A poll of 200 senior HR professionals - conducted by Howden Employee Benefits and Wellbeing - found that 64 per cent are expecting remote working to increase their workload, but experts advise that people professionals cannot be ‘all things to all people’ and should take care of their own wellbeing.

Approximately two-fifths - 39 per cent - of respondents stated that their organisations planned to offer partial home working to all workers.  Almost half - 46 per cent - said they would offer home working to some employees and another 3 per cent said that their firm would move to an entirely home-based working model. The findings suggested that nearly nine out of ten organisations intended to introduce at least some telecommuting.

The poll also found that half of employees would quit without flexible working post-pandemic.

Gemma Bullivant - HR coach and consultant - stated that any management changes needed to move to remote working would, at least temporarily, increase the workload for HR teams.

She said:

“Where pain will be felt most acutely is in organisations that don’t take the strategic decisions early so that infrastructure can be put in place”. 

She added the suggestion that HR practitioners “might need to put pressure on other senior leaders” to decide the approach that would ensure the workload is contained and invested in the right areas.

However, Gemma Dale - Lecturer at Liverpool John Moores University - questioned why HR professionals assumed remote working would increase their workload.

She said:

“While working in a hybrid or remote way does change the way we do things, I see no reason why this should mean workload will increase in the longer-term and stay increased.”

She added that adopting remote working - although requiring human resources to adapt - “could indicate we have something wrong in the way we approach remote working” if the workload was increased.

After over a year or so of restrictions, it is no surprise that employers and employees have both become accustomed to the idea of working from home and both have come to understand the benefits. From the employers’ perspective, the benefits of continuing to work from home include cost saving; an increase in engagement; increased productivity and increased employee well-being - but 44 per cent of respondents were uncertain whether their current benefits package fully supported their staff to work at home.

Steve Herbert - Howden Head of Benefits Strategy - stated:

“We strongly encourage more employers to adopt flexible benefits, digital communications and delivery methods to better support the growing numbers of remote workers in the 2020s.  Pandemics are likely to represent the moment of the watershed of employment and Howden calls on HR professionals to ensure that company sponsored employee benefits offerings reflect this significant change in labour practices.”

Ngozi Weller - Director at Aurora Wellness - stated that employers should encourage staff to seek help if their workloads increased. 

She added:

“The age of the ‘HR superhero’ has to stop, because HR cannot be all things to all people - take on whatever tasks are thrown at it and work increasingly long hours…HR teams have the right to a reasonable work-life balance and should get help from external contractors if they need it.”

Research from the Association of Professional Staffing Companies and Vacancysoft - a research-based publishing business - has shown that despite vacancies for HR roles having plummeted by 40 per cent at the start of lockdown last year, recovery is now well under way as lockdown measures begin to ease.

The research showed that the reduction was, in the main, caused by a general slowdown in hiring triggered by the first lockdown - which saw overall hiring drop by 80 per cent in April last year, when compared to the previous year.

Nevertheless - according to the study - HR vacancies started to recover as the year continued, resulting in a 12 per cent increase on the same period in 2019.

Ann Swain - CEO of APSCo - remarked that it was no surprise that demand for HR professionals fell last year but that the recovery was now “well underway”.

She stated:

“As we progress throughout 2021 and lockdown measures are eased, we expect to see the recruitment market for HR professionals continue on a positive trajectory.”

CV-Library also conducted research which showed that HR roles were amongst those most in demand. Throughout May, searches for HR jobs increased by 21.4 per cent compared to the same period in April 2020 - making them the third highest in demand, after construction and sales.

Lee Biggins - founder and CEO of CV-Library - said:

“Demand for jobs is continuing to increase and this is widespread across a huge variety of sectors. We have people who have been made redundant and desperately need a new role; people who have been placed on furlough but actually want to get back to work and people who may have been looking for a job before lockdown who are picking their searches back up as the economy starts to show signs of recovery.  The coronavirus has put lots of strain on business, with HR often being asked to lead and make difficult decisions.”

Richard Rendell - Chief of People and Performance at Royal Brunei Airlines - remarked:

“I think the rise in popularity in HR reflects its ever-increasing importance to the business and how we as HR professionals can shape and lead business.

A new kind of HR professional is emerging to manage this transformed function - someone who deeply understands not only talent-management processes but also an organisation’s strategy and business model.”

From April to May, advertisements for HR consultants saw the steepest rise - increasing by 57.1 per cent, whilst adverts for HR business partner and HR assistant - both at 31.3 per cent - also saw steep rises. Week commencing 18 May showed a 37.9 per cent increase in recruitment roles and a 108.6 per cent increase in adverts for management roles - the top area of vacancy on the site.

A Senior HR Business Partner stated that the increase in job ads could be a sign that HR personnel are looking to change careers and Richard Rendell said the rise in recruitment roles was particularly interesting, adding:

“As talent management becomes a make-or-break corporate competency, the HR function is responding with a shift from managing the monetary levels of human resources—compensation, benefits, and other expenses—to increasing the asset value of human capital, as measured by intangibles such as employee engagement.”

The Senior HR Business Partner added:

“HR is needed right now. I have seen a surge in HR vacancies which could be attributable to companies needing help with people management issues, things like advice on furlough managing remote workers. and post-COVID transition to the office.”

The Times has reported that workers are under pressure to settle employment claims instead of waiting to go to court - as the tribunal system is reported to be struggling to cope with the volume of business.

The pandemic has resulted in cases that had been listed for final hearings since the end of March 2020 having not gone ahead as in-person hearings - which had been the intention.  Originally, employment tribunal final hearings were being changed to hearings over the telephone - to discuss how to manage and progress the case.  Since June 2020, this has resulted in the wait for cases to be heard having been further extended - with many final hearings going ahead as remote final hearings using a cloud video platform. 

According to figures from the Ministry of Justice, the number of outstanding single claims in England, Wales and Scotland reached a record high of 45,000 in January 2021, with the number of outstanding multiple cases rising from about 5,000 in March 2020 to about 6,300 a year later.  Altogether about 500,000 individuals were involved. It is also expected that tribunals could see an increase again as the furlough leave scheme comes to an end.

Unfair dismissal was the most common claim dealt with by the tribunal between January to March 2021 and with the courts struggling to deal with a backlog of cases, some longer trials have been listed into 2023.

The Employment Lawyers Association conducted a survey that showed significant delays to final hearings occur regularly - and of the 700 responses received, 40 per cent of lawyers stated that they are waiting over a year for their clients’ cases to be heard.  The survey also found that over 80 per cent of final hearings that took place related to events had happened at least six months ago - and 90 per cent of lawyers had final hearings listed six months or more in the future.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said:

“We are investing £76 million to speed up our tribunals, install new video technology and recruit more judges. Employment tribunal hearings are now back to pre-pandemic level - and we have introduced 5,000 additional sitting days to drive recovery.”

However, Ryan Russell - partner at MML Legal - stated that he was surprised at the findings, saying that “the tribunal system in Scotland has been very effective”.

He added:

“The way in which they have adapted the online CVP hearing system has seen the vast majority of cases dealt with in the same time scales. There is no doubt there has been a delay with in-person hearings but overall, I think the tribunal system has adapted very well in Scotland, everyone is doing the best they can in the circumstances.”

He expressed concern over the claim that workers are being pressured into settling and stated:

“I have would have serious concerns over any worker being pressured to settle a claim. At the end of the day, the pursuit of a tribunal is always making the best of a bad situation and in litigation there are never any guarantees.”

Further to previous research regarding the reluctance of staff to return to work at their office, new research has been commissioned by Dash Rides - a Transportation service company.  This research suggests that workers who will return to the office do so because they have a belief that this will have a direct impact on their progression and performance at work. 

The research took place after the government indicated their intention to scrap Work from Home guidance and businesses contemplated the role of the office amidst the easing of full lockdown restrictions.

Of the 2,013 full-time city workers surveyed, 72 per cent of working professionals believe being in the office improves job satisfaction; 73 per cent think productivity is improved and 74 per cent believe performance and motivation is increased.

Being physically in the office will be a positive social experience and help build connections with colleagues was cited by 85 per cent of the survey respondents, whilst 65 per cent stated that absence from the office gave them ‘fear of missing out’.  However, despite 75 per cent of UK employees being more concerned about safe travel to and from the workplace than they are about safety at work, only 25 per cent say that their employer is actively helping them to put together a back to work travel plan.  

Time working from home has led many workers to consider the effect commuting has had on their health. Four out of five respondents say the pandemic has caused them to consider why and where they travel - with a further 76 per cent saying it has led them to look at new modes of transport, many of which they had not used before.

Their primary mode of transport would normally be by public transport - as stated by 29 per cent of those surveyed - and by either bike, e-bike or e-scooter, as stated by 22 per cent.  However, 80 per cent reported wanting to find greener and more sustainable ways of travelling that contributes more to their personal wellbeing.

The research also showed that, as a result of the pandemic, 82 per cent of workers would like their employer to rethink their employee benefits - such as office drinks; socials; travel and cycle to work schemes, with 71 per cent stating that they felt the benefits and remunerations offered by their company were outdated.

Jamie Milroy - CEO of DASH Rides - commented:

“Our relationship to the daily commute has irrevocably changed. Employees are increasingly calling out for new modes of travel that improves their health, wellbeing and productivity but their environmental footprint too. People are understandably concerned about the return of the commute so as businesses reimagine the office in a post-pandemic world, there’s a critical need to rethink travel to and from the office.” 

He added:

“Our data clearly shows that being physically present in the office has a big impact on people’s work and wellbeing. Although technology has enabled people to adapt to new working methods during the pandemic, and many of the changes we’ve seen over the past year are set to stay, there is something about working in a shared space that cannot be replaced by working from home.  But though many are keen to return to the office, COVID-19 has also given workers a chance to reflect and we’re seeing a shift in employee expectations. Workers are prioritising the ways their employers and themselves are benefiting the wider world and there’s an increased awareness that growth and success needs to be built on sustainability.”

New research, conducted by Kura - a transport management specialist - has revealed that commuters are reluctant to return to the office in the coming months, due to concerns over control of infection when the number of commuters increase.

The survey, conducted on 2,000 UK workers, found that 19.1 per cent plan to never commute again.  Regional variations were found, ranging from 10.8 per cent in London to 29.1 per cent in Wales.

Only 42 per cent pf employees plan to work in the office five days a week - and only 39 per cent of workers plan to return to the office despite many companies stating that they are moving towards a permanent hybrid working basis after all restrictions are released.

Nearly 60 per cent of workers across the UK admitted that they are reluctant to commute after the pandemic and this applies mostly to the senior workforce - with 98 per cent of board-level; 85 per cent of directors and 77 per cent of managers holding the biggest concerns over the future of commuter travelling.

The research found that the Covid-held worries are mainly concerning infection control and social distancing whilst commuting - held by 36 per cent of UK workers around the country, with that percentage increasing to 54.4 per cent in the London area.

Despite there being a call for help - particularly from 70 per cent of graduates and 73 per cent of executives - commuting is not a priority for most businesses, with only 16.4 per cent of companies expressing a desire to monitor or support their employees in the future. 

Godfrey Ryan - CEO of Kura - stated:

“As Covid-19 restrictions lift and employees are requested to return to the workplace, there will undoubtedly be more thought and consideration when reinstating the regular commute. With increased awareness around factors such as infection control and social distancing, we will inevitably see a shift in the commuting landscape.  

For public transport commuters in particular, the perceived lack of infection control and overcrowding is hampering employers hopes of an office-based or hybrid workforce post lockdown. As these fears continue to prevent workers from wanting to return to the office, it is time for employers to step up and offer alternative travel support to their employees where necessary.

