In February 2022, CIPHR, who are a software provider, conducted an online survey of over 1,000 employees and separately 332 employers, to find out about pay rises and working practices.

The employee respondents work in organisations that employee between 26 and 251+ people but with two fifths working at companies with over 251 employees.

The respondents to the employers survey held job titles including Owner or Partner, CEO/President, CFO, Director, or C-Level Executive and over half of the companies in the survey employed 251+ workers.

The survey showed that although 63% of employers say they have, or are planning to award their staff a pay increase for 2022 that’s in line with, or above the rate of inflation, 45% of men and 53% of women say they’ve not yet received a pay rise for 2022. Of that 27% of employees who state they have received a pay rise for 2022 (as at March 2022), 8% of men but only 2% of women say that this was an above inflation wage rise.

Factors that the employers who were surveyed say they take into consideration when determining pay rises include an employee’s performance (45%), cost of living (37%), an employee’s potential (36%) and the market rates for their job roles (36%). However, only 17% of employers thought that their staff were completely aware of all the different factors that determine pay increases.

Of those that have received an uplift, over three-quarters (78%) feel that their pay rise hasn’t kept up with the rising cost of living in the UK. Also, 64% believe that it wasn’t fair and 70% that it wasn’t an indication of their performance.  

Perhaps as a reflection of this, employees who think their last pay rise was unfair are more likely to change employer within the next year (44%) compared to 25% who are happy that their last pay rise was fair. Over a third of those surveyed said they would only need to be offered a 10% to 14% pay rise to move to a new company in a similar role to their current job.

One in five (21%) employees, on average, have been approached by a recruiter or head-hunter in the past three months. For people working in Consulting, Human Resouces, IT or Sales, for example, it’s much higher.

When it comes to job seeking, the majority of employers believe that ‘employees and job seekers are in the driving seat when it comes to negotiating salaries, benefits and flexible working’. However, only one in four women agree with this and 88% of male workers aged over-55 think that it’s their employer who is firmly ‘in the driving seat’ at work.

The State of Financial Wellbeing: Workplace Report 2022 by Wagestream - a financial wellbeing provider - has found that 68 per cent of workers in the UK are immersed in money worries at work, despite ­employers dedicating more resources to financial wellbeing.

The reason for this is given as the fact that employees are hiding financially driven mental health concerns from their employer d­ue to embarrassment and fear of being reprimanded.

The report is based on research amongst 5,000 UK employees and 600 senior HR professionals - along with input from leading money charities and the UK Government’s Money and Pensions Service.

It was also found that 24 per cent of UK employees were concerned about money every day, making money the number one worry in 2021 - an 8 per cent increase on the previous year. However, HR professionals estimated that just 2 per cent of their employees worried about money daily.

Despite efforts by employers to introduce financial wellbeing programmes - 93 per cent of HR professionals stated that their organisation has a financial wellbeing strategy - only 52 per cent of employees reported feeling supported. But, as 28 per cent of organisations say that they provide salary advances - and only 9 per cent of employees say their employer provides them - lack of communication may account for the difference.

Jamie Lawrence - Insights Director at Wagestream, financial wellbeing provider and author of the report - said:

“This year’s report finds that we are entering a new phase of financial wellbeing at work. Almost every employer has now taken its first step on financial wellbeing, but many are failing to achieve true impact. It’s fantastic to see employers being so proactive in plugging the financial inclusion gap – now we hope they’ll take it a step further by building out financial wellbeing programmes that address the bespoke needs of their own workforces and the most urgent problems many face – like savings.”

The research took place amidst a growing cost of living crisis - the latest figures issued by the Office for National Statistics show that growth in regular pay was 3.8 per cent in the three months to January 2022. This, when adjusted for inflation, fell to a negative 1.0 per cent.

Charles Cotton - Senior Reward and Performance Adviser at the CIPD - said that in-work poverty was a major issue before the current cost of living crisis and was “likely to get worse”, but there are steps employers can take to improve their people's financial wellbeing.

He said:

“Firstly, employers should pay a fair and liveable wage to help people achieve a decent standard of living. Supporting in-work progression – which gives employees the ability to increase their earnings potential – and offering financial wellbeing support to encourage people to be open about their money worries could also benefit employees.”

Sarah Porretta - Propositions, Insights and External Engagement Director, Money and Pensions Service - stated:

“Supporting workers, particularly those in vulnerable circumstances, to create financial stability for themselves has never been more important given the mounting pressures on household and life expenses. It’s really encouraging to see that the vast majority of workers would welcome support and it’s now crucial that employers recognise this and introduce new measures to promote long-term financial wellbeing.”

According to a recent study, male entrepreneurs are significantly less likely than either female entrepreneurs or candidates with no entrepreneurial background, to be invited for a job interview.

The research was conducted by Olenka Kacperczyk, Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship at the London Business School (LBS) in conjunction with the University of Oregon in the USA. They were interested in the fact that whilst there is “widespread interest in encouraging entrepreneurship”, statistics show that only 40% of new businesses survive for more than five years, which raises the question “What happens to ex-founders when they apply for jobs?”

The study itself involved sending out over 1,200 CVs to employers looking for marketing or HR Managers and Directors in a range of industries. None of the CVs were accompanied by a covering letter.

Every recruiter received applications from two candidates who had similar backgrounds in working for a large employer for an equal number of years, in similar positions. One candidate had then left to found their own small business, while the other went on to be employed at another company, with a similar role and responsibilities.

The study found that men with a history of founding a new venture were less likely to be asked to an interview because employers believed them to be “worse fits and less committed employees than comparable candidates without founding experience.”

Interestingly however, there was no comparable penalty for female ex-founders. The study put forward that this is because women are “often perceived as illegitimate founders” therefore “employers do not treat their entrepreneurial efforts as revealing unwanted attributes and are correspondingly more likely to hire them than male ex-founders.”

