise, IT, agriculture and construction were the most frequently cited industries with the highest penetration of home workers residing in the south west and the east of London.             

Flexible working and flexible working hours have been at the forefront of human resource discussion for quite some time now.  However, whilst there is evidence of increasing acceptance for flexible working practices, the TUC suggests that the take-up of working from home could actually be tapering down.  Ultimately, many companies have trust issues with their employees.  They don’t trust them to be as productive when they work from home without management supervision.

The TUC also reported that the biggest growth in home working has actually been seen amongst women.  This does make sense.  The ONS reported that since the retirement age for women has been pushed up over recent years, many female workers who would have probably retired have remained in the workforce. Furthermore, the employment rate for women reached its highest since comparable records began in 1971.  Overall, the number of employed people has reached a record high.

IT and marketing employees aren’t the only workers browsing social media during the workday in the office.  CareerBuilder reported that approximately 60 percent of employers use social networking sites to research potential employees.  This is about 50% higher than last year.

CareerBuilder has performed its social media recruitment survey every year since 2006.  The survey was conducted by Harris Poll from February 10 – March 17 and included representative samples of over 2,000 hiring managers and HR professionals, and over 3,000 full time United States workers in the private sector.  The survey included people from all industries and all company sizes.

Social media allows HR experts and human resource managers to gauge what a candidate is really like outside of what’s on paper.  Hiring managers in IT and sales proved to be the most likely to screen candidates using social media as a tool.  Professional and business services were least likely, according to the survey results.

These hiring managers aren’t always looking for something negative either.  Some managers admit that they are looking for anything that supports their qualifications for the job, while others say they want to see what other people are commenting about the candidate online.

Keeping social media profiles private might also hurt in the long run.  About 41% of employers say they’re less likely to interview candidates if they’re unable to find any info about the person online.  In that case, it’s important to carefully screen what goes live on a profile page.  Human resource experts urge employees and potential employees to steer away from things like inappropriate content, anything that suggests drug use, and anything that might suggest ill will towards a previous employer.

In the case Prometric v Cunliffe, the claimant argued that he was entitled to membership of a DB pension plan, instead of his employer’s DC scheme, because of an alleged promise made to him a by a group director 16 years previously. 

Cunliffe was a senior human resources executive who joined a company called Sylvan Prometric in 1999.  When he was appointed, his letter clearly stated that he could join the DC pension scheme, which he ended up doing in 2000.  In 2001, the company was taken over and Cunliffe joined the new owner’s DB pension scheme.  According to Cunliffe, a conversation between him and the new company’s international human resources director occurred where he was told that his senior position entitled him to benefits offered to all the company’s directors and senior staff.  This included the DB pension scheme.

Approximately six years later, the company was sold yet again and Cunliffe had to move back to the original Prometric’s DC scheme.  Cunliffe’s argument was that the conversation he had with the international HR director back in 2000 was contractual and he was entitled to be part of a DB scheme.  Prometric accepted the conversation had taken place but was not at all willing to acknowledge there was any kind of contractual effect, since there was no documentation.  Cunliffe, who clearly was not playing around, began legal proceedings at this point.

The High Court refused the employers request for the court to strike out the claim on the basis it had no reasonable prospect of success.  It was clear that Cunliffe, at this point, had an arguable case where a conversation could have amounted to an official agreement.  What that agreement was would have to be figured out at the trial.

However, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision and agreed with the employer and the claim was struck out.  The court felt that a conversation held between two HR executives would have been documented.  The claimant, as a matter of fact, had never requested or received documentation.  Furthermore, the court felt that the fact he was treated as a member of the DB scheme when Prometric was taken over wasn’t any kind of evidence that suggested a binding agreement but rather a discretionary arrangement.

This case stresses the importance of clear and written forms of documentation.  It also stresses the important of education on the employees behalf, who should always know what their options are and what choices they have.