It is reassuring to see that the commute is becoming an increasingly important consideration for businesses across London, with 30 per cent expressing a desire to support their employees on the commute. Hopefully, we will start to see other regions across the UK follow suit in the coming months, as the capital sets the precedent.”

From 1st July 2021, companies have needed to contribute a minimum of 10 per cent towards the pay of furloughed staff - with the Government topping up the remaining 70 per cent. In August, company payments will increase again - to 20 per cent, with the Government paying 60 per cent.

Michael Hibbs - Employment Law Expert and Partner at Shakespeare Martineau - suggests that, should companies take the difficult decision to make redundancies, there are several legal issues that could arise.  These include giving staff full notice and paying them 100 per cent pay during that time; having individual consultations with staff and where twenty or more redundancies are involved, collective consultation is needed - and employees are entitled to be paid in full when looking to take annual leave.

He added:

“The next few months are going to see the most significant changes to the furlough scheme since it was reintroduced in November. As a result, we could see staff being un-furloughed and being placed at risk of redundancy. Therefore, it is critical that employers and employees both understand their rights when it comes to the scheme, including those surrounding redundancy and holiday pay entitlements.”

However, as businesses begin to plan for the next few months, labour market economist at the CIPD - John Boys - states that HR professionals “should concentrate on welcoming back furloughed workers - and taking a holistic approach to health, safety and wellbeing”.

He added that the 70 per cent/10 per cent split over the wage payments for staff on furlough “looks positively generous” when compared to previous payments and that he thought it made sense to avoid redundancies, if possible, as the average cost of a redundancy was £11,125 - plus recruitment costs of an average of £2,000 per employee.

John Boys went on to acknowledge that the furlough scheme had meant that firms could retain jobs without risk.  But he said:

“As they are asked to share the costs, they will inevitably shed some of the jobs that are unviable.”

Julie Grabham - Director of JG HR Solutions - was looking past the present changes to 30th September, when the furlough scheme is expected to end.  She commented that firms needed to start considering other ways to restructure jobs, such as Introducing job shares and increasing working hours. She said that reducing the use of furlough and using holiday entitlement can all help ease pressure on the business. 

Alan Price - CEO of Bright HR - stated that any companies who were considering introducing short-time work needed to agree this with their employees, otherwise they risked breaching staff contracts.

He said:

“Employees cannot be forced to reduce their hours, but communicating with them about its necessity, if the company is under financial strain, may persuade them into forming an agreement.”

Keely Rushmore - Employment Partner at Keystone Law - was rather pessimistic about the burden that the new salary contribution requirement could be on employers attempting to stay afloat. She commented on the problem faced by businesses that could not fully operate until 19th July, saying:

“Being unable to open or at least operate fully for an additional four weeks but needing to pay furloughed staff 10 per cent of wages during that time could mean the difference between a business surviving or going under”.

She went on to say that it was crucial companies acted quickly and assessed what financial assistance was open to them, suggesting that HR professionals may need to consider whether staff cuts needed to be made through options such as pay cuts, amended working hours and redundancies.  

She warned, though:

“Reductions in workforce and adverse changes in terms and conditions could have serious consequences – either because the business will not have enough staff to meet customer demand, or because they have a workforce that is too demoralised to work to its full potential”.

A study by the London School of Economics (LSE) and Women In Banking and Finance - a non-profit organisation founded in 1980 and staffed mainly by volunteers - has shown that Finance is still a male-dominated profession which lets 'mediocre' men rise to the top.

The research, which was supported by groups including Goldman Sachs, Barclays and Citi, as well as the Financial Conduct Authority, says male middle managers hold women back as they are more adept at playing internal politics.

Additionally, men have realised that being empathetic is a valuable trait and so have developed a tendency to fake this when managing women.

The study used research based on interviews with 79 women working in the City within banking, asset management, professional services and insurance industries. These women felt they had to consistently achieve an excellent standard to progress, whilst they felt that men had more margin for an average performance.

Grace Lordan - Founding Director of The Inclusion Initiative and an Associate Professor at LSE - said it was “much more likely to be average men who ended up being the gatekeepers for the younger women who were coming through” and whilst women were not specifically being held back, men tended to help the career of somebody who was more like them.

Lordan went on to say:

“it’s nowhere near equality . . . we’re still very, very far away from equality”.

Maternity leave which disrupted careers and male-dominated social scenes were cited as some of the reasons that careers were held back and disappointingly, of the eleven black women interviewed as part of the study, several said they felt their performance had to exceed both men and white women to receive the same recognition.

Whilst data suggests the number of females acting as non executives has improved, the numbers of female chairs, CEO’s or CFO’s are still much lower.

New research by the CIPD shows that employers expect that 37 per cent of employees will be working from home on a regular basis – compared to 18 per cent before the pandemic.  This is despite the government urging office staff to return to the workplace from August.

The survey of 1,046 employers shows that they also expect the proportion of people who work from home all the time to rise to 22 per cent after the pandemic.  This compares to 9 per cent before the lockdown.  It was reported that the average proportion of the workforce performing their roles from home continuously was 54 per cent. 

The employers surveyed believe that people working from home are just as productive as other workers – with 28 per cent of employers believing that productivity has increased; 28 per cent have the opposite belief and 37 per cent think there has not been any effect on productivity or efficiency.

In respect of home working and flexible working hours, the CIPD believe that the government should make it the right for all employees to be eligible to do this from day one - as opposed to having to have worked for the same employer for 26 weeks.

Peter Cheese - Chief Executive of the CIPD - said:

“The pandemic is going to have a long-lasting effect on how we work, with a step change in the proportion of people who work from home on a much more regular basis. This will disrupt some existing patterns of economic activity, for example spending by office workers in town and city centres is likely to drop substantially over the long-term and we will see a further shift to online retail. However, the advantages will be considerable for employers and workers. Organisations will be able to hire people from a much wider geographic area and reduced time and money spent on commuting, will take pressure off our transport infrastructure and boost spending in local communities. Greater use of home working will make work more accessible and sustainable for all, particularly for people with caring responsibilities and those with mobility or health concerns. This shift will support and encourage employers to recruit and retain a more diverse workforce which is good for the economy and society at large. For many people more flexible working opportunities and choice over when and where they work can give a better work-life balance and support for overall mental and physical wellbeing. However, many employers need to improve how they manage and support people who work from home more regularly and crucially also need to increase the range and uptake of other forms of flexible working so those people who are not able to work from home can work flexibly wherever possible in different ways. To support this wider shift to more flexible workplaces we would like to see the right to request flexible working become a day one right.”

The CIPD’s survey found that many employers are already getting ready for a more flexible future – 44 per cent stated they are putting in additional measures to support home working and of these 66 per cent plan to change their policies to enable the move to more home working and 46 per cent plan more line management training. 

In addition, 33 per cent of employers plan to introduce new forms of flexible working, including 70 per cent working from home on a regular basis; 45 per cent always working from home; 40 per cent working from home part time; 39 per cent working flexi-time and 16 per cent term-time working.

In the highly unusual case of Mrs Samantha Thimmaya v Lancashire NHS Foundation Trust, the expert witness - Mr Firas Jamil - was ordered to pay £88,800 to cover the costs wasted as a result of his evidence.

Mrs Thimmaya brought a clinical negligence case in respect of treatment received at a hospital managed by Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.  Consultant spinal surgeon and Medico-Legal Expert - Firas Jamil - had been asked by the claimant’s solicitors to confirm his suitability to give expert evidence.

At the trial, Mr Jamil was “wholly unable to articulate the test to be applied in determining breach of duty in a clinical negligence case”, resulting in the claimant having no option but to discontinue her claim - and the defendant incurring unnecessary costs.

During the application by the defendant for costs to be awarded against Mr Jamil, it was noted that he had only twice - under supervision - conducted the surgery that was the subject of the original complaint.  He was also suffering from a psychiatric illness which had caused him to retire from clinical practice.

Counsel for Mr Jamil stated that, in hindsight, Mr Jamil accepted he was not fit to give expert evidence at the time of the trial, due to mental health problems. 

At Manchester County Court Her Honour Judge Claire Evans stated that Mr Jamil owed important duties to the court and had ‘failed comprehensively’ in those duties.  

She added:

“Whilst it would not be right to use him as an example to send a message to experts, it is right that experts should all understand the importance of their duties to the court and the potential consequences if they fail in them. The consequence for the claimant was that she lost her entitlement to have her case tried on its merits. A considerable amount of court time has been wasted and there were significant consequences to the NHS in terms of costs.”

Judge Evans noted there are cases where an expert gives an opinion although lacking relevant experience.  However, not all these experts should find themselves liable to pay wasted costs.

Whilst expressing sympathy for Mr Jamil’s personal position, Judge Evans concluded that the balance came down in favour of the defendant’s application for wasted costs.

This case serves to highlight the importance of Medico-Legal Experts duties to the Court and the potential consequences when they fail in those duties.

According to a survey by Inpulse - employee engagement and survey experts - anxiety in employees has gone sky-high over the last year.

The survey - conducted over 3,441 UK employees - found that anxiety is the dominant negative emotion at work and has risen by 240 per cent over the same period as last year, to 17 per cent.

Other negative emotions for employees are stress and isolation, with stress rising to 11 per cent and isolation to 7 per cent.  According to Inpulse, an emotion becomes dominant if it rises above 10 per cent - causing it to impact on the atmosphere and culture of an employer. 

Internationally, 11,000 employees were surveyed with the results showing stress and isolation standing at 10 per cent and 7 per cent - but anxiety shows at 12 per cent - lower than that of the UK.

Matt Stephens - CEO and Founder of Inpulse and author of The Engagement Revolution - explained:

“Extreme negative emotions are being driven by fears of job security (24 percent) and high workload (16 per cent) and it simply is not sustainable for individuals to feel this for long periods of time. With so many people working from home, it has been harder to separate work life and personal life – for many of us the two have become intertwined. Therefore, as employers we need to go beyond only caring for employees’ work self and start to care for the whole being.”

Inpulse suggests that employers can take positive action to support their people with the issues of anxiety, stress and isolation in the following ways by:

Anxiety - with many people feeling unsafe after the pandemic, employers can give help by being aware of the issue and being sensitive to the situation, with managers being able to talk to their teams - giving support.

Stress - many people are now working from home, whilst also undertaking childcare, home-schooling and/or caring for vulnerable members of the family. Employers can help the situation by allowing flexible working hours. 

Isolation - managers can organize social events by video call, where work is not discussed. Line managers should call each of their directly reporting employees once a week at least, or set up a network within the team allocating a phone call ‘buddy’ each week.  Colleagues can also contact each other regularly.

Matt Stephens stated:

“To us, the future isn’t about helping humans thrive as a resource, it’s helping them thrive as human beings. Emotions of anxiety, stress and isolation will all be building to impact overall mental health. The mix could be causing irreparable damage not only to individuals’ own emotional health, but also the employer relationship.”

Elizabeth Aylott - a former lecturer at BPP University in London - has won a discrimination claim against the University after she was overworked and denied any medical support, despite suffering from anxiety and depression.

In April 2019, Mrs Aylott resigned from her position as a lecturer specialising in HR and employment law.  She had been signed off by doctors for anxiety and depression and was subsequently diagnosed with Autistic Spectrum Disorder.

Mrs Aylott, a mother of two, began working at the private university in 2009 and became a widow two years later. During the period of her employment, she also lost her father and her son became seriously ill.  She constantly raised her concerns about her ability to cope with her workload, which often necessitated her working 55-60 hours per week; Bank Holidays and at one time had been forced to cancel a period of annual leave in order to meet work demands.