Olenka Kacperczyk said:

“Entrepreneurship is a masculine activity and women are not associated with it. We are showing that there is a bias.”

She added:

“There is a penalty for founders…..They are not seen as being committed or a good cultural fit. There is a real career cost of entrepreneurship for those that go back to employment.”

On 17th March, Minister for Welfare Delivery David Rutley confirmed that 13 Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) offices are scheduled for closure, placing thousands of jobs at risk of redundancy.

Of the 41 DWP offices currently operational, 13 are scheduled to close by June 2023, with the other 29 forecast to close or be relocated in the longer term. The move is hoping to create savings of £80m to £90m from 2028 onwards.

Staff at some of the offices will be offered an alternative site in “close proximity”, to work in and about 1,300 who are not able to move will be offered retraining for another DWP role, or a role in another government department. However, the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) - which represents many DWP staff - estimates that over 1,100 jobs will be at risk in the initial closures and potentially thousands more later.

The relocations and closures are part of the government’s levelling up agenda, which plans to transform the UK by spreading opportunity and prosperity to all parts of it. This initiative includes moving public sector workers out of London and into new regional sites. Conversely though, according to the PCS, the majority of jobs at risk from the DWP office closures are in the north of England. Additionally, a report by think tank Onward in February found that overall civil service headcount had grown 50% in London, in comparison with 3% across the rest of the country.

Labour MP John McDonnell commented on Twitter:

“The government is taking a novel approach to rolling out its levelling up programme by sacking hundreds of DWP workers in the very towns and areas most in need of jobs and investment.”

On their website, the PCS says:

“First we were clapped, then we were scrapped”.

They go on to add:

“The announcement has been devastating for PCS members, as thousands now face possible redundancy. These are the same people who helped keep the country running during the pandemic by processing benefit payments, including unprecedented numbers of Universal Credit claims.” 

According to MP David Rutley, parts of the DWP estate are unfit for purpose. He stated that the majority of staff “can be relocated very very close to their current facility”.

He added “We’re not reducing staff numbers – the focus is on retaining as many people as possible.”

A government spokesperson said:

"As part of plans to improve the services we deliver to claimants, help more people into employment and modernise public services, DWP is moving some back-office staff to better, greener offices, which will not affect any public-facing roles.”

They added:

“This is not a plan to reduce our headcount – where possible, our colleagues in offices due to close are being offered opportunities to be redeployed to a nearby site, or retrained into a new role in DWP or another government department.”

"We are making every effort to fully support our staff through this process.”

Research conducted on 2,250 employees and hiring managers by recruitment site Reed, has found that 78 per cent of candidates in the UK are less likely to apply for a job vacancy that does not display a salary - resulting in a request for greater transparency during the recruitment process.

According to Reed, 22 per cent of applicants for jobs only apply for those with a listed salary. Despite this, recruiters admit that they either do not - or only occasionally - include the salary on 44 per cent of all job advertisements.

In addition, despite 42 per cent of hiring managers finding that when the salary details were provided, the applications increased; 38 per cent believing a greater relevancy of applications were received and 35 per cent were of the opinion it saved time in the recruitment process, 62 per cent of hiring managers thought a lack of salary transparency had no negative impact on applications.

A recent government announcement states that a pilot scheme to increase pay transparency is being launched with the object of equalling opportunities for women. Employers would be required to list salary information on their job adverts - and not to ask candidates about their salary history. 

Simon Wingate - Managing Director of Reed - said:

“You wouldn’t shop in a supermarket that doesn’t list its prices, so why should we expect people to sift through job ads that don’t advertise salary? From our research, it’s clear that jobseekers want to apply for roles at businesses that are open about what they pay.”

He added:

“Not only will you generate more applications, you’ll also be able to attract from a wider talent pool and avoid any negative impact to your employer brand.”

Charles Cotton - Senior Reward and Performance Adviser at the CIPD - stated that employers should be more transparent about pay, stating:

“Doing so will not only help set reward expectations among job applicants and reduce the risk of unfair pay gaps, but also encourage a greater diversity of people to apply.”

He added that employers should also go further and give information on pension schemes and any other benefits in their job ads. 

Gemma Bullivant - an independent HR and reward consultant - commented:

“Pay transparency is a crucial component of the reward strategy and architecture of an organisation and something that is often overlooked or considered too hard to tackle. With the right architecture in place, you can attract more talent to your pipeline as this survey suggests, streamline recruitment processes, establish clear pathways to grow and retain key talent and make robust and equitable pay decisions to ensure any pay inequities are resolved.”

Research carried out on 1,000 employees from UK companies of fewer than 250 staff has shown that small and medium-sized companies (SMEs) should focus on retaining their staff.  It also gives insight into relevant HR trends including reward and recognition, engagement and future of work.

The survey - carried out by Sodexo Engage, an Employee & Consumer Engagement company - found that 52 per cent of SME staff would prefer to work for a large company and 32 per cent were thinking of leaving their present employment this year.

For SME job hirers - who have smaller budgets to work with - this provides a challenge and experts advise them to retain their staff by ‘playing to their strengths’ namely, company culture.

Jamie Mackenzie - Director at Sodexo Engage - stated that because many SME employees are already joining bigger companies, leaders of the smaller businesses need to re-evaluate their retention strategy.

He said:

“While SMEs may not be in a position to compete financially, they have plenty of strengths to play to. Building on company culture, that places recognition at its heart, can improve employee experience and boost retention.”

Although pay was significant for employees - with 43 per cent of respondents saying that low pay was their main complaint when working for a small company - company culture was named as an attraction. 

However, 91 per cent of those surveyed felt that their work was more recognised in a small business and 42 per cent preferred the close-knit community. Another factor mentioned by 42 per cent was the opportunity to have a better work/life balance, whilst 36 per cent cited better company values.