A new FAQ on Obamacare has caused quite the ruckus in the world of human resources.  In 2016, new out-of-pocket limits kick in for non-grandfathered health plans.  This will make the single coverage limit rise to $6,850 and the family coverage limit increase to $13,700.  These limits will apply to every single individual under a plan, regardless of whether that person is enrolled in family coverage or not.

The HR world is referring to this as the “embedded rule”.  In a nutshell, this is how this rule will work:

Consider having four individuals enrolled in family coverage under a non-grandfathered group health plan that has an out-of-pocket limit of $13,000.  If one of the individuals under your plan has  $12,000 in expenses they can only be held responsible for $6,850 of those charges. This places the plan on the hook for the rest of the money.  In this case, the rest of the money equates to $5,150.  Basically, the rest of the individuals on your plan could still rack up $6,150 worth of out-of-pocket charges before reaching the plan limit of $13,000.

The rules currently still in place dictate that the individual could have ultimately been held responsible for the entire $12,000 bill.  Once the embedded rule fully kicks in, this will no longer remain true.  The maximum an employee could be made to pay under a non-grandfathered group health plan will be $6,850.  End of story. 

Currently, most employers’ plans are not in compliance with this “embedded rule”.  One analysis found that only 17% of firms have an embedded out-of-pocket limit in their high deductible plans.  This will need to change and fast, since the rule kicks in no later than 2016.

HR experts in the United States are reporting an increase in the amount of defamation lawsuits. 

A news outlet for tech-focused legal professions, The Recorder, recently spoke to employment lawyers in the Silicon Valley and found that when it comes to wrongful termination and discrimination lawsuits against employers, many are adding defamation to their claims.

The Recorder said that one source claimed at least 60% of his wrongful termination and harassment cases include some sort of defamation claim.  This same source claimed that defamation claims are being tacked on whether they’re applicable or not.

Why, though?  Well, a defamation claim gives the plaintiff yet another way to recover money, while increasing their chances of doing so.  Basically, terminated employees are citing that the reasons for termination are hurting their reputation, making employment hard to find.

While it is admitted that defamation was always an avenue terminated employees could take, it is just now becoming more and more prevalent in wrongful termination cases…mainly because it’s working. One employee managed to collect over $5 million dollars because of the defamation claims. 

Thankfully, employers aren’t completely powerless in these cases.  As long as there is proper documentation, it is hard for a judge to rule against the employer.  Many times, terminated employees win in defamation cases because the employer doesn’t have incidents properly recorded. If the employer claims an employee is constantly late, tardiness needs to be documented in the form of time cards or attendance records.  All the employer has to do in these cases is prove that the alleged defamatory statement is true.    

Towers Watson are reporting that plans to repair deficits of pension schemes with actual valuations this spring have been derailed. 

For a scheme with a March/April 2015 valuation, the contributions being paid by the employer would have to rise by about 30% in order to get the scheme on course to clear the deficit by the date agreed upon. 

If the contributions do not see a 30% increase, the date by which the plan would be fully funded against its target would have to be pushed back approximately two years.

HR experts explain that over the course of the last three years, investments have performed strongly but lower bond yields have increased liabilities. 

“Typically, cash deficits will be about where they were three years ago: the significant sums that employers have paid into their pension schemes have only allowed them to tread water.”

Some employers, of course, will increase their contributions but some scheme sponsors will want to resist this increase.  No word from the Pensions Regulator about if there will be consequences for resisting the increase, or if there will be incentive to comply.

Employees definitely want their employers’ recommendations when it comes to saving for retirement, according to a new study from financial services firm Northern Trust.

The survey accessed 1,000 participants in workplace 401(k) programs, or other defined contribution retirement plans.  The results found that almost 90% of respondents strongly favored their employers providing tools to determine if they are saving the correct amount for a secure retirement.  Only a little less felt that employers should encourage their employees to contribute to their retirement plan.

Not only do employees want their employers’ advice, but most of the respondents said they would actually consider using the advice when it came to determining what their contribution should be.  This would turn this advice into something actionable. 