The London Central Employment Tribunal heard that despite requesting a referral to a medical professional, a boss - Steven Shaw - refused this as he claimed that working long hours was normal and her stress was ‘her perception’.

Mrs Aylott began to have suicidal thoughts and was in need of three glasses of wine to help her sleep after work, before drinking four or five gin and tonics to self-medicate.

She said:

“I believe I was treated differently because my issue was a mental health issue… I was relying on alcohol to support me.”

Mrs Aylott left the University in spring 2019, later lodging a claim for constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. She claimed she was discriminated against because she was only offered 15 days of paid sick leave - or a phased return to work. In addition, she claimed that another boss, Juliette Wagner had said that she was ‘mad as a box of frogs but a good worker’.

Employment Judge Adkin described the comment made by Juliette Wagner as ‘inappropriate and unprofessional’.   He added:

“The claimant said that she had suffered a breakdown, felt overloaded and could no longer cope. 

She mentioned being a widow and raising two children. Mr Shaw suggested that her feelings of stress were based on her perception.

Mr Shaw was plainly of the view that managers’ working in excess of contractual hours was ‘normal’.

He also seemed to be of the view that the claimant was experienced enough to manage her workload.”

The Tribunal found that these aspects did not amount to disability discrimination, but upheld the constructive unfair dismissal claim and later this month will determine compensation. 

A businesswoman earning £200,000 a year - who says she was sacked because she was not interested in talking about football or drinking with her colleagues - has lost her sexism claim at an employment tribunal.

Adrienne Liebenberg - who was director of global sales, marketing and innovation at DS Smith Packaging Limited - appeared before Employment Judge H Grewal at the London Employment Tribunal claiming that she had been the subject of direct and indirect sexual discrimination.

She was made redundant in December 2018 after being told that her leadership style was not working.

Ms Liebenberg claimed that her manager and boss - Stefano Rossi - was an Inter Milan fan and would often interrupt meetings to discuss football or watch highlights.

She said:

“I felt that Stefano’s modus operandi was to connect with his team over wine, dinner and football. Because I did not embrace those things in the way that my male colleagues did, I was perceived – by Stefano and others – as not being a team player or one of the gang.  I did not believe that I was accepted as one of the lads and I did not feel that I was capable of playing such a role. When I did not join in I felt under pressure to do so.”

She also claimed she had been referred to as ‘little lady’ and ‘girlie’ - and was winked at by her male colleagues.

Ms Liebenberg said that key business decisions were often taken over boozy dinners with a gang of senior male employees and she found it difficult to join in with these events, feeling ‘alienated by the focus on drinking, talking about football and starting up late’.

However, senior colleagues, including CEO Miles Roberts, were adamant that Ms Liebenberg was sacked because of poor performance, dictatorial approach and lack of respect for senior colleagues. 

Also, the tribunal heard witnesses state that Ms Liebenberg conveyed a haughty approach to her junior staff - making reference to her large property and an infinity pool.  She was also accused of apportioning blame when things went wrong rather than working together with other managers to resolve problems.

Dismissing her claims of direct and indirect sex discrimination, the Employment Judge said:

“She said that she felt that Mr Rossi’s modus operandi was to connect with his team over wine, dinner and football, and because she did not embrace those things in the way that her male colleagues did, she was perceived by them as not being a team player. We have not found that such a culture existed. The dinners normally lasted about three hours or a little longer and there was wine available for those who wanted it. The number of bottles consumed was normally half that of the number of attendees. The conversation over the dinners covered a variety of topics – people’s families, holidays, homes, interests, etc. We have no doubt that football came up in the conversation sometimes, but it was not the only or the dominant topic of conversation. We accept that the claimant did not particularly like attending the dinners and often did not like the food that was available.”

The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) think tank is calling on the government to invest in a jobs-led recovery for the economy after the pandemic.

They are urging the government to focus on helping the UK meet its targets for improving air quality; lowering carbon dioxide emissions and restoring nature – thus creating 1.6 million new jobs.

A new report - ‘Transforming the Economy after COVID-19: A clean, fair and resilient recovery’ - has recommended a drive to insulate homes and fit low-carbon heating systems such as heat pumps and district heating.  This could create 560,000 new jobs.

Experts say that with some furloughed staff unable to resume their old roles - and demand for products and services low - the government must make ‘future-proof sectors’ their priority.

IPPR economists examined a range of low-carbon jobs and industries that could help the economy recover from the impact of the Covid-19 crisis and stated that without government intervention, unemployment could rise by more than 2.1 million. 

Suggestions included investing in health and social care, possibly creating another 700,000 jobs; sustainable public transport 230,000 jobs and in tree planting and nature restoration 46,000 jobs. 

Carsten Jung - Senior Economist at the IPPR and co-author of the report - said that now is the time to invest in and drive a sustainable recovery, not only for the environment but also for the economy. 

He added:

“The Covid crisis is an unprecedented disruption of the labour market. Even as the economy reopens, many furloughed workers might not be able to return to their old jobs. Concerted investment by the government, businesses and households can generate employment in new future-proof sectors.” 

According to a poll of 2,000 adults by Savanta ComRes for the IPPR, 74 per cent of respondents agreed that actions to address climate change could help create jobs and opportunities and 67 per cent agreed it would create roles in their local communities. 

Gerwyn Davies - Senior Labour Market Adviser at the CIPD - said the main factor limiting employers’ ability to hire at present was a lack of demand for products and services and it made sense to stimulate demand in other areas of the economy through publicly funded work creation schemes. 

He stated:

“Any plan should therefore consider an employment offer to people who have been unemployed for more than six months that combines training in green technologies with some practical work activity. This could both be part of a bigger package of measures that the government is expected to roll out over the coming months, and play a greater role in the government’s industrial strategy.”

Luke Murphy - IPPR Associate Director - said:

“Our report finds that clean recovery investments are good for jobs and good for the environment — and what’s more, the public agree. We urgently need to make substantial investment to insulate the nation’s homes, upgrade our public transport network and plant trees and restore nature. We can’t afford to wait for this: now is the time. These measures would not only create 1.6 million much-needed jobs, they’re popular with the public. If the prime minister really wants to emulate Roosevelt’s ‘New Deal’ then the government must significantly increase investment beyond what has been promised so far.” 

The findings revealed in a new report from global workforce transformation business - LHH - show that, with many employees at risk of redundancy over the coming months due to the economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic, some feel that they could be let down by employers in terms of career transition support.  The findings also reveal the pressures facing HR directors, causing them high levels of stress.

The report, based on research carried out in April, showed that 93 per cent of HR decision makers stated that they felt under very much more pressure than ever before - with 25 per cent stating that they believed they were not dealing with lay-offs and redundancies in as good a manner as previously.  Regarding redundancies, a third of those researched cited the fact that they would find the process much easier if they could assist in finding new work for those made redundant - with 65 per cent stating that working alongside an outplacement provider to provide career transition support is important.   However, a third of the decision makers, whilst seeing the benefit of this, believe that their employers will prioritise their spending on other business resources.

From a motivation and productivity perspective 88 per cent of employees said that their morale had been impacted, whilst 83 per cent stated that their productivity had been affected.

HR decision makers highlighted the fact that the redundancy process creates a culture of low morale and fear - causing some to talk about it externally, including 11 per cent saying that they have seen employees complaining publicly on their social media platforms.  Where employees work for a company that has offered outplacement services in the wake of redundancies, 53 per cent say that they view their employer more favourably for doing so.

JC Townend - CEO of LHH - said:

“Right now businesses are faced with some very tough decisions and squeezed budgets. Unfortunately there will be unavoidable redundancies in the coming months, but the current jobs market and economic situation makes it even more of an imperative to support employees in this situation. Helping redundant workers land on their feet in transitioning to a new role is not only the right thing to do, but helps maintain a positive employer brand, boost morale internally for remaining employees, while supporting a vibrant economy. These things are more important than they’ve ever been right now.

We know that redundancies so far this year are very much the tip of the iceberg. The furlough scheme has helped to protect millions of jobs, however this picture will soon change once the scheme comes to an end.

Our research suggests that many businesses understand the importance of outplacement strategies, however competing business priorities could leave behind potentially millions of people facing unemployment without any help to find a new role. Loyalty, morale and performance of remaining employees will suffer – and businesses who are complacent may also lose incredible talent by mismanaging their restructures and redundancy programmes.”

Whilst still in the midst of their labor-related legal battles, American Airlines (AA) has been hit with more litigation.

Last week, New York City’s Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) announced it had sued AA in the City’s administrative court - the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings.

The Department alleges the airline is violating NYC’s Paid Safe and Sick Leave Law by retaliating against workers who call in sick. AA ground crew workers including agents, reps, fleet service and mechanical employees are issued with disciplinary points for each sick day used and - contrary to the law - are required to produce medical documentation for fewer than three days of leave. They are also not paid at the required rate. 

Commissioner of the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), Lorelei Salas stated:

“We will not tolerate any employer that violates employees’ rights to their paid safe and sick leave.”

The DCWP are seeking civil penalties and more than $375,000 in restitution from AA for more than 750 ground crew workers. 

Salas added:

“American Airlines is not above the law. Workers in major transportation hubs where thousands of people pass through everyday should not have to choose between going into work sick or getting in trouble for exercising their right to take a sick day.”

In response, American Airlines issued a statement that:

“Employees enjoy generous sick leave and benefits, including those set by union contracts with terms that are often more generous than required by the New York law”. They continued that they would work to make sure they continued to do so.

The latest survey undertaken by British Social Attitudes has found that only 40% felt that mothers should take the lion’s share of the paid parental leave. This is a smaller percentage than in previous years.

In comparison, 34% supported equally shared parental leave. This was up from 22% per cent in 2012 – whilst only 12% felt that the mother should take the entire period. Less than 0.5% supported the father taking most or all of the paid leave.

These figures were compiled by the National Centre of Social Research - who warned:

“The fact that only one-third support an equal division of leave suggests that the default path prior to the introduction of SPL, for the mother to take all of the leave, may still be exerting some influence on attitudes.” 

Dr Jill Miller - Diversity and Inclusion Adviser at the CIPD - stated:

“The take-up of shared parental leave remains low and requires concerted effort from employers to promote it as an option – and from government to identify and address the sticking points. Employers need to think more creatively about the types of flexible working they offer to retain talented people and ensure it is available at all levels of seniority. Otherwise the ‘sticky floor’ comes into play where people feel unable to progress without work-life balance support.”

She added:

“HR needs to be analysing workforce data to see what is happening in their organisation, and address any issues to give employees more choice over how they split childcare responsibilities.”

The Court of Appeal recently ruled that it is not discriminatory for employers to enhance maternity pay while only offering statutory pay to workers on shared parental leave.

The court upheld a previous ruling that the employers concerned were allowed to offer enhanced maternity pay without the need to provide the same benefits through SPL. The judges ruled that the main purpose of maternity leave - of whatever length - was not about childcare but for the mother to recover from the birth, which was not a need shared by her partner. Therefore, it is not discriminatory to offer more generous maternity leave.

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

“If the court had held that statutory paternity pay should be enhanced for men then the likely outcome would have been companies withdrawing enhanced maternity pay, so that they did not have to match it.”

She added that while the decision may not have appeared fair to some, the decision will be welcomed by employers that pay higher rates to women on maternity leave than to parents on different types of family leave - and it’s also good news for women.

Jenny Arrowsmith - Employment Partner at Irwin Mitchell - stated:

“Had the decision gone the other way, employers may have reduced their maternity pay to statutory rates because they could not afford to equalise pay rates to those taking shared parental leave.”