Sophie Forrest - of consultancy ForrestHR - said that by investing in their strengths, smaller businesses can beat large companies in the race for talent.

She stated:

"One of the key advantages of a smaller business is the family feel-the-fact that you’re not a cog in the machine, the boss knows everyone’s name, their children’s names and where they went on holiday. Amplifying this is one way of increasing the sense of staff belonging and instilling loyalty; flexible working, family-friendly policies, supporting positive work-life balance and team building exercises are all strategies you can deploy to strengthen that family feeling.”

She remarked that the variety of tasks in smaller businesses also enables HR leaders to create interesting and varied jobs, adding:

"And because the boss does know everyone, SMEs also have a tremendous advantage in being able to create a culture of recognition, where the whole team knows and applauds when someone is doing well, which this research shows is invaluable in making employees feel like they belong."

Experts have given a warning that employers monitoring workers’ emails, phones or webcams may find themselves in hot water.

According to a prominent UK union group - the TUC - there has been an increase in workplace surveillance during the pandemic, which could lead to widespread discrimination, work intensification, and unfair treatment of workers.  They are advising that regulatory safeguards are put in place.

A survey of 2,209 workers in England and Wales, on behalf of the TUC and conducted by BritainThinks, showed that 60 per cent of respondents believe they are subject to workplace monitoring. This has increased from 53 per cent in 2020.

The surveillance consists of monitoring emails and files; employee webcams; keystroke logging; phone records and movement tracking via CCTV. The research also indicated that worker surveillance is more prevalent in certain job sectors - with 74 per cent of financial services workers being the most likely to report monitoring.

Frances O’Grady - TUC General Secretary - said in a statement:

“Worker surveillance tech has taken off during this pandemic - and now risks spiralling out of control.” 

In addition to Frances O’Grady calling upon the government to create a right to disconnect outside of working hours - suggesting that it be included in the Employment Bill currently making its way through Parliament - the trade union is also requesting a statutory duty to consult trade unions before employers introduce the use of artificial intelligence and automated decision-making systems.  They also ask for universal right to human review of high-risk decisions made by technology.

According to the poll, employees support new regulations on the introduction of new artificial intelligence - with 82 per cent saying that they supported a legal requirement to consult with staff before introducing the monitoring. This was up from 75 per cent in 2020.

Over three-quarters - 77 per cent - of employees also supported a ban on monitoring outside working hours, witnessing an increase up from 72 per cent in 2020. 

Without careful regulation, 72 per cent of respondents believed that the use of technology to make decisions about workers could increase unfair treatment - a rise from 61 per cent in 2020.

Hayfa Mohdzaini - Senior Research Adviser in data, tech and AI at the CIPD - stated that ‘intrusive workplace surveillance can damage trust, have a negative impact on morale, and can cause stress and anxiety.’  

She added:

“Noting the potential negative impacts of excessive monitoring, employers may get better results driving productivity through investing in line manager training and providing employees with the support they need to perform their best.”

Rachael Knappier - Director of Service at Croner - pointed out that failure to advise employees of any surveillance systems may be a breach of data protection regulations.

She added:

“Similarly, if employees don’t know they are being monitored, any information or evidence gathered through surveillance processes may not be able to be used when dealing with disciplinary or other issues.”

She also stated that it could negatively impact on employee relations and lead to individuals feeling like the implied term of trust and confidence has been breached by their employer, pointing out that:

“Such instances pose the risk of successful constructive dismissal claims being raised.”

Several businesses worldwide used monitoring during the pandemic, as office workers had to work from home - outside the view of managers. This raised concerns about staff well-being, with the World Health Organisation stating:

“…..refrain from excessive monitoring or surveillance of workers, including the inappropriate use of software that monitors computer usage or activates constant online video capabilities. Such measures reduce trust and may increase stress for teleworkers.”

In the case of Glenn Cowie v Vesuvius plc (a FTSE 250 firm) and others, Mr Cowie won his claim for age discrimination, victimisation, and unfair dismissal. The hearing took place before Employment Judge Adkin at the London Central Employment Tribunal.

Mr Cowie was sacked and replaced with a younger woman after his company, Vesuvius, implemented a new policy that encouraged managers not to hire people over the age of 45 years.

In 1981, whilst living in South Africa, Mr Cowie commenced employment in the business as a laboratory assistant.

In 2014, he was promoted to Global Business Unit President of Foseco International – one of the four divisions of Vesuvius plc. He was based in the United States. The Tribunal heard that at this time, it was noted by the renumeration committee that:

“Glenn is an experienced leader, has shown capacity to deliver positive results and is showing a strong dynamism in leading Foundry. He is a key asset for the Group. It is planned to award him a significant increase of 15 per cent.”

At this time, Mr Cowie’s salary was £300,000 per annum – but his package was said to be significantly higher.

In 2017, Mr Patrick Andre was appointed to the position of Chief Executive Officer to whom Mr Cowie then reported directly. Immediately prior to this Mr Cowie and Mr Andre had been peers and Mr Andre was just three years younger than Mr Cowie.

In late 2017, Mr Andre gave Mr Cowie the personal objective of dismissing Mr Chris Young, Global HR, VP Foundry. Mr Young was 58 years old at that time. Mr Young is a dual British and American citizen and had been covering a global role as well as VP HR for North America, for the Foundry business.

Mr Andre believed that Mr Young should be replaced by a higher calibre employee with a more international outlook – but this instruction caused Mr Cowie disquiet and he did not carry it out. The Tribunal were shown documents describing Mr Young as “an effective performer” and “very successful.”

Ultimately, a Mr Ryan Van der Aa carried out the instruction to dismiss Mr Young and took over the position - having been demoted from the position of Global HR for Vesuvius in London.