The study also interviewed plan sponsors who had reservations about taking a more active role in employee schemes.  Targeted recommendations, especially at salary levels, create an abstract form of liability that many employers aren’t willing to take on.

As time goes on, most Americans have to save more and more to achieve a financially secure retirement.  HR experts explain that certain actions can be taken to achieve financial security in retirement.  Employers can easily increase their role in encouraging general retirement savings, like recommendations by age.  It would also help if employers provided employees with tangible numbers, like savings projections.   Of course, these numbers would be strictly estimations, but it could help certain employees understand how a little bit of money from each paycheck could add up.

A recent survey reveals that numerous organizations aren’t necessarily ready to promote their current talent to higher-level positions within their company.
The survey was conducted by a talent consulting group that polled more than 100 senior-level executives from 49 countries.
Over half of the surveyed population revealed that their organizations don’t have the right kind of talent to succeed in a changing industry environment. With that said, almost a third of the respondents said that the companies they worked for aren’t ready for any kind of global change due to the company’s leadership.
While many of the surveyed people said they wouldn’t necessarily promote their current talent, over half of them did say their talent had the right experience to succeed in the business world. Some human resource expertsfeel that it isn’t quite fair for these respondents to make these kinds of statements about their employees because a person needs training and development for what they do and not for who they are. This mindset would mean that with the proper training, any worker could be promoted.
One HR expert said that companies need to find and develop talent that “possesses the right blend of competence, experience and personal traits” in order to groom employees for promotions.

Many people only seek human resource or accounting advice about pension savings right before they retire. While this is the norm, it isn’t necessarily the best-case scenario. Human resource experts explain that people should really seek out pension guidance throughout their entire working career.
Currently, an independent third-party organisation is offering free guidance that will help people approaching retirement make the right choices, but this isn’t enough. This is the message Zurich tried to convey in its submission to the Government’s consultation on the pension changes announced in the Budget.
In the submission, the insurer is asking that the Government actually enable employers to offer their workers guidance on saving for their retirement. If the employer were offering this kind of guidance for free, it is believed that more workers would take advantage of pension programmes and/or get involved in saving for their retirement at a much earlier age.
This type of workplace guidance would allow workers to understand what level of savings they will need in their old age and even what kind of savings account will be best for them.
Unfortunately, there may also be some negatives associated with offering advice in the workplace. If employers were to offer pension guidance, HR professionals could be overwhelmed with the fear of a potential lawsuit from a dissatisfied employee. If the UK were to set up safe harbours like the ones set up in the US, they may be protected from litigation as long as designated standards are met.

June 30^th will be a landmark day in the world of employment. On this last day of June, the right to request flexible working will officially become law.
UK employees will have the legal right to ask for a flexible working schedule, which means the employer has a legal obligation to answer the worker’s request. Additionally, the employers must provide a written, valid reason if they cannot agree to a flexible schedule.
Flexible scheduling encompasses things like compressed hours, flexi-time, home working, job-sharing, staggered hours and term-time only working.
Currently, the right to request a flexible work schedule is reserved for parents of children under the age of 16 and
those registered as careers for children or adults, which may make their home situation better. On June 30^th any worker will have the right to make this request, however, it is important to note that this is just a request.
Employers will still need to follow all the processes they have now when a worker requests a flexible working schedule. This entails a meeting to discuss the application and a written explanation of why such a working pattern would suit the organisation.
There are also different kinds of conditions to the application process. The application must be made by someone who has been employed for 26 continuous weeks of employment and the law will not be applicable to agency workers or members of the armed forces. Also, the worker must not have made another request to work flexibly under the Right to Request Legislation in the preceding year.
The employer does have the right to reject the request, they can refuse in the event that the company would have to incur additional costs, have an effect on the ability to meet customer demand, have an effect on quality or performance or have unplanned structural changes. The company can also refuse if it had an inability to recruit new staff and/or an inability to reorganise work.
Regardless of the company’s decision, all requests must be decided within a three-month period (unless an extension is agreed upon).
HR experts are proposing that company’s prepare for this new law by updating their existing flexible working policies, creating a clear and concise explanation and providing training for management.