The Supreme Court – presided over by five justices, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Briggs and Lady Arden – recently made a judgment in the case of Tillman v Egon Zehnder regarding the dispute surrounding a restrictive covenant in an employment contract.

Mary-Caroline Tillman joined Egon Zehnder - a global management consulting firm - in 2004. She worked for the company for 13 years, eventually becoming joint global head of its Financial Services Practice Group in 2012.

Ms Tillman had an employment contract containing a non-competition clause, preventing her from engaging or being concerned or interested in any business carried on in competition with Egon Zehnder for six months after her employment ended.

In January 2017, she handed in her notice as she wanted to join US consulting firm Russell Reynolds Associates – a direct competitor of Egon Zehnder. She was then placed on gardening leave with Egon Zehnder seeking an injunction to delay her move.

At the High Court, Ms Tillman challenged the validity of the contract, claiming that - although she had no intention of doing so - the covenant was unreasonable since it also prevented her from becoming a shareholder in a competitor.

She argued that even holding a minority shareholding in a company could be seen as ‘being interested’ in the company and therefore this was too wide a restriction to be enforceable - which meant that the whole clause (including the part about not working for a competitor) was unlawful and should be removed.

At the High Court, the case was heard by Mr Justice Mann who ruled that the covenant did not prevent her from becoming a shareholder in a competitor.

Ms Tillman then took her case to the Court of Appeal, who overturned the previous decision. Lord Justice Longmore said that the clause would still be open to interpretation even if the words ‘or interested’ were omitted. 

He stated:

“The question would then be whether a shareholding was covered by the words ‘directly or indirectly engage or be concerned … in any business carried on in competition’. To my mind, being a shareholder in a company carrying on a business is being concerned in that business at any rate ‘indirectly’.”

This is the first time that the Supreme Court has considered the law governing restrictive covenants. They were considering whether part of a restrictive covenant in the employment contract constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade and further, if this could be deleted from the covenant - leaving the rest intact.

On 3 July 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Egon Zehnder, after determining that if the parts that had been argued as unreasonable were found to be so, then in any event these could be deleted and the remaining non-competition clause would still be valid.

Employers will approve of the decision as it clarifies the situation over whether post termination restrictions are reasonable and the effect if parts of those restrictions were found to be unreasonable, thus highlighting the need for carefully drafted employment contracts and restrictive covenants - especially for senior staff - to protect business interests.

The 2019 Female FTSE Board Report, published by Cranfield University, has found that the number of ethnic minority women on boards gave cause for concern. Using the data available, it was found that of the 297 female directors presently on a FTSE 100 board only 11% are from a black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) background.

It was also found that the average term of a BAME female executive director is half that of a male director – just 3.3 years compared to 6.6 years for their male counterparts. However, the gap is not so great when considering non-executive directors, those not involved in day-to-day management responsibilities. The tenure then is an average of 3.8 years for women and 4.3 years for men. 

One of the report’s authors, Dr Doyin Atewologun - Director of the Gender, Leadership and Inclusion Centre at Cranfield - stated:

“This begs the question of whether women are appointed to FTSE 100 boards for symbolic rather than substantive reasons.”

The report, however, states that it has found that the number of women in general has increased over the past 21 years from 6.7% to 32% today. The women come from particular educational backgrounds; they are a certain age; they have various racial/ethnic backgrounds and they have rich work experiences.

It was also found that female board members tended to be younger than male board members with the average male director being over 59 years old, compared to over 57 years of age for women.  

Dr Atewologun suggested that this could hint at a bias against appointing older women.

Another of the report’s authors, Susan Vinnicombe - Professor of women and leadership at Cranfield - said at the launch of the report:

“We get glass ceilings within glass ceilings – so we must be very aware, all of us, that it’s not just hitting the numbers. Once women get onto boards, we want to see them being taken seriously.”

Speaking at the same event, Fiona Cannon OBE - Group Director for Responsible Business, Sustainability and Inclusion at Lloyds Banking Group, said:

“It is hard yards work. Every week, I’m looking at the vacancy list to make sure that women are on the shortlists.” Every month, we look at all the data to see whether women are leaving, whether they’re being promoted. The chief of staff and myself sit down and do it. It’s that relentless attention to detail that’s important, because it can so easily go the other way.”

She added:

“Unless a CEO believes that’s really important for their business, nothing is going to happen.”

Brenda Trenowden CBE - Chair of the 30% Club - added the fact that many companies were not undertaking enough data analysis to identify the causes of the failure of women to progress.

She said:

“People are throwing money at various things that are not really working. We’re still just tinkering around the edges of the pipeline and actually I believe that we really need to focus much more on culture.”

The latest figures reported by a separate review - the government-backed Hampton-Alexander Review - also showed over 32% of board positions across the top 100 listed firms in 2018 were held by women.

Sir Philip Hampton - Chair of the review - warned:

“The FTSE 250 is working hard to catch up but still too many boards have only one woman and remarkably today there are four all-male boards in the FTSE 250.”

He added:

“We are expecting to see good progress in the number of women appointed into senior leadership roles this year, with those companies having worked hard for several years exceeding the 33 per cent target and reaping the benefits.”

Pension deficit for defined benefit schemes in the FTSE 350 companies decreased by £9 billion in June to £48 billion.

In Mercer’s latest Pensions Risk Survey it was found that liabilities had increased by £4bn to £860bn - due to a .07 per cent fall in corporate bond yields. This, however, was mitigated by a .05 per cent decline in market implied inflation.

The rising liability values were compensated by a £13bn increase in assets from the end of May - closing in June at £812bn.

Mercer are advising that trustees must continue to prioritise risk management in the face of uncertainty with Brexit and the Prime Minister’s resignation – which is likely to cause the markets to be unstable in the coming months.

Maria Johannessen - a Partner at Mercer - stated:

“This month’s improvement in funded status is a positive turn after a period of three months where changes to the FTSE 350 pension deficit have been negligible. Despite a £4 billion uptick in liabilities, the £13 billion increase in asset values led to the deficit falling by £9 billion in June, the most significant monthly improvement in funding levels since November 2018. The fall in market implied inflation to 3.39% was enough to offset the drop in corporate bond yields which decreased by 0.7% to 2.25%.”

Charles Cowling - an Actuary at Mercer - commented:

“In spite of the welcome decline in the deficit this month, significant macroeconomic and political headwinds remain. The UK awaits a new Prime Minister following Theresa May’s resignation last month and Britain’s negotiating position on Brexit is far from clear. A combination of global trade tensions and an increased perceived likelihood of a no-deal Brexit, means we expect market volatility to be a consistent feature of the months ahead. Lower energy prices and weakening UK growth are reflected in CPI inflation falling back recently. However, a Brexit sterling crisis and resulting inflation shock is still a real possibility. In this uncertain environment trustees should continue to prioritise risk management and actively seek to take advantage of market opportunities to de-risk.”

The data published by Mercer concerns about 50 per cent of all UK pension scheme liabilities and analyses pension deficits calculated using the approach companies have to adopt for their corporate accounts.

The information underlying the survey is refreshed as companies report on their end of year accounts. Other measures are also relevant for trustees and employers considering their risk exposure.

HR professionals need to know that - commencing July 1, 2019 - employers in Virginia are required, on receipt of a written request, to give current or former workers copies of personnel records containing certain information.

At present, no federal laws govern employee access to personnel files and the new law passed by the Virginia General Assembly is the first of its kind in Virginia.  

Theresa Connolly and Lauren Goetzl - attorneys with Fisher Phillips in Washington, D.C - state that the law does not require employers to give employees their entire personnel files upon request - only to produce documents reflecting the following details:

• Dates of employment with the employer

• Wages or salary history during the employment

• Job description and job title during the employment

• Any injuries sustained during the course of the employment with the employer

Regardless of whether or not there is a subpoena, the employer must produce the documents requested within 30 days of the written request. If the employer is unable to meet that deadline, they must notify the person requesting of the reason for the delay. They will then have a further 30 days - and no more - to comply with the records request. The law also allows the employer to make a reasonable charge for the costs of making copies and processing the request.

Theresa Connolly and Lauren Goetzl suggested:

"We recommend that employers develop internal policies and procedures for reviewing and responding to personnel file requests, given that responses are required within 30 days - or within 60 days if the employer can provide a reason for the delay."

Kristina Vaquera and Milena Radovic - attorneys with Jackson Lewis in Norfolk Va. - state that employers do not have to provide documents that are not on the list. For example, a worker is not entitled to notes from a workplace investigation or a manager's notes regarding a performance issue, providing the notes do not fall under any of the four categories specified in the law.

If the employer does not comply with a lawful request by either the employee or their legal representative - either by failing to supply the documents or by charging an unreasonable amount for the records - a court can award the employee damages for all expenses the employee (or former employee) incurs to obtain the records, including attorneys’ fees.

Theresa Connolly and Lauren Goetzl say that employers should consider appointing one person to receive and respond to all requests. They should also educate the HR department, information technology department and relevant supervisors and managers on complying with requests.

Kristina Vaquera and Milena Radovic stated:

"Employers should also check their handbooks and document-retention policies for compliance with the statute."

Research by the University of Hertfordshire and funded by the TUC has revealed that in the last three years the number of people taking part in gig economy work has doubled. It now accounts for almost 5 million workers, with young people the most likely to be working this way.

According to one definition, the gig economy is a labour market typified by the incidence of short-term contracts or freelance work.

The study interviewed 2,235 individuals in April 2019, finding that 1 in 10 of working-age adults worked though gig economy platforms at least once a week in 2019 - compared with 5 per cent in 2016. It was also found that 15 per cent of respondents - equivalent to nearly 7.5 million people - said they had undertaken gig economy work at some point. This flexible type of work can be beneficial to both individuals and the country - in 2016, the gig economy contributed £119 billion to the UK economy.

Due to the increasing popularity of app-driven purchases and services, 48 per cent of gig workers stated that they undertook gig economy jobs in addition to their full-time work and 12 per cent were found to be working part-time. Only 11 per cent classed themselves as self-employed.

Nick Woodward - CEO of ETZ Payments - stated:

“The gig economy is growing and evolving with more and more Brits choosing to work in this style. App technology is helping the gig economy to grow by providing needed work, but it needs to develop further to ensure that workers are getting paid for their work correctly and on time.”

Frances O’Grady - the TUC’s General Secretary - said the explosion of the gig economy showed that working people were battling to make ends meet. She stated:

“The world of work is changing fast, and working people don’t have the protection they need. Huge numbers are being forced to take on casual and insecure platform work – often on top of other jobs. But as we’ve seen with Uber, too often these workers are denied their rights and are treated like disposable labour.”

The TUC also said the survey showed it was time for all workers to receive basic rights such as the minimum wage and holiday. 

Late in 2018, the government stated its intention to introduce procedures to give better protection to certain workers - including gig economy workers. This would mean that staff must be informed of their rights from their first day of work. These would include eligibility for paid and sick leave and the right to request predictable hours.

The Office for National Statistics has previously estimated the gig economy to involve 4 per cent of the UK population.

Despite The Equality Act 2010, a survey of employment law experts by Direct Line Life Insurance has reported a significant increase in disputes where employees’ working hours were reduced when they returned from maternity leave.

According to official figures, the number of employment tribunal claims alleging pregnancy discrimination has risen by 56 per cent in a year.

Increasingly, employers are also using ‘gagging orders’ to ensure confidentiality when they settle pregnancy and maternity related discrimination claims.  Over the last 12 months - following pregnancy and maternity-related disputes - 84 per cent of employment law experts have seen an increase in the number of Non-Disclosure Agreements used by employers.