In 2018, Mr Andre insisted that Mr Cowie move to the UK.

Early in 2018, Mr Cowie attended a meeting of company executives - conducted by Mr Andre in Brazil. Mr Cowie told the Tribunal that Mr Andre addressed the meeting saying:

“These new millennials will never stop pushing until they have my job and you older guys have to get used to it.”

During the meeting, there was a discussion about HR matters when the resignation of a 30-year-old director - introduced by Mr Andre - had arisen. Mr Andre was upset about the resignation and according to Mr Cowie told him that he was “an old fogey who doesn't know how to manage millennials.” Mr Cowie stated that he remembered this comment as it was ‘out of the blue and inappropriate.”

The Tribunal heard that Mr Andre emailed Mr Cowie in May 2018, pushing for any new recruits to be a maximum age of 45 years old.

In September 2018 Mr Andre decided that Mr Cowie was not performing well enough in his role and that he had six months to improve. He acquainted the board with this but did not communicate it to Mr Cowie.

In October 2018 - the same month that Mr Cowie moved back to the UK - an executive search agency was employed to find a potential replacement for him. The Tribunal were told that Mr Andre decided to sack Mr Cowie in February 2019, but this decision was not discussed with Mr Cowie until August 2019. Mr Cowie was then told 'it's not working' and that his employment would be terminated.

Mr Cowie stated:

“Patrick has brazenly embarked on an unlawful campaign of getting rid of older employees and replacing them with under 45-year-old staff as per emails and direct instructions to recruiting companies not to employ staff over aged 45.

These blatant written instructions are on the record and show an institutional and deep prejudice against older employees. These comments are a direct smoking gun.”

Mr Cowie then instituted Tribunal proceedings.

Employment Judge Adkin said:

“The policy about recruiting under 45 years was something very close to a rule across whole levels of management, to which there were occasional exceptions.

This degree of focus explicitly on age so far aware from a more typical retirement age we find is unusual and potentially suggestive of a mindset where assumptions were made about people and their abilities because of their age.

We are not satisfied that 'performance' is the entire explanation for the decision to dismiss as it crystallised in Mr Andre's mind in February 2019.

We find that age was one of the factors which lead Mr Andre to the decision to dismiss.”

A remedy hearing has been listed in May 2022.

Andreas White - Employment Partner at Kingsley Napley LLP - remarked that the case should warn managers to be ‘very careful in their language’.

He said:

“It’s been over 15 years since age discrimination was outlawed in the UK, yet the sort of ageist attitudes and comments in the workplace that occurred here remain far too common… ageist discriminatory remarks, whether applied to older or younger members of the workplace, should be challenged. The fact that in this case, the ‘old fossil’ remark came from the CEO, only serves to illustrate the scale of the problem. Any such comments can be relied on in evidence to demonstrate the culture of an organisation, particularly when used by C-suite executives.” 

From October to December 2020, the number of employment tribunal cases rose sharply - following the trend of employment tribunal cases spiking in the light of COVID-19.  The pandemic has had a significant impact on the criminal justice system, leaving a major backlog and delay in tribunal hearings. Over the last year, multiple employment tribunal cases saw the largest increase - rising by 82 per cent or 29,000.  Single employment tribunal claims rose by 25 per cent to 13,200 in comparison to the same period the year before.

During this period, it was ‘working time’ claims which were the most common - surpassing ‘unfair dismissal’ which had been the most frequent type of complaint during October - December 2019.  The fact that tribunal cases had decreased in each jurisdiction apart from employment tribunals, was attributed to the rise in unemployment and changes to working conditions brought about by COVID-19.

For the first part of the pandemic, employment tribunal claims had been put on hold altogether, with the Ministry of Justice saying that there were 39,093 single claims and 5,915 multiple claims outstanding. 

In October, the Government announced that courts would have the ability to hold remote hearings as well as the judiciary having the option to use non-employment judges. 

However, a backlog remains - and it can take at least 12 months for a case to be heard.

The Ministry of Justice report anticipated that the number of employment tribunal cases will fall over the coming months due to the possible extension until the autumn of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme.

Chris Millward - Head of Claims at ARAG, a legal advice and protection provider - said:

“An increase in employment tribunal claims was expected, given the high level of redundancies we saw towards the end of 2020, but it’s clear from weekly management information released yesterday that the tribunal system does not have the capacity to cope.

The steps government proposed to address the backlog last year, increasing use of virtual hearings and trying to deploy underutilised and non-specialist judges, clearly haven’t worked. There is no doubt that stronger action is urgently needed to bring the backlog under control.

We warned that the backlog was approaching 50,000 cases, back in September, but it has continued to grow steadily, ever since. The end to the furlough scheme is likely to bring another spike in redundancies and yet more tribunal claims, so it is hard to see the situation improving anytime soon.

The situation is intolerable for businesses facing a claim and for those employees who may have been unfairly treated, as it is clear many will have to wait significant periods of time, potentially years, before getting any sort of resolution to their dispute.”

In November 2020, LinkedIn surveyed 150 learning and development professionals - at different UK organisations - for their 2021 Workplace Learning Report.

According to this report, UK employees are being encouraged to learn new skills to promote team-bonding during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Of the UK learning and development professional respondents, 75 per cent said that community-based learning is more important in their business today than it was before the pandemic; 84 per cent thought that it improves employee engagement and 94 per cent stated that teams that learn together are more successful.

Globally, 52 per cent of learning and development professionals were shown to be of the opinion that upskilling and reskilling were a top priority, followed by 51 per cent stating leadership and management and 33 per cent naming virtual onboarding.  Over half of the UK learning and development professionals agreed that in 2021 it has now changed from ‘nice to have’ to ‘need to have’.     

Employee development has become a higher priority in business since the pandemic outbreak, with 63 per cent of learning and development professionals saying that their CEO has become a keen advocate of workplace learning.