A recent Labour proposal has been introduced that is looking to lower the eligibility threshold at which workers are auto-enrolled into a workplace pension. The proposal is asking that the threshold be changed from £10,000 to £5,772.
HR experts explain that this change would have a direct effect on lower level earners and could bring another 1.5 million workers into the national insurance arrangement.
Initially, the Government objected to the lower threshold stating that contributions of those that earn less would be minimal. While this is an extremely valid concern, some HR experts feel that this is the type of proposal that would get lower earners engaged. Furthermore, the thought process is that if these workers were engaged, they would start to understand the value of their contributions, increasing their level of contributions in due time.

A recent study conducted by the Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) revealed that workers today are placing an increased amount of importance on their time outside of the office.
The survey was conducted using 2,000 employees and found that overall workers are highly interested in flexible schedules and greater autonomy in managing their time away from the office. The survey was mostly private employers with 500 employees or less. Answers came from all different sectors including manufacturing, scientific, insurance and technical.
Over half of the HR professionals surveyed explained that the organizations they belong to offer their full-time employees some amount of paid time-off, or PTO. These types of plans include time for illness, vacation or personal time.
Many HR experts said that they have seen an increase in human resource management interest in these types of leave plans because the question concerning whether they exist is coming up more and more in the interview process. Some applicants find PTO to be so important that it is a “make it, or break it” factor in the decision to sign on with a company.
The survey found that while most companies offer a fixed number of PTO days, some companies set an unlimited number of paid leave days as long as the employee doesn’t abuse the privilege.
For companies that do have a fixed number of days, employees are able to accrue this time by calendar year or pay period. Sometimes, employees accrue more time depending on their tenure with a company. The longer the employee has been with the company, the more time they have. This is strictly up to the company, though.
Some HR experts explain that having a PTO plan in place acts as a trade-off for employees that really want to work from home. The plan allows for some flexibility and makes the employee feel as if they have more discretion when it comes to when they are, or are not, in the office.

May 21^st marked the day that the Supreme Court made its final decision in the case concerning the extent to which a partner in a law firm could benefit from the protection afforded to whistleblowers under the Employment Rights Act.
Prior to the judgment call, statutory protection as a whistleblower was only available to employees and workers within a law firm. Now, the Supreme Court holds that members of a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) are considered “workers” for the purpose of employment law. This would make a “self employed partner” in a law firm eligible for protection now too. They are likely to be “workers” for auto-enrollment purposes as well.
One of the ramifications of the ruling is that LLP’s are now under an obligation to auto-enroll all of their equity partners into pension schemes. In the event that an LLP doesn’t comply, some people within the partnership might have to face criminal sanctions.
If an employee is failed to be auto-enrolled, as required by section 3 of the Pensions Act 2008, it will be considered a criminal offence. Liability will not stop with the employer, either. Any officer of a corporate body, with “whose consent an offence is committed” will also be held liable.
The Pensions Act 2008 clearly defines what equals “qualified earnings” which ultimately determines if a person is eligible for auto-enrollment. Some HR experts believe that due to the recent Supreme Court ruling, human resource departments will be inundated with paperwork from officers rushing to get certain employees enrolled.

Many industries see a lack of equilibrium when it comes to the amount of men versus women in authoritative positions. To combat this issue a mentoring scheme is being designed to boost the number of women on boards.
The scheme, scheduled to launch in September, was created after a series of successful pilot programmes run by the 30% Club. A survey of pilot participants revealed that 95% of mentees saw an improvement in their development areas. Eighty-six percent of the participants said they believed it had increased their confidence as a leader.
Many of Britain’s top companies have been scrutinized for their lack of women in leadership roles. Glencore Xstrata has even had three years to address this very issue and has yet to “resolve it”.
This new scheme will work to balance the pyramid and help develop a pipeline of women throughout different organisations. The overall intention of the scheme is to enable talented women. Mentors and mentees will be paired up according to key criteria that include professional experience, competencies and sector.
Right now, the mentoring scheme will include mentors and mentees from businesses like BAT, BDO, EY, Centrica, Freshfields, GE, Marks & Spencer and more. The programme will run from September to June every year.