Legal experts have reported a 64 per cent rise - in the last 12 months - of the number of cases where women claim they were demoted upon returning to work following maternity leave.

In addition, there has been an increase in claims made by fathers, with a 63 per cent increase in cases where they have claimed demotion upon returning to work; a 61 per cent increase in disputes relating to promotion whilst on paternity leave; 59 per cent of men claiming unfair dismissal and 58 per cent claiming pay disputes while on paternity leave. 

Despite it being a legal right, men are also claiming harassment from employers for taking paternity leave. Legal experts report an increase of 56 per cent in these disputes in the last 12 months.

Jane Morgan - Business Manager at Direct Line Life Insurance - said:

“In today’s world it is concerning that we are seeing an increase in mums and dads being seemingly penalised as a result of spending time with their children. Employers and employees have a responsibility to educate themselves about their rights, which could help to reduce the rise of discrimination claims and ensure parents have reasonable expectations.”

Claire McCartney - Senior Policy Adviser at the CIPD - stated that whilst the removal of tribunal fees may have explained some of the increase, there has also been a greater awareness of maternity and paternity rights. She went on to say:

“Around a third of private sector employers have said it’s reasonable to ask women about their plans to have children in the future in the recruitment process, so we know that that has been happening for some time. The legislation is really helpful, but it’s about creating culture change.   Prevention is better than cure, so it’s about organisations talking about the fact they’re not going to discriminate in this area, what their policies are, what their values are, making sure they are modelling these in general.” 

Sophie Vanhegan, Partner at GQ Littler - which compiled the figures - expressed surprise at the increase in pregnancy-related cases. She stated:

“I would generally say most sophisticated employers are very, very careful as to what they do when they’re dealing with pregnant employees in the first place. There are obviously employers out there who have not been as rigorous in trying to ensure they deal with such employees lawfully in the past.

Things that may have simply just been accepted in the past are now being seen as unacceptable and people are feeling more confident in being able to challenge them. We’ve certainly seen that companies are seeing these issues called out more often now, and they also feel they have got to be seen to be taking more steps to proactively fix any cultural issues they might have on their side.”

She added that there had been a ‘time lag’ in the change of business culture.

Surpassing all expectations by U.S. economists, employers added 213,000 jobs in June - reported the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The average employment growth in 2018 has averaged 215,000 jobs per month.

In its monthly report, the Labor Department said that six hundred thousand people joined the work force in June, actively hunting for a job. The number of Americans working part time - because of their inability to find a full-time position - fell.  So, also, did the number of those too discouraged to search for work.

Andrew Chamberlain, Chief Economist at Glassdoor, stated:

"Today's jobs report marks the economy's 93rd consecutive month of positive job gains, by far the longest streak on record. Despite growing uncertainty about a possible U.S. trade war, the economy continues to run hot this summer with many employers riding a wave of tax stimulus."

The labor force in June rose to 4 percent – up from 3.8 percent in May – which provided more good news.

As Cathy Barrera, the Chief Economist for ZipRecruiter, an employment marketplace based in Santa Monica, California, said:

“I’m really excited to see that the labor force is growing.”  

She added:

"Given the talk about labor shortages, it is great to see this increase in labor force participation. While the unemployment rate did uptick, it is due to more individuals looking for jobs, which is good news for the labor market."

She went on to explain:

“The increase in the labor force size came solely from those with a high school degree or less—good news that the participation of this group is increasing. The anecdotal evidence of labor shortages tend to center on entry-level jobs. So those who have re-entered the labor force this month are a good fit for positions that employers have been struggling to fill.”

Agreeing with Cathy Berrara - Marc Cenedella, the CEO of Ladders, a careers site from New York City, stated: 

"For employers concerned about a tightening labor market, the continued growth in the workforce and the return of workers who had dropped out during the recession indicate that the strengthening economy will continue to deliver newly available employees for hire in the years ahead.”

The more immediate challenge for employers, however, is finding qualified and reliable workers at the going wage rate, as the 2.7 percent increase in the average hourly wage was found to be disappointing by workers.

Martha Gimbel, Research Director for Indeed's Hiring Lab, stated:

"Wage growth continues to bounce around in the range that we've seen since the beginning of 2016.  With payroll growth continuing at this pace, and several measures such as the prime-age employment rate still not fully recovered, it seems likely that workers may have to continue to wait to see wage growth show up."

However, the competition is giving more employees the confidence to quit in search of a better deal. Job openings are striding ahead of the number of workers ready to fill them. Several employers said their reluctance to raise prices limited the wages they could offer.

But Joan Burke, Chief People Officer of DocuSign, an electronic-signature company with more than $500 million in annual revenue and who added 100 sales; engineering and technical workers last month, remarked:

“You just cannot be in this game without being competitive.”

According to a recently published survey - consisting of more than 1,000 company decision makers - employers are mainly relying on their gut instinct when hiring staff.

The survey, by Indeed UK, found that 28 per cent of respondents cite gut feelings as their reason for offering work to an applicant, as opposed to considering their experience, interview performance or qualifications.  Only 23 per cent of those questioned gave relevant experience, or the fact that the interviewee acquitted themselves well, as the chief reason for employing an applicant. A good qualification was the reason given by only 8 per cent.

Bill Richards - Managing Director of Indeed UK – said:

“While it is obviously important to get your CV looking good; do your homework and perform well at interview, the fact that most hiring managers ultimately go with their gut shows how a lot of our nervous energy about the application process may be misplaced.”

He also commented that these results demonstrated that applicants could be centring their efforts to obtain work on the wrong areas.   

The research from Indeed also showed the main reasons that a job applicant was not hired.  The chief reason - given by 21 per cent of respondents - was lack of experience, followed by 19 per cent stating unsuitability for the work being offered and again, 19 per cent for grammar and spelling errors.

Other research by TotalJobs - who are part of the Totaljobs Group Ltd, the UK's largest online recruitment company - found that 74 per cent of employers used social media to research an applicant before interview, which developed their gut instinct in advance.

In addition, the research showed that only 36 per cent of applicants knew that employers undertook this research of social media, causing Steve Warnham,Jjobs Expert at TotalJobs, to remark:

“This lack of awareness could catch candidates out, leaving them with an uphill battle to prove themselves.”

Lee Biggins, Founding Manager and Director of CV-Library, voiced concerns at the findings and stated that although gut feeling played a vital role it could lead to bias amongst employers.  He stated:

“Unconscious bias can cause problems when recruiting, which could cost business potentially great employees.”

He then suggested that employers should give careful thought to all issues concerning the employing of new staff, to include but not only, their gut feeling.

Calculator Consultants surveyed over 1,500 contractors and freelancers regarding the reforms to IR35 in the public sector - and of those interviewed, 98% said that they would actively turn down work that could lead to them being paid through PAYE. 

A change to the enforcement of IR35 rules has meant that public sector organisations taking on workers through a personal service company have had to judge whether to deduct tax and national insurance payments.

Contractors deemed to be subject to IR35 changes are taxed in the same way as employees. However, they may not be eligible for typical employment rights, such as holiday and sick pay - which has led to claims of unfairness.  

The survey revealed that 76% of public sector departments lost highly skilled contractors; 71% of projects were delayed or cancelled; 27% of public sector contractors left after the reforms went live; 38% of contractors could not be replaced and 24% of projects lost at least half of their contractor workforce.

It had been believed that an extension of the rules into the private sector would happen - and in May the government opened a consultation that is expected to lead to a broader IR35 regime, causing concern among HR professionals.  They are fearful that increased administration will be required to apply the rules and that there will be a shortage of available talent.  

It is proving challenging replacing the highly-skilled workers in the IT industry and finding expensive major consultancies to fill the gaps has not been possible.  It was found that 52% of contractors who have left the public sector have not been replaced and consultancies have only managed to fill 15% of vacancies.  Of those who abandoned the public sector, 37% were IT contractors, which caused 79% of IT projects to suffer delays.

ContractorCalculator CEO Dave Chaplin said:

“Despite repeated warnings, HMRC completely underestimated the damage that the IR35 reforms would cause. These findings should be a wakeup call to Government, prompting a repeal of the legislation. Instead a private sector rollout of the changes appears more likely, which will cause even more damage.”

He added:

“With Brexit and other challenges right around the corner, this was the worst possible time for HMRC to cripple the public sector’s IT capability.”

Julia Kermode - Chief Executive of the Freelancer and Contractor Services Association - said HR departments needed to factor in the IR35 changes by educating themselves about the rules and considering external support to help navigate the process.  She said:

“The earlier you start to prepare for a likely roll-out the better because every contractor’s individual circumstances should be considered on a case-by-case basis when it comes to IR35.”

Senior associate at BP Collins, Chris Brazier, said the results of the survey were not a surprise. He said:

“The majority of contractors I have acted for have indicated that they would step away from contracts where IR35 applied and this does not seem to be an empty threat. Simply put, there is no benefit to being a contractor if IR35 applies, as they are treated like an employee without any of the protection that goes with it.”

SHRM - The Society for Human Resource Management - has released the results of their Employment Verification Survey on the challenges related to the Employment Eligibility Verification Form, Form 1-9 and E-Verify.  This is the process by which employees produce documents that will verify their identity and entitlement to work in the US – after which the employers check the documents and complete the Form 1-9.

From more than 600 HR professionals who were randomly selected, the survey revealed that 44% of respondents indicated that they do not face any challenges associated with the Form I-9 verification process. However, 34% reported difficulty maintaining records - when keeping track of documents with an expiration date - and 18% had issues with the authenticity of the documents presented. 

The administration of Form 1-9 is one of the most routine tasks handled by HR and Benefits and Payroll departments and can be the subject of a federal visit where any, even minor discrepancies - such as a missing signature - can prove costly.  Many firms may want to do away with the bother of completing Form I-9 but in reality, they cannot do this.

The survey also found 56% of respondent organizations took part in E-Verify. Of the organizations that were publicly owned for-profit, 79% were most likely to use E-Verify and of the privately owned for-profit organizations, 62% were most likely to use it. It was also found that organizations with 100 or more employees were more likely to use E-Verify and of those 38% participated voluntarily while 36% were satisfying federal contractor requirements.

When respondents were asked why they opted out of E-Verify, 45% of indicated the reason was the fact that E-Verify did not eliminate the need to complete Form I-9 and 34% stated that they did not participate due to lack of familiarity with the program.

According to the survey, 83% of employers would support a mandatory electronic verification system. It also appeared that backing for such a system would be even higher if it helped to avoid allegations of employment-based discrimination; included a strong safe harbor to protect employers; verified identity and eliminated Form I-9.

All employees hired on or after November 6 1986 must have a completed Form I-9 on file and employers are required to keep documentation for former employees for one year after their departure - or three years - whichever is later.   

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) last week gave out a ruling showing that underneath all the practices and codes and assumptions which govern the conduct of HR matters, the law still prevails.

Despite it being generally considered, in cases of misconduct, that an employer can only dismiss without prior warnings where there has been a finding of gross misconduct, the EAT recently decided - in the case of Quintiles Commercial -v- Barongo - that this is not always so and that serious misconduct may also result in dismissal without warnings.

Mr Barongo was employed as a medical sales representative with Quintiles Commercial UK Ltd (Quintiles) - a pharmaceutical agency - from October 2012.  He was the subject of disciplinary proceedings in respect of two acts of misconduct, failure to complete an online training course and failure to attend a compulsory training course.  This took place in November 2015.

Prior to the incidents taking place, Mr Barongo was given a performance review plan and he ascertained that his reason for not completing the training courses was that he was concentrating on improving his performance.  