After communication gaps arose between teams - caused by remote working - the report stressed that 66 per cent of learning and development professionals agreed that learning and development is focused on rebuilding or reshaping organisations this year.

Speaking to HR magazine, Janine Chamberlin - Senior Director at LinkedIn - said:

“While many companies have slowed the pace of external recruitment due to the uncertainty of the pandemic, many are looking inwards to find talent for new roles. This presents excellent progression opportunities for employees that want to develop new skills and benefit from a new experience within their organisation.”

Ms Chamberlin went on to say that HR and the learning and development professionals are noticing the benefits of skills development in the area of employee engagement - especially as employees are still working remotely and may be feeling isolated and lonely.

She said:

“By encouraging teams to learn together, people feel more motivated and committed to investing their time in shared learning experiences and benefit from a ‘hive mind’.”

She added:

“Making skills development part of performance reviews, spotlighting stories of employees who have chartered their own path internally or done brilliant things with their skills outside of work, and celebrating those who embody a growth mindset, are also ways in which HR can promote the importance of skills development.”

Undervaluing the HR profession could cost employers talent, according to experts.

Analysis of new data has found that HR was the third-lowest performing sector for salary increases last year - even though the pandemic has increased awareness of good people management.

The new research - conducted by Reed and outlined in their Human Resources Salary Guide 2021 - has revealed that last year average salaries within the HR sector only grew by 1.9 per cent, which was lower than the UK average salary growth at 2.32 per cent.

Compared to other years, in 2020 Reed advertised HR jobs with a salary that documented a 1.9 per cent growth in their salaries, rising from £46,355 in 2019 to £47,220 in 2020.

Despite the crucial role that HR played during the crisis, salary growth was lower than the UK average - with the three largest salary increases being training managers with a 9.9 per cent increase; HR directors with a 7.2 per cent increase and health & safety managers with a 4.8 per cent increase. 

Bukola Odofin - Reed Human Resources Expert - said:

“HR professionals have faced multiple challenges over the past year. The rapid roll-out of remote working, the increased need for employers to consider employee wellbeing, redundancies, pay cuts and the government furlough scheme are only a few of the issues those in the sector have faced.  2021 will continue to be challenging, but with a vaccine rollout planned, and the job market remaining steady, things are looking up for the profession. The enforced move to remote working has meant that companies across the UK have had to adapt fast. This rapid futureproofing of the workforce has been problematic but has set businesses in good stead for the future. It also means it’s vital for businesses to attract HR talent to continue to manage workforce change and employee wellbeing.”

An additional poll of 124 professionals also found that 41 per cent stated that they had to do much more than their job role specified.

Charles Cotton - Senior Reward and Performance Adviser at the CIPD - said that HR people would be surprised by the findings. 

He stated:

“While awareness within business and society of the critical importance of good people management has increased as a result of the pandemic, this doesn’t appear to have translated into higher pay.”

Of the HR respondents to the poll, 45 per cent stated that they either knew or felt that they could improve their salary by changing jobs.  Bukola Odofin stated that this should be a concern to employers. 

She remarked:

“There is a real opportunity for employers looking to attract HR talent to manage workforce change and strengthen their businesses. It has never been more important that HR professionals, whether in or out of work, continue to hone their skills – setting them apart from the competition.”

She added:

“The enforced move to remote working has meant companies across the UK have had to adapt fast. This rapid future proofing of the workforce has been problematic but has set businesses in good stead for the future. It also means it’s vital for businesses to attract HR talent to continue to manage workforce change and employee wellbeing.”

According to new research by Glassdoor - who polled 2,000 workers - 56 per cent of UK workers believe that it should be made compulsory for staff to be vaccinated against COVID-19 before they return to work.

Despite 14 per cent of employees saying that they would resign if they were required to return before all workers had been vaccinated, experts warn against making vaccination compulsory.

To encourage staff to become inoculated against Covid-19, 39 per cent of workers believe that a financial incentive - such as a cash bonus - would prompt staff to accept the jab.  However, despite the suggestion of a cash incentive, 12 per cent of employees still stated that they were not willing to be vaccinated.

According to guidance by the CIPD, employers should make every effort to encourage staff to get vaccinated against the virus to reduce workplace risks.

Rachel Suff - Senior Employment Relations Adviser at the CIPD - stated that employers should be offering incentives such as flexible hours and/or paid time off work to allow employees to make vaccination appointments. 

However, she added:

“The government hasn't made the vaccine mandatory, so employers shouldn't either. Employers must also be careful not to stigmatise or discriminate against those who don't get the vaccine either because they can't or choose not to. It's also really important that organisations continue to follow all Covid-secure guidelines now and as they navigate any return to work in the future, closely following government advice.”

Tom Neil - Senior Adviser at Acas - suggested that business managers speak to employees about the benefits of vaccination, saying:

“Having open discussions with staff about the vaccine can help to reduce concerns they may have, thereby encouraging them to protect their health, while maintaining good working relationships.”

In other areas of the survey, 68 per cent of workers stated that social distancing and wearing masks should remain compulsory until everyone in the office has been vaccinated.

Carina Cortez - Chief People Officer at Glassdoor - said employers needed to be working on their office re-entry plan.

She added:

“It seems UK employees are unwilling to be rushed back into the office, so we recommend each employer takes into account employee feedback to determine what is best for their workforce, including a policy on whether vaccinations will be compulsory. This is an incredibly sensitive area but the bigger opportunity here is to define what office life will be like, both this year and in the long term.” 

Rachael Cage - Associate Solicitor for Bird & Bird - stated that businesses needed to be aware of the data protection implications of any vaccination policy, saying:

“Vaccine data may be treated as special category data for data privacy purposes, so employers also need to be conscious of this when storing information on staff vaccines. In the months ahead, HR teams will be pivotal in effectively consulting with the workforce, drafting practical and appropriate vaccination policies, and ensuring appropriate checks and balances are in place to enforce the company’s vaccination policy legally.”