Management Restructuring

Personal Injury: Plaintiff / Claimant

Air Show Fatality: Plaintiff

Following a fatal incident at an air show, GMR was asked to evaluate the probable causes of the accident and identify areas of liability. As a result of reviewing all of the available evidence, including the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accident report and video footage, it was possible to carry out a detailed risk analysis of the event. As a result of the expert evidence, the plaintiff / claimant was awarded significant damages.

Airliner Turbulence Injury: Defendant

GMR was retained by attorneys representing one of the major US airlines in a case involving a passenger injured during turbulence on a commercial flight. Following an extensive review of the circumstances surrounding the incident, written evidence was submitted, followed by a deposition with oral testimony. Key aspects of the case included meteorological data analysis, flight crew and cabin service protocols and procedures for the safety of passengers. As a result of the evidence submitted the damages were significantly reduced.

Helicopter Fatalities: Defendant

Following a fatal helicopter accident, GMR was asked to provide an expert opinion on whether the pilot was in breach of certain air navigation orders by electing to fly in adverse weather conditions. GMR reviewed the AAIB report, meteorological data for the day in question and the pilot’s licenses, qualifications and experience. Having evaluated the evidence, it was our expert’s opinion that the pilot was not flying in contravention of any regulations.

Helicopter Fatality Whilst Working Abroad: Claimant

GMR were instructed by the aviation department of a leading UK law firm following the death of an executive whilst on a business trip abroad.

Expert opinion was required regarding the risk assessment practices amongst employers proposing to send their employees to travel and work abroad.

Following a High Court trial, where GMR provided written and oral testimony, the employer was found responsible for the fatality and in breach of their duty of care to their employee.

Click here to return to Aviation Expert Witnesses

Wind Turbine Planning Proposal

GMR was asked to prepare an aviation report in connection with a planning application proposal for a single wind turbine located next to a residential helipad. GMR found that the wind turbine would not adversely affect the operations into and out of the helipad and that it remains the pilot's responsibility to avoid collision with an obstacle. Therefore, the planning application for the wind turbine should not be declined.

Click here to return to Aviation Consulting

GMR Consulting offers Human Resources Consulting and Employment Expert Witness Services, worldwide.

HR Consulting

Our team of highly experienced HR consultants focus on strategic human resource solutions, with particular emphasis on employment policies and procedures, executive compensation, ethics and compliance and pension scheme trusteeship. GMR consultants offer knowledge gained from many years experience across different business sectors, thereby ensuring that HR policies are tailored to meet client needs.

Click here to read some case studies

HR Expert Witness Services

GMR HR Experts provide written and oral testimony in cases of complex, high-value employment related litigation. Our experts are professionals who are currently engaged in HR projects across a wide range of industries and can therefore offer up to date knowledge and experience of the marketplace. They maintain their expertise by continuing these activities and with ongoing memberships of HR associations and/or expert professional bodies.

Our HR experts have been instructed by both Plaintiff / Claimant and Defendant lawyers and as Single Joint Experts, to provide bespoke career employment and remuneration reports for Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice, Divorce, Unfair Prejudice and Employment litigation, worldwide.

Click here to read some case studies

Click here to view printable PDF version

Julia Stevenson
Marketing & Communications Consultant

Click here to view printable PDF version

Cary Crawley
Hot Air Ballooning Consultant & Expert Witness

Julia Stevenson is a Marketing, Branding and Communications Consultant.

Specialist areas include:

Cathy Bolz is a Senior HR Director, providing consulting and expert witness services on a global basis.

Specialist areas include:

Stuart Baxter has over 30 years Human Resources experience based in the Financial Services Industry.