The company refused to accept his explanation and dismissed him - on notice - for gross misconduct.  Mr Barongo appealed, following which the company gave a mixed message by reducing the class of his actions from gross to serious misconduct, but they upheld the decision to dismiss on notice.

Having taken his employer to a tribunal, Mr Barongo’s dismissal was found to have been unfair. The tribunal stated that after Quantiles Commercial downgraded Mr Barongo’s misconduct from gross to serious, he should have received a warning instead of dismissal. They awarded him £30,078.16 in compensation. 

Later, Quantiles Commercial - on appeal to EAT - was found to be within their rights in dismissing Mr Barongo, according to the law. Section 98(2) says that a dismissal is capable of being fair if it is for a reason which “relates to the conduct of the employee” which in this case it clearly did. Section 98(4)(a) says that whether the dismissal actually is fair depends on “whether in the circumstances…the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating that reason as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee”.

The ruling of the EAT Judge Eady QC stated:

“The tribunal’s approach in this case was flawed: it unduly limited the potential range of reasonable responses by applying a general rule as to when dismissal might be fair in cases of conduct falling short of gross misconduct, when no such rule is laid down by section 98(4)”. Adding:

“Further, or alternatively, it fell into the substitution trap, imposing its own view as to the appropriate sanction rather than conducting an assessment of the respondent’s decision against the band of reasonable responses test.”

Judge Eady then added that it would not be appropriate for the EAT to reach its own view over that of the tribunal and remitted the case to be heard by a different employment tribunal.

Following appeals in the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court recently made a final judgment in the case of Pimlico Plumbers v Smith.  Their decision to dismiss the appeal has now been regarded as one of the most significant in years.

In unanimously dismissing the appeal, the five judges sitting at the Supreme Court held that Gary Smith, a former engineer, was a worker and not self-employed.

Mr Smith had worked for Pimlico Plumbers - based in London - from August 2005 until April 2011. He suffered a heart attack and subsequently requested a cut in his working hours, from five days a week to three days. Pimlico Plumbers did not accede to his request and took back the company-branded van he had been allocated for work. 

In order to be classed as a worker, Gary Smith had to show that he was obliged to personally carry out his work for Pimlico Plumbers and that the nature of their contract meant that Pimlico Plumbers was not his client or customer.

The Supreme Court concluded that Gary Smith was a worker as his contract with the company had put emphasis on the obligations he had to carry out the work personally and the requirement to maintain a certain appearance. This suggested that the business exercised a high level of control - which would not have been appropriate if they were his customer or client.  He had to use their branded van, wear uniform, be available for 40 hours work per week and sign restrictions regarding his work after leaving Pimlico.

As a result of the decision by the Supreme Court, there have been intensified demands for clearer gig economy laws. 

Some employers carefully design their arrangements to give their customers the impression that persons working for them are part of their workforce - whilst giving the staff the impression that they are self-employed - and at present, there appears to be a trend towards courts being unsympathetic towards these arrangements.

The TUC called on the government to bring in better regulations and TUC General Secretary Frances O’Grady said:

“People shouldn't have to go to court to get a fair deal at work. Companies that treat their staff like disposable labour must be brought to book.”

Director of Policy at IPSE - which represents self-employed persons - Simon McVicker said:

“The best way to address this legal uncertainty is to write into a law a positive definition of what constitutes self-employment. This would send a clear signal about who is and who isn’t self-employed, and would mean that people wouldn’t have to go all the way to the Supreme Court to get a resolution.”

Andrew Willis, Head of Legal at CIPD HR-inform stated:

“While the legal provisions examined in this case have been in place for many years, recent cases have changed our understanding of how they should be interpreted and organisations will need to exercise caution in the arrangement they agree, and then follow in practice, with those they wish to engage as genuinely independent contractors.”

Founder of Pimlico Plumbers Charlie Mullins has written in People Management:

“.......We do, however, need a law change to give businesses and their contractors a sense of certainty. God knows, with the mess that is Brexit, there’s enough business uncertainty around at the moment.

It cannot continue to be the case that a plumber, earning a six-figure salary for his or her labour, who is making a profit on materials, while claiming tax advantages of being self-employed, can demand benefits as if they were a PAYE tax-paying employee.

The 21st century UK working landscape has been transformed, sometimes for the better, and sometimes – as in the case of zero hour contracts – for the worse. In 2008, there were 3.8 million contractors in the UK economy. That figure rose to 4.6 million by 2015.  This is not a passing fad, and many of these contractors have a single source of income. What we need now is for employment law to catch up with employment.”

In 2013, the government introduced employment tribunal fees under a secondary legislation rather than a full Act of Parliament.   After losing its case challenging the government’s decision - at both the High Court and the Court of Appeal - the trade union Unison appealed to the Supreme Court and won.  As a result, £27m in fees paid will be returned by the Government to those who paid to take their employment complaints to tribunal.

A unanimous judgment of seven Supreme Court judges noted that employment tribunals “are intended to provide a forum for the enforcement of employment rights by employees and workers, including the low paid; those who have recently lost their jobs and those who are vulnerable to long-term unemployment.” 

The judges concluded that the fees were preventing access to justice and as women were more likely to bring more serious and costly Type B cases - rather than Type A cases - the charges were also deemed to be discriminatory towards them.

Labour’s shadow justice secretary Richard Burgon said: “The Conservative Government should do the right thing, accept the ruling and consign their immoral Employment Tribunal Fees to the dustbin of history, rather than spending more taxpayers’ money trying to defend the indefensible. It’s an important day for access to justice for ordinary working people everywhere. The Conservative Government – which in coalition with the Lib Dems brought in this immoral restricted access to justice – must now pay a £32 million price for attacking workers.  Labour’s manifesto pledged to abolish Employment Tribunal Fees. Labour’s position has been vindicated by the highest court of the land and Unison should be congratulated on winning a victory for working people everywhere.”

Unison general secretary Dave Prentis said: “The government is not above the law. But when ministers introduced fees they were disregarding laws many centuries old, and showing little concern for employees seeking justice following illegal treatment at work.”

Jason Moyer-Lee, the general secretary of the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain (IWGB) which represents workers in the so-called gig economy, welcomed the “momentous decision”.

Experts have pointed out that the decision would probably lead to a sudden increase in the number of tribunals.  During the course of the case it was suggested that the number of tribunals brought since fees were introduced has dropped by as much as 70 per cent.

Paul McFarlane, chair of the Employment Lawyers Association’s legislative and policy committee and partner at Weightmans, called the result ‘dramatic’ and explained: “Once fees are scrapped it is likely that there will be a significant rise in the number of claims being brought. This will have knock-on implications for business, Acas and the employment tribunal system itself – all of whom will have to deal with the increased volume of claims.”

Head of the employment department at Trowers & Hamlins, Emma Burrows also agreed that claim numbers could increase and added: “Employers will also need to reassess their approach to risk when facing potential disputes with employees.”

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has published interim findings of the Retirement Outcomes Review, the first major comprehensive study into how the retirement income market is changing since the pension freedoms were introduced.   The review considered how the income market is developing, focusing mainly on those who do not take any advice.

They found that consumers welcomed the pension freedoms and over one million defined contribution pension pots had been accessed since the reforms took place.  The early access of pots has resulted in 72% being accessed by consumers less than 65 years of age – most of whom took lump sums.  Over half of the accessed pots have been fully withdrawn and over half of these have been transferred into savings or investments. No evidence was found of persons being careless with their pension savings.

Since inception, tools have been developed to help consumers understand the changes.  In addition simpler flexi-access drawdown products, which consumers can buy without taking financial advice, have been introduced.

The review found however, that the market is still growing and adjusting to the changes, leaving certain issues identified - those who withdrew their pots did so partly because of mistrust of pensions and they accepted the drawdown option offered by the pension provider without shopping around; 30% did not take advice on how to manage the drawdown and, as the decision is complex, it is questionable whether further support is required.

It was found that some annuity providers were leaving the market, reducing choice for consumers and weakening competiveness. This could result in more charges/tax being paid, consumers investing unsuitably, missing out on valuable benefits or running out of savings sooner than expected.

The FCA has stated that they will carry out further assessment of the harm these issues may cause and consider remedies.

Commenting on the interim finds of this review, Tim Gosling – Policy Lead of the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association – said,

"The FCA's interim retirement outcomes review makes for disturbing reading. Without timely action now, those retiring in the near future who are dependent on defined contribution (DC) pots and who have no access to advice will not receive the retirement they hope for.

“We need two things. First, we need a smoother customer journey at retirement that makes the line of least resistance an income product rather than cash. This may mean a form of "soft" default, intended to preserve consumer choice but designed to connect savers to the income 84% say they want1.

 “Second, we need a new generation of high quality retirement income products. These need to have strong independent governance and be suitable for those needing an income but who do not have access to advice. Government and the FCA should be mindful of lessons learnt in the workplace pensions market after the 2013 Office of Fair Trading Report to ensure product quality and also ensure they are open to fresh thinking about how to stimulate the development of new products.

“Over half (52%) of fully withdrawn pots have not been spent but moved into other retirement savings or investment vehicles – with associated tax, investment and benefit risks. The report suggests that this may be due to lack of public trust in pensions so we need to work hard to address this issue by helping the industry to evolve to meet the expectations of consumers saving for and transitioning into retirement.

“The industry does not have long to get this right."

Brexit negotiations have only just begun but already the UK is starting to feel the effects of skills shortages in the labour market.

The latest CIPD/Hays research found that three-quarters of HR professionals are already experiencing recruitment difficulties and - as a result of the UK’s decision to leave the EU - they expect competition for well-qualified talent to increase over the next three years.  As a result, they have highlighted the need for smarter, more targeted recruitment strategies, such as combining in-house and outsourced approaches.  If used well, this can be a positive resource for HR teams particularly when they require larger volumes of recruits as it can lessen the burden of administration.

Data from the survey shows that employers are endeavouring to use many options to increase their labour supply, especially in relation to younger applicants.  These include increasing the skills in their existing workers; offering apprenticeships; work placement and work experience schemes and developing a close relationship with schools and colleges.

The Resourcing and Talent Planning survey reports that there is an added cautiousness in prospective candidates and around the same proportion of increased cautiousness in businesses recruitment. Three-fifths of businesses also anticipate that as a result of the Brexit vote, they will experience increased difficulty in recruiting senior and skilled/ technical employees, whilst two-fifths anticipate increased difficulty in recruiting operational staff.

However, the survey shows that despite the Brexit decision, when it comes to employing migrants the proportion of businesses anticipating that they will recruit EU migrants in 2017 is similar to that of 2016 across all sectors.

According to the latest Labour Market Outlook findings, approximately 12% of private sector companies are considering locating their business operations abroad - with the Republic of Ireland, Germany and France as the most popular destinations.

According to a new survey by PayScale, women being interviewed who will not reveal their salaries tend to earn an average of 1.8% less than women who do disclose their compensation.  

Lydia Frank, vice president of content strategy at PayScale, which provides compensation data and software, states "There's a lot of research out there around unconscious bias that shows that we expect women to be cooperative and collaborative, so when a woman refuses to answer that question, it could rub people the wrong way."  

Between April and June, PayScale interviewed 15,413 job applicants and the survey asked the following question:   

At any point in the interview process, did you disclose your pay at previous jobs?

The replies received were:

1. No, and they did not ask.
2. No, but they asked.
3. Yes, they asked about my salary history.
4. Yes, I volunteered information about my salary history.
5. I do not recall.