A former BPP University law lecturer has been awarded £168,000 by an employment tribunal for constructive unfair dismissal. This consists of £71,200 for future financial losses, £32,000 for past financial losses and £20,000 for injury to feeling.

The London Central Tribunal heard that Elizabeth Aylott - who had worked for 10 years with BPP University Ltd - despite being diagnosed as suffering from autistic spectrum disorder, anxiety and depression, had failed to have her working hours and workload reduced. 

The tribunal heard that the university management had a ‘culture’ of staff working long hours and this, together with a shortage of staff meant Mrs Aylott was working 55-60 hours per week, despite a GP stating she was only fit to work 2-4 hours daily.

Her claim for constructive unfair dismissal was upheld by the tribunal, who pointed to a series of incidents that showed a ‘fundamental breach of trust and confidence’ -including the comment made by a colleague that she was ‘mad as a box of frogs but a good worker’, a comment which was then repeated back to Mrs Aylott by her line manager.

Mrs Aylott was also subject to remarks by senior members of staff, an HR Manager allegedly told her that “someone her age and experience should be able to prioritise and manage their workload”.

At one point, Mrs Aylott requested a referral to Occupational Health, but this did not happen, resulting in the tribunal judge classing that decision as unfavourable treatment.

After a lengthy period of sick leave and still unable to cope, Mrs Aylott left in April 2019.

The Employment Tribunal found that two of the claims made by Mrs Aylott had succeeded. Firstly, there had been a need for work adjustments, which meant her working only her contractual hours and for her to be able to refuse extra work, due to her disability.  In addition, the tribunal found that the HR Manager was fixed on terminating Mrs Aylotts’s employment by means of a settlement agreement - as opposed to offering an alternative.  

BPP University Ltd stated that would appeal the ruling.

It has been stated that some British businesses are contemplating making Covid vaccination a condition of employment.

As the government admitted that it was up to individual companies whether they wanted workers or customers to hold coronavirus vaccination passports, some are looking to draw up ‘no jab, no job’ contracts for their employees. This would be for both new and existing staff and would take place once the whole population has been vaccinated.

Nadhim Zahawi - Vaccines Minister - told the BBC:

“It’s up to businesses what they do, but we don’t yet have the evidence of the effect of vaccines on transmission.”

This is despite having previously warned that such use of domestic vaccine passports would be wrong and Prime Minister Boris Johnson having said that the government will not introduce domestic vaccine passports as this would raise many moral and legal issues.

James Davies - Partner at law firm Lewis Silkin - stated that any company seeking to amend workers’ current contracts would have to first gain consent. This, however, was not necessary for new hires, but some law firms said that several companies were also looking at requiring existing employees to have coronavirus jabs.  

Government ministers are uncomfortable about this as they suggest it could lead to discriminating against people who cannot, or will not, receive the vaccination.

One government official remarked:

“Companies must ensure their business practices are legal and don’t discriminate against customers or employees.”

Many employers are wary of any compulsory requirement for their staff to be vaccinated as this would mean handling medical data, leaving them open to legal challenges on discrimination grounds.

Peter Cheese - Chief Executive of the CIPD organisation for HR professionals - said:

“The UK government hasn’t made the vaccine compulsory, so neither can employers. Nor should they be restricting people coming into work based on whether they have had the vaccine.”

The CIPD also stated that members in sectors including care, dentistry and food manufacturing were asking for advice on how to handle situations where staff refused vaccinations.  A City of London lawyer, whilst saying that the introduction of clauses in employment contracts requiring workers to have vaccinations would be risky because of the possibility of discrimination, claimed they were more likely to be defensible if used in care sectors.

According to new research from Atlas Cloud, an IT services company, 49 per cent of office workers - equivalent to 7.42 million - would look for a new job with a different company if they are not allowed to work in their preferred locations after the lockdown finishes.

Recent ONS statistics show that 46.6 per cent of employees worked from home during 2020 and by June 2021 many of them will have done that for over a year, since the first lockdown commenced in March 2020.

Employer preferences show, however, that 8.7 million people - or 57 per cent - of current home workers are not expected to be able to work in the way they wish and based on the research results, it is predicted that approximately 4.65 million employees will soon be searching for a new job - as of the employees surveyed - only 11 per cent believed that they would be given an option.

It was found that two-thirds of workers wish to undertake hybrid working, a combination of home and office, but only 44 per cent envisage their employer sanctioning that.

Of office workers surveyed 48 per cent stated that they had exclusive access to workspace in their home - space that is dedicated to work only; 33 per cent share their space with at least one other person and 19 per cent have no dedicated workspace at all.

Regarding expenses, it was found that £215.55 has been spent on furniture and technology for home workstations and 63 per cent of home workers stated that their household bills had increased as a result of home working.  However, commuting costs of approximately £105.67 per month were saved, giving office workers an average saving of £1,268 per annum whilst working from home between March 2020 and February 2021.

After the pandemic, 7 per cent of employees want to be based in the office full-time, whilst 29 per cent want to work from home full-time, with 51 per cent saying they would consider using remote working hubs nearer to home, if made available by employers. 

Seventy-three per cent of employees reported that being given the opportunity to work from home was beneficial to their mental health, with the best aspects being given as time saved from commuting; safety whilst working from home and an improved life balance. Some, however, cited both isolation and distractions as the top challenges they had to meet.  