Specialist areas include:

GMR employment expert witnesses provide expert testimony worldwide in cases of complex, high-value employment related litigation.

The team is led by Stuart Baxter, who has over 30 years of Human Resources experience based in the Financial Services Industry. Stuart has international board level HR experience, with knowledge of both local employment terms and expatriate arrangements. A specialist in executive compensation and benefits strategies, including benchmarking individual roles against comparators, he has research expertise including total labor market analysis. Currently engaged in HR consultancy projects across a wide range of industries and occupations, he uses an extensive network and has an established international track record in preparing comprehensive employment reports and giving oral testimony.

GMR experts have been retained on behalf of plaintiffs / claimants and defendants to provide in-depth expert reports and oral testimony. Our work is always confidential.

Click here to read some case studies

Areas of specialty include:

• Loss of career earnings and wages
  • Benchmarking remuneration for specific roles
• Career employment and remuneration reports
  • Review of pre-claim employment history and remuneration
  • Quantum analysis of prospective career path(s)
  • Assessment of residual employment prospects and post-claim earnings
  • Estimation of future earnings potential using salary survey data
• Employment and workplace discrimination
  • Sexual harassment  
  • Racial discrimination  
  • Age discrimination  
  • Wrongful termination  
  • Compensation, including claims for unequal pay, bonus and incentive scheme disputes  
• Employment legislation
• Labor laws  
  • Workers compensation 

Examples of types of claim in which we have been retained include:

• Personal injury
• Medical malpractice and clinical negligence
• Divorce
• Minority shareholder disputes
• Employment contract disputes
• Employment tribunals regarding unfair pay, unfair dismissal and workplace stress
• Whistleblowing

GMR’s human resources consultancy focuses on strategic human resource solutions, with particular emphasis on employment policies and procedures, executive compensation and pension scheme trusteeship. Our consultants ensure that HR policy is aligned to meet your needs on issues such as executive remuneration, including bonus and incentive plans and board level HR strategy.

Our highly experienced team has a wealth of personnel knowledge gained from different international businesses over many decades. We have a comprehensive understanding of employment issues and extensive experience in management, recruitment and consultancy.

Click here to read some case studies

Our areas of expertise include:

• Executive compensation strategies, including Remuneration Committee recommendations
• Terms and conditions of employment
• Individual contract negotiation, including structuring offers of employment
• Management restructuring
• Redundancy and severance policy design and implementation
• Share option, deferred stock and phantom long-term incentive schemes
• Salary benchmarking
• Pension scheme trusteeship
• Expatriate compensation
• International pension plans, including defined benefit and defined contribution schemes
• Life assurance, permanent disability and medical scheme reviews
• Executive search and recruitment
• Flexible benefits strategy
• Performance management review, including appraisals
• Merger and acquisition integration

Some of our clients who have instructed us in the UK and the USA include:

GMR Consulting has offices in London and Miami and operates worldwide.

The company offers expert witness and consulting services, within the human resources and employment sectors.

GMR works with some of the largest multi – national corporations in the world, providing human resources expertise in employment policies and procedures, executive compensation and pension scheme trusteeship.

All our consultants and experts provide testimony for both plaintiff / claimant and defendant lawyers and offer expert opinion in complex and high value litigation.

GMR consultants are frequently recommended by clients who include leading law firms and legal professionals, as well as international companies. GMR’s reputation has been established as providing a high quality, reliable and personal service aligned to meeting client needs and deadlines.

About GMR Consulting

GMR is an independent international consultancy and expert witness business based in Europe and North America, founded in 2002. Our team of consultants has extensive experience gained from operating in different business sectors over many decades.

GMR aims to develop long-term, confidential client relationships. Our key strengths include providing up-to-date, detailed and relevant solutions to meet a variety of corporate and legal requirements. GMR clients include some of the world's largest global companies, small and medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurial boutiques across all industries. Our proven track record means a large percentage of business comes from previous clients and their recommendations.

Click here for more information.