PayScale analyzed the responses by industry; job title; job group; job level; gender; age and income bracket - it was found that when it came to job groups, 44% of those applying for jobs in HR, 43% in marketing and advertising and 40% in accounting and finance were the most likely candidates to disclose salary history during an interview.    

Lydia Frank said "With HR, if you've been on the other side of the table discussing compensation with candidates, where salary history is something you asked of candidates, being asked yourself might feel pretty typical."

Of the applicants for C-suite jobs, 40% said they were asked about their compensation whilst 26% refused to answer the question.  However, when job candidates did refuse to say what they earned, they tended to earn more than those who revealed their salaries.

"When it comes to higher-paying positions, an employer doesn't want to waste anyone's time - theirs or yours," Lydia Frank said. "….so making sure you really understand salary expectations for those roles makes a ton of sense."  Where executive-level candidates had a tendency to sidestep the question, "….that has to do with confidence," she said and added, "If you know your skills are sought after and you're at a level in your career where you're in a highly paid role, you probably know your value and are more confident in saying hey, I don't really want to talk about my salary, I want to talk about the position and what the role is worth.”

When it came to industry, those most likely to be asked about their salaries were people applying for jobs in finance and insurance - 45% and 49% percent of the applicants revealed their compensation.

However, when it came to the older applicants they were more likely to refuse to disclose what they earned.   The survey showed that 28% of baby boomers refused to disclose their salary histories when asked; 22% of members of generation X refused and 18% of millennials also refused.

Lydia Frank remarked that by forbidding the question in the first place, women won't be put in the position of having to refuse to answer and said, "That's absolutely the advice we're giving to employers: Don't ask the question and put candidates in an awkward position of having to decide whether to answer. It's easy enough to switch to 'salary expectations,' and that's really what the employer and candidate should be talking about anyway-the market rate for the position, not an individual's salary history. If salary history does manage to influence the offer then that could lead to internal pay inequities and employee turnover."

In at least six states or cities the question of salary history being asked by prospective employers has been banned - or the possibility is being considered.   Delaware; Massachusetts; New York City; Oregon; Philadelphia (effective May 2017, but delayed pending litigation) and Puerto Rico are those already banning or planning to ban, whilst California is considering similar legislation.

The US Department of Labor alleged that a Florida manufacturing business in Flagler County is guilty of Profit Sharing Plan embezzlement and filed a complaint against the company and its owner.  According to the allegations the owner embezzled $111,624 between January and June 2009 from the company Profit Sharing Plan. 

United States Attorney A. Lee Bentley, III has now announced that the 63-year-old owner, from Volusia County, has pleaded guilty to embezzlement from an employee benefit.  According to the plea agreement, the owner embezzled all of the funds from the business’ corporate Profit Sharing Plan and unlawfully used the pension funds to pay personal and other unrelated corporate expenses.  She used some of the funds to pay personal investment obligations in another company she co-owns.  The corporate Profit Sharing Plan was a federally protected plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

In 2009, the manufacturing company was having financial issues.  To meet the company’s payroll; pay vendors; fulfil the company’s mortgage payments and pay the financial obligations of her unrelated company, the owner of the manufacturing company made 15 separate and illegal electronic funds transfers from the company’s Profit Sharing Plan’s account.  This was carried out by electronically transferring funds from the Plan’s account to the company’s operating account.  Checks were then written from the operating account to cover personal and business obligations.  As a result, the employees’ Profit Sharing Account was depleted.

The owner and another were held to be jointly liable and, as a result, are permanently banned from acting as a fiduciary, trustee, agent or representative for employee benefit plans (as defined by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) in the future.  In addition, they have been ordered to pay restitution plus an additional $25,253 in interest on lost earnings.

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida Jacksonville Division, appointed administrators to terminate the Plan, collect and administer the Plan’s assets and make distributions to the affected participants.

Affluent male pensioner’s life expectancy is rising faster than other groups - as revealed by a new longevity trends report published by the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association (PLSA) in conjunction with longevity experts, Club Vita. 

The report suggests that this trend could have major implications for Defined Benefit (DB) pension schemes, as over half of their liabilities will be in this group - showing that a scheme with a high proportion of more affluent members might need to make more provision than a scheme with a more mixed demographic.

Between 2011 and 2015 men in this group continued to have rapid rises in longevity - gaining 17 weeks of life expectancy and maintaining the increasing trend from the previous 10 years, whilst other groups saw no increases.  In contrast, for men on a modest retirement income and those who are living in deprived areas on a low income, life expectancy has remained unchanged since 2011.

The importance of having an insight into the economic dynamics of longevity trends has never been greater.  Recent differences in life expectancy amongst socio economic groups is likely to be caused by a combination of factors - harsh winters, flu, access to social care and economic slowdown, to which issues the affluent group have proved to be more resilient. 

Steven Baxter, Head of research for Club Vita states, “.......Trustees of DB schemes are faced with tough decisions to make. Standard actuarial projections have shown a slowdown in rising life expectancy and some have even questioned whether DB schemes should be funding for future, uncertain increases in longevity.  However, our evidence that life expectancy is still rising at the same pace amongst affluent males is highly significant.” 

He continues, “While the nation has seen a slow-down in rising life expectancy over recent years our analysis has shown that men in ‘comfortable’ socio economic groups are, in contrast, maintaining a consistently rising life-expectancy. There has been a divergence in longevity expectations between these groups and the lower socio-economic ‘making do’ and ‘hard pressed’ groups, with the longevity improving twice as fast for the ‘comfortable’ group.  At a societal level it is concerning to see a halt in the narrowing of the longevity gap amongst different parts of society that we had seen previously.”

Graham Vidler, Director of External Affairs, Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association (PLSA) commented that trustees have to take a view on the longevity outlook for the future and this report was designed to help them with decision-making and scheme management.

A variety of state statutes and legal concepts have limited damages in personal injury cases. 

The Supreme Court of Florida has backed the ruling made by a lower court that caps on non-economic damages (in the case of medical malpractice) violate the Equal Protections Clause of the states constitution.

This decision was made after a lawsuit was brought by a woman who suffered a complication after surgery at North Broward Hospital District.

During intubation in the administration of anesthesia, the patient's oesophagus was allegedly perforated and – despite complaining of chest pain – her condition was not fully discovered until the next day when she had to undergo emergency surgery to repair her esophagus.  However, the complaint stated that she had never regained her full health and she was awarded $4 million in non-economic damages by a jury.

Non-economic damages are injury damages for various types of pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life damages.  They are unlike economic damages in that a jury does not base a plaintiff’s non-economic damage awards on past losses and future calculations but makes a more subjective evaluation.

In the case of the Florida plaintiff, the trial court had issued a final written judgment that limited the non-economic damages by the caps defined in the Florida Statutes, which resulted in the award being reduced by about $2 million. Added to that, the court ruled that a further $1.3 million should be taken off the amount as the hospital's share of liability was capped at $100,000.

These caps were originally put into place to reduce the cost of malpractice insurance, but the Supreme Court justices wrote that putting the caps in place did not prove that insurance premiums were reduced and drew the conclusion that the caps were illogical “......because of the arbitrary reduction of compensation without regard to the severity of the injury does not bear a rational relationship to the Legislature's stated interest on addressing the medical malpractice crisis.”   The court also concluded that the statutory caps were unreasonable and arbitrarily limited rewards for those who were grievously injured by medical negligence.

Justice Ricky Polston disagreed and stated that the Legislature did what it had to do to ensure the quality and availability of health care for the residents of Florida. He also stated that if the policy of caps on non-economic damages affected insurance premiums, it was immaterial and concluded by saying that it was not the place of the majority in the court to change a statute or policy that it did not like and wrote that doing so “improperly interjects the judiciary into a legislative function.”

Many states have non-economic damage caps for medical malpractice cases and a smaller number, less than a quarter, of states have in place non-economic damage caps for any personal injury claim. However, the damage cap laws all make exceptions, either permitting a higher damage cap or eliminating it, for cases involving death and serious injury such as the loss of a limb or organ. 

Pension transfer values have reached a new set of highs since the vote to leave the EU, per the Xafinity Transfer Value Index.

At the end of last month the Xafinity Transfer Index was at £223,000, the highest reading of the index since 2015. This Xafinity Transfer Index tracks the transfer value that would be given by an example DB scheme to a 64-year-old member who is entitled to a £10,000 a year pension starting at age 65.

This recorded increase in transfer values has been largely attributed to significant reductions in gilt yields since the votes were announced.

One representative of Xafinity said that while the reductions in gilt yields are good for members looking to take a transfer value of their defined benefits, it’s not necessarily great news for pensions themselves. Most schemes will see their deficits increase at least slightly.

Old Mutual Wealth conducted a survey of over 1,600 United Kingdom adults undertaken by YouGov.  It found that 30% of people not retired expected to work part-time to fund their retirement needs once they reached retirement age.

This figure, which takes into account adults between the ages of 50 and 75, is higher than last year by four percent.  When existing retirees were examined, the number of people currently working part-time to supplement other sources of retirement income is much lower.  Part-time work is valuable for both current and future retirees, since both groups of people expect to secure 30% of their total retirement income from employment income.

The survey also revealed that over half of the respondents suggested one reason they will work part-time into retirement is to make ends meet.  Others cited social reason for their choice.

One human resource expert explained that many of the certainties that once existed are no longer.  There are many decisions people have to make on their own in order to structure their retirement the way they want it.  In some cases, this planning fails in execution.

HR experts are urging those approaching retirement and even those who are not but who qualify, to take advantage of free government services like Pension Wise.

Hymans Robertson have reported that the UK DB pension deficit reached £850bn, a £120bn increase over a six-week period.  Shortly thereafter, this number bounced back proving volatility is a massive issue for defined benefit schemes. 

Jon Hatchett, partner and head of corporate consulting at Hymans Robertson said when the figures were reviewed the numbers were jarring.  Uncertainty over Brexit “led to falls in growth asset prices.” 

HR experts say pension deficits are hitting organisations particularly hard.  Most major companies are large enough to support schemes, but high profile cases have helped shine the spotlight on the potential and very real risks that come along with schemes. 

This is not the first spurt of volatility DB pensions have seen this year.  Last February the collective UK DB deficit hit its highest level followed by another swing of more than £100bn in a six-week period.

Some human resource experts don’t feel that schemes need to be so volatile.  There are many schemes that take too much growth risk on with too little protection.  Many people also invest without a clear disinvestment plan, which can exacerbate market volatility.

Although it is a natural emotion for scheme holders to be worried and nervous, employment law experts urge people not to make knee jerk decisions based on current conditions that will pass.  DB schemes are long-term and it would make sense to have contingency plans in place to help during these rough waters.

While Brexit has already had an effect on pension funds, there is extreme uncertainty surrounding what kinds of challenges will present themselves for pension funds following this monumental event.

Asda has failed to stop an employment tribunal brought by over 7,000 of the supermarket giant’s former and current workers over equal pay.

The claimants are arguing that their roles are comparable to the organisation’s warehouse roles, which are generally held by males who earn better pay.  According to the claimants who are primarily women, employees in the warehouse earn up to £4 an hour more than shop-floor workers. The law firm representing the workers, Leigh Day, claims this pay discrepancy is a clear result of gender bias.

Asda, of course, refuted the claims saying discrimination does not exist and requested to have the tribunal proceeding stayed indefinitely.  If this were to occur, the case would have had to have been taken to the High Court by the employees.  The stay was rejected.

The Court of Appeal judged felt the case was “highly exceptional”, and that an employment tribunal would be better suited to deal with this case.

Some human resource experts and employment law experts are describing this case as the “most complex and financially significant equal pay claim to be pursued in the private sector.”  