Pete Watson, CEO of Atlas Cloud, said:

“The pandemic has expedited the biggest change in working patterns that the world has ever seen. Throughout the past year, we have invested in multiple pieces of research to truly understand the opportunities and challenges businesses are experiencing at this historical turning point. The most striking and consistent finding throughout each lockdown has been that employees do not want to go back to the traditional full-time office arrangement – but they don’t want to lose offices as a working environment and place to meet with colleagues, either. Instead, the findings point again to the future of hybrid working – a blend of office, remote, and home working.  With the health crisis ongoing, it is impossible for any business to truly implement hybrid working, because a key factor is giving employees the choice to work from where is most convenient, comfortable, and productive for them, and right now we are all under Government guidance to work from home where possible. This unfortunately makes it more difficult to overcome the difficulties faced by those working at home – isolation, for example, was highlighted as a key issue in this study.  However, companies should now be building agility and flexibility into their workplace policies, to avoid being left behind when hybrid working becomes the norm. These findings clearly show that any business refusing to take employee preferences into account are at risk of losing staff and will likely struggle to attract the best talent to replace them.  Businesses must consider how much they value strict traditional working patterns over the benefits of a hybrid working model, which can boost efficiency, productivity, recruitment and retention, and importantly, staff wellbeing.  Coronavirus has been a challenging time for many and has put into perspective for us just how crucial wellbeing is for a thriving society. Now more than ever, we need to seize this opportunity to embrace hybrid working and create a better work-life balance for millions of people.”

Mercer - an American human resources consulting firm - state that despite business organizations’ progress and good intentions, gender equality in the workforce is still a long way off.

A recent survey released at the beginning of March - Mercer’s ‘When Women Thrive 2020 Global Report’ - shows that 81 per cent of companies worldwide said that diversity and inclusion is important, but only 42 per cent have actually made a plan for reaching gender equality. 

Mercer surveyed senior HR and business leaders from more than 1,150 companies in 54 countries. This represented over 7 million employees worldwide and took in issues that included gender equity; accountability; leadership engagement and pay equity.

It found an improvement in that the rates for hiring, promoting and retaining women are now comparable to rates for men. The global workforce - up slightly from 38 per cent - includes 40 per cent of women, who make up 47 per cent of support staff and 42 per cent of professional level positions; senior staff and executives make up 29 per cent and 23 per cent respectively.

Martine Ferland - President and Chief Executive Officer of Mercer - stated:

“Gender equality has evolved into a global imperative, and organizations are taking actions to make a difference. However, as women continue to face challenges of unequal senior level representation and limited opportunities for career development and advancement across industries and geographies, there is still much work to do to achieve gender balance.”

But there is optimism showing progress as - according to Mercer’s research - rates for hiring, promoting and retaining women are now comparable to rates for men. This is an improvement from four years ago.

The research found that 72 per cent of organizations have teams dedicated to conducting pay equity analysis - a rise up from a previous 45 per cent. A robust statistical approach to conduct their pay equity analysis was used by 56 per cent, a rise up from 35 per cent. Mercer’s research also showed that 66 per cent of organizations report that senior executives are actively engaged in diversity and inclusion initiatives and programs - which is again a rise up, from 57 per cent in 2016.

Michelle Sequeira - Diversity and Inclusion expert at Mercer - stated:

“For the first time since the launch of our ‘When Women Thrive’ study, six years ago, we’re starting to see significant progress around female representation in business. However, unless the pace of change accelerates it will take us over 30 years to achieve full gender representation in the workplace. To enact real change businesses need to focus on inclusion as a whole and turn commitments to sustainable action. This includes prioritizing initiatives that build an end-to-end employee experience which is adaptable for all, fostering a culture of caring for diverse health and financial needs, and underpinning with policies and practices that embrace flexibility and a personalized work environment.”

Between 13 and 17 March 2020, employee engagement survey experts, Impulse, reported that 61 per cent of employees feel anxious, distracted or stressed as a result of the disruption that the coronavirus pandemic has caused. 

The main reason for their stress, according to the research, was job security.

Of the negative and positive emotions that employees could choose from, only 7 per cent selected ‘focused’ and 14 per cent ‘committed’ as top emotions.  In previous surveys undertaken by Impulse ‘committed’ had represented 21 per cent of all emotions, thus showing up a 7 per cent decrease since the coronavirus pandemic. 

Furthermore, previously ‘anxious’ and ‘stressed’ both represented 5 per cent and ‘distracted’ less than 1 per cent – but these emotions have become dominant with ‘anxious’ being 28 per cent, ‘distracted’ 22 per cent and ‘stressed’ 11 per cent.

The employees surveyed said that coronavirus has had an impact on company priorities - with 51 per cent saying it’s had a major impact; 32 per cent saying a minor impact and 9 per cent not knowing what the impact was.  In addition, 74 per cent of respondents said that events had been cancelled; 67 per cent had face-to-face meetings reduced and 56 per cent had been required to work from home.

Matt Stephens - CEO of Inpulse - said:

“We have never seen these levels of anxiety and stress in ‘normal’ times. It is unprecedented and shows the impact COVID-19 has had on employees’ wellbeing. We typically see high levels of commitment and enthusiasm around employee jobs and their organisations. Sadly, people are now consumed by the uncertainty surrounding the pandemic – and it’s massively impacting their work. This is a catastrophic shift in the emotional landscape of the workplace and it’s only happened in a matter of days. Through the survey, they’ve told us they are anxious about job security. One said, enlighteningly, that they are stressed about having to choose between being committed to their work or being safe. On top of this some are consumed by their concerns, media updates and Government announcements. Others are concerned by poor communications from their employer. It’s now possible for employers to pulse check employees’ emotional wellbeing so they track, measure and help any that are feeling emotional distress through these difficult days. Now is the time for businesses to act and show that they care, which they seem to be doing – we’ve been inundated by requests to understand this.” 

Leaders have suddenly had to manage remote teams of staff as a result of the pandemic and in addition, they are anxious and overwhelmed themselves whilst being expected to motivate workers who are feeling exactly the same.