One insurance firm have predicted that workers aged 50 years and over will become the largest group in employment by 2024, as per new data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

The ONS found that approximately 10 million workers aged 50+ are now in employment in the United Kingdom, representing one in three employees.  The data reveals that the overall proportion of “older” workers in the workforce has dramatically increased since the 1990’s.  If trends continue, human resource experts are confident this age group will eventually dominate the workforce.

PwC also released some research that estimated the UK could add almost six percent to its GDP if employment rates of this age group matched the highest-performing EU country. 

What does this all mean for employers, though?  HR professionals explain that employers will need to adapt their rules to these older workers.  Companies may want to adopt flexible working policies, or consider redesigning offices and factories to suit older workers.

Age diversity should also be considered.  Employers should start opening up apprenticeships to this age group as opposed to targeting college students and millennials.  This is the time to capitalise on the experience that younger people just don’t have.

Businesses seem to believe that the future of their workforce lies in the millennial but this may not actually be the reality of the situation. 

A new report aimed at improving the unemployment rate of people with disabilities, says workers with long-term health conditions should have the same right as new mothers to return to their employer within one year.

The Resolution Foundation completed a study and is calling for a 12-month ‘right to return’ period from the beginning of absence, to help slow the unemployment rate for disabled employees.  The report showed that just over two percent of disabled people who were out of work for more than a year went back into employment every quarter.  The report is calling on the government to pursue a “damage prevention” approach that will have a primary focus on keeping people in jobs.

The report explains that communication between an employer and an employee in this kind of situation could work very similar to maternity leave.  Ultimately, dismissals on sickness ground would not be allowed within the year, unless there are certain circumstances.  The Resolution Foundation also proposes that firms could be offered a rebate on statutory sick pay costs when a staff member comes back to work after long-term sick leave.

Currently, employers have a duty to avoid any kind of direct or indirect discrimination against disabled people, as well as other minorities.  Businesses have a duty to also make ‘reasonable adjustments’ for disabled employees.

Resolution Foundation reported that almost half of disabled people were currently in jobs, compared to 80% of non-disabled people.  Closing this gap even just half way would mean a 1.5 million increase in the number of disabled people in the workforce.

In the case of Patterson v Castlereagh Borough Council, the Northern Ireland appeal court deemed that there was absolutely no reason why voluntary overtime should not be included in holiday pay.

In the United Kingdom, there has been an ongoing human resources issue concerning how businesses should calculate holiday pay for their employees.  Many of the relevant provisions in the Northern Irish working time regulations reflect the same as those in the United Kingdom.  While there have been multiple overtime claims brought against local authorities, Patterson’s was run as the test case on the issue.  HR experts explain that voluntary overtime is just that; this is agreed overtime which the employer is not obliged to provide and which the employee can either choose to work or choose to reject.

Patterson worked 52 hours over a period of approximately 13 weeks.  This equates to about four hours of overtime per week, or an additional £60 of pay per week.  Patterson reported that he only received basic pay during his holiday.  The industrial tribunal found that purely voluntary overtime should not be included in the calculation of holiday pay, as it said this had been specifically excluded by the EAT in the Bear Scotland case.  This case looked at overtime that workers were required to accept in situations where it was offered to them.  At this point, Patterson appealed to the NI Court of Appeal citing that the industrial tribunal made a mistake in the interpretation of the EAT’s comments.

Lawyers acting on both sides ultimately agreed that the tribunal had mistakenly interpreted the Bear Scotland decision.  The appeal court agreed with both sides and found there was no reason in principle why voluntary overtime shouldn’t be included in holiday payment.

Patterson v Castlereagh Borough Council truly is a landmark case in the long running debate surrounding the calculation of holiday pay and overtime.  Human resource experts urge companies to clearly state their rules when it comes to overtime and overtime payment to avoid any issues in the future.

A pension liberation scam is when scheme members are encouraged to transfer their benefits to another scheme, in circumstances that are not in their best interest. These scams are still very much a problem.

In 2014, the Finance Act tried to address the issue on a small scale by making it easier for HMRC to de-register schemes and making it harder for schemes to become registered.

Regardless of whether or not trustees suspect that a proposed receiving scheme is a liberation vehicle, scheme members still have a statutory right to transfer.

Linklaters, however, feels there is a better way to approach this growing issue. A Linklaters pensions partner says that most pensions liberation vehicles will already be registered and probably are under the radar. He added that instead of making it harder to register, “HMRC should publish a list of those registered schemes that it is content to see receiving transfers. The question of whether a member has a statutory right to transfer to a given scheme would then depend on whether that scheme was on the list”.

Linklaters believe that it shouldn’t be very difficult for HMRC to check whether or not a scheme should be put on the transfer list, by using existing tax info about the scheme and the sponsor or info from the FCA.

A human resources occupational safety expert recently concluded that a new trend exists in the business world that deems successor companies liable for past violations of their acquired company.

When it comes to mergers and acquisitions, it is extremely important for companies to perform safety and health due diligences, because once the paperwork is signed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration will not show leniency to the new company owner. A full safety and health review should therefore be completed so that the buying company understands what obligations they are buying into and what safety record it is adopting.

Certain repeat offenses can cost an employer upwards of $70,000. Violations attached to repeat penalties are often characterized in one of three ways: Having been committed by the same employer, the same employer received a prior citation for the same or a very similar condition/hazard, or the prior citation became a final order of OSHRC.

The line becomes blurred when the idea of what constitutes the “same employer” is questioned. HR experts typically identify the same employer as the same corporate entity. In some cases, multiple corporate entities within a corporate structure could be protected from repeat liability.

OSHRC uses two different tests to determine successor ship for repeat liability. The first test is known as the “alter ego” analysis. This applies to any employer that commits violations confirmed through an OSHA settlement or an OSHRC decision goes out of business and later resurfaces under a new or different name. OSHRC asks multiple questions in their analysis including, is the same work being performed in the same manner?

The second test is called “substantial continuity” which says that an employer can be cited for violations of a prior employer if the two companies operate with substantial continuity.

At the end of the day, human resource professionals urge companies to avoid getting hit with repeat violations by keeping the lines of communication open throughout the entire corporate structure.

Question: If an employee is no longer capable of performing his/her essential job functions due to a disability, does the employer need to reassign this employee a new position (which he or she is qualified for) ahead of better-qualified employees?

Answer: Yes…Well, sometimes.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals made the ultimate ruling that if a disabled employee needs a transfer in order to keep working, an available position for which they are qualified has to go to that employee. This remains true unless the employer can prove that offering the person the job over another candidate would amount to an unreasonable accommodation.

The ruling came from a lawsuit filed by the EEOC against United Airlines. The agency claimed the airline illegally required workers with disabilities to compete for vacant positions that they were qualified to obtain. The EEOC claimed that this requirement violated the ADA. United refuted the statements and initially won the suit.

Unfortunately for United Airlines, when the decision was further reviewed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals it was overturned. The Seventh Circuit Court felt that United’s requirement for disabled employees to compete for positions worked against the ADA’s requirement to provide reasonable accommodations.

The airline did petition the Supreme Court to review the case, but the request was denied. This allowed the EEOC to pursue its case against United.

Instead of waiting for the EEOC, United decided to settle the lawsuit to the tune of $1 million. The money will be paid out to a class of former United employees with disabilities. United also agreed, as part of the settlement, to revise its reassignment policy, train employees and management on the changes and provide reports to the EEOC on disabled individuals who are denied reassignment.

Section 510 of Obamacare’s employer mandate reads:

“… it shall be unlawful for any person to discharge, fine, suspend, expel, discipline, or discriminate against a participant or beneficiary of an employee benefit plan for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which such participant may become entitled under an employee benefit plan …”

Since its enactment, Section 510 of ERISA has caused many employment law experts to question if it could be used to bring lawsuits against employers who cut workers’ hours to circumvent the mandate.

Employees at Dave & Buster’s filed a class action lawsuit against the restaurant chain saying that the company violated ERISA’s Section 510 by reducing their hours to below 30 per week.  The employees are saying that the company did this in order to avoid Obamacare’s employer mandate to provide full-time employees with health benefits.

According to the lawsuit paperwork, during a meeting at a Dave & Buster’s location, a company general manager said that Obamacare would wind up costing the company over $2 million.  In order to avoid this, the plan was to cut the hours of full-time workers.  According to the plaintiffs, similar meetings were held at Dave & Buster’s across the company.

While this has yet to go to court, employment experts are calling this a landmark case.  Currently there is no answer to whether or not ERISA can actually be applied to health plans.

Although the Government has stated otherwise, some people using the new pensions flexibilities might find their saving are hit by inheritance tax (IHT).

It was announced last September that defined contribution pension scheme members dying before the age of 75 would be able to leave any remaining drawdown funds to their survivors completely tax free.  Many people are keeping this statement in mind when making retirement decisions.

Unfortunately, unless the existing legislation is amended, drawdown funds will actually fall into the member’s estate upon death.  A member’s estate is subject to inheritance tax.

Human resource professionals explain that this completely contradicts what the Government stated last September.  If it is enforced, it could potentially lead to a double taxation of drawdown funds where a member dies after reaching age 75.

HR experts are pleading for the Government to address this issue before another Finance Bill passes.

When the generation shifts, so too must the workplace.  IT executives across the United States are reporting that the recent surge of Millennials in the workplace is reshaping business environments and driving IT departments to adapt their infrastructures. 

While approximately one third of respondents from a Randstad Technologies and IDG Research Services study said they have not addressed any issues, the rest of the respondents said they are slowly adapting a plan to address Millennials’ needs.  There is a reported massive gap between what this generation wants and expects of internal IT departments and what is actually being offered.

The survey looked to CIOs, CTOs, directors and IT architects to examine perception and plans for changes that will need to be made in response to the generation shift. 

HR experts believe this shift is partly due to the way Millennials have grown up.  This age group wants the same technology capabilities inside work that they do outside of work.  This remains true whether employers look at communication, social media, or cloud storage.  Human resources experts also explain these IT shifts are absolutely necessary in order for employers to attract and retain Millennial talent.

The survey found that mobile technology is one of the most essential shifts in supporting Millennials’ needs.  Over 75% of IT leaders have witnessed an increase in their organization’s mobile and remote workforce.  Seventy percent of the survey’s respondents listed mobility as a technology essential to supporting the Millennial shift. 

Other things listed as essential to supporting this shift included communication tools, collaboration tools to address evolving work styles and cloud computing and storage so work can be completed from locations outside of the office.

Upper management absolutely realizes that security management will also have to evolve in order to support these new technologies.  Over half of the surveyed population has a plan to increase investments in security management systems over the coming year.

Equiniti is estimating that about 17,500 contracting out records will need to be reconciled per day because of the end of contracting out in April 2016.  At this time, flat rate single-tier pensions will be introduced.

Currently, reconciliation errors reach as high as 50% in some of the schemes that use Equiniti to manage the process and most of the queries that Equiniti are addressing directly relate to issues like membership reconciliation and incorrect scheme data.

HR experts explain that with HMRC withdrawing its support for benefit queries in December 2018, schemes should consider putting measures in place immediately in order to hit the April 2016 deadline for registration.  It is expected that around 10% will not register to take advantage of HMRC’s free and dedicated contracting out reconciliation support team over the next 41 months.

Equiniti and HMRC have been spreading as much awareness as possible to educate on the upcoming deadlines and key factors in reconciliation consideration.  Equiniti’s operations director explains that contracting out reconciliation hasn’t really received the attention it needs and that in many cases many schemes that were thought to be in good shape were actually not.