Experts from around Europe share their thoughts. 

Katleen De Stobbeleir - professor of leadership at Vlerick Business School in Belgium - said:

“My top tip for leaders today would be to learn from how nurses and doctors deal with emergency situations, with unpredictable outcomes, and especially how they alleviate fear and anxiety.  Fear and anxiety can drive people to become self-focused, paralysing them so that they are prevented from continuing to work productively.”

She added:

“It’s not necessarily about being a reassuring voice or about asking questions that probe into the feelings of followers, since this may actually feed the anxiety. It’s about giving clear directions and next steps so that people have focus and something to hold on to.” 

Tessa Melkonian - professor of organisational behaviour and management at Emlyon Business School in France - stated:

“Being an example has always been a major feature of leadership, but now, in a period of utmost uncertainty, people need – more than ever – to find an example in their managers and leaders.” 

She went on to say that being an example in this crisis means being able to adopt new work behaviours and boost morale amid the turmoil – adding:

“When they do this, managers and leaders not only offer a direction for their team members to follow, they also increase their change self-efficacy – their perceived ability to adopt new behaviors and to maintain them over time. When they see their leader adopting new behaviours, they may conclude that it may be in their best interests to act likewise.”

ThriveMap - pre-hire assessment specialists - recently researched the amount of time hiring managers are taking to decide about job candidates.

The average length of a job interview was found to last 45 minutes and 25 per cent of those questioned admitted that they take just five minutes or less to decide on whether the candidate sat in front of them is suitable for the job. These figures show that around 90 per cent - or even more of that time - may be wasted.

A further 36 per cent of respondents said that they know within 6 to 10 minutes of the start of the interview whether someone is right for the role, with only 9 per cent saying that it took them longer than 30 minutes to make up their minds.

Only 2 per cent of those doing the hiring state that they do not come to a decision during the interview - meaning that only a very small percentage take into consideration everything that a candidate has to say before making up their mind.  It would appear that gut feeling is having a huge part to play in recruitment - with many hiring managers making snap judgements. 

Chris Platts - CEO of ThriveMap - said:

“This research indicates that hiring managers let unconscious bias play a major role in the recruitment process. If almost two thirds of managers are making up their mind in under 10 minutes what’s the point in having a structured and thorough interview process?  Organisations need to put measures in place such as interview training and technology to help managers make more rational choices. Pre-hire assessments that provide objective candidate comparisons can help managers to delay their intuition and hire based on suitability, not unconscious likeability or similarity. Not only is this fairer for candidates, it’s proven to lead to better hiring outcomes.”

A further new study published in the Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology questioned 166 interviewers - before and after they interviewed 691 students at a career fair. They queried how long it took the interviewer to come to a conclusion about hiring the candidates and found that more experienced interviewers made their decisions faster than people who were newer to hiring.

The researchers established that roughly 5 per cent of decisions were made within the first minute of the interview and under 30 per cent within five minutes. The majority - 52 per cent of the interviewers - made their hiring decision between five and fifteen minutes of the interview - and it was found that the candidates who engaged the interviewer in conversation unrelated to the structured interview, were given greater consideration than those who did not - with the report stating:

“Thus, when preparing for interviews, applicants should practice responses to common ‘conversation starters’ that often emerge during rapport building.”

It was stated that after the fourth candidate, the amount of information the interviewers are trying to sort becomes overwhelming and they revert to making snap decisions based on gut feeling - causing the researchers to warn:

“Applicants interviewing later in the schedule might not get as much opportunity to perform as those earlier in the schedule.”

It would appear that if an interview lasts for less than 30 minutes it was probably not that successful, as if the employer has made the snap decision not to hire they do not need to spend much time getting to know the applicant.

New research suggests that the number of young workers leaving London is increasing – partly because they feel that they have no opportunity to purchase a home in the capital.

The survey of 2,000 Londoners together with analysis of data obtained by the Office for National Statistics, was undertaken by job board Totaljobs with Geraint Johnes – Professor of Economics at Lancaster University. 

It was found that 54% - more than one million professionals - have left London since 2014, with only 900,000 coming in.  The biggest shortfall relates to workers aged between 25 and 34 years and amounts to a net loss of 88 workers every day.  In the last five years there has been a 49% increase in those in their 30s leaving the capital, with 30% citing the city’s high living costs as a factor.  More than a third of those aged 25-34 years surveyed by Totaljobs stated that they are now intending to leave the capital earlier than they initially planned.

Whilst one in five millennials are leaving in order to get their foot on the property ladder, one in four are leaving to start a family; 14% are looking for better schools; 12% wish to spend more time with their children; 23% want a slower pace of life and 16% are concerned about the crime rate in London.

Geraint Johnes said:

“This analysis has revealed a large increase in net migration out of London among those in their 30s and suggests that this trend is likely to accelerate into the future with 41% of 25-34 year olds looking to move out of the capital in the next six years. Reducing the cost of living is a major factor, while being able to afford to buy property and raise a family are major considerations in prompting a move.  Unless a slowing housing market puts a brake on this trend, it’s likely to have important consequences for business. As young people add years of work experience to the stock of skills with which they came into the labour market, they become increasingly productive and climb the ladder, but as they leave, London businesses may find it harder to retain experienced staff and recruit into the more senior managerial roles.”

The Office for National Statistics data reveals a steep rise in the number of workers moving to Birmingham - at the top of the list - followed by Bristol and Manchester. 

Many millennials say they want to be closer to their family and friends by returning to their hometown, whilst 29% state that job opportunities will be the deciding factor in where they end up.

Of the workers aged 25-34 years, 53% have already begun looking for jobs out of London and 42% of all Londoner’s think they will relocate within the decade - which would impact heavily on employers.    

Jon Wilson - CEO at Totaljobs - said:

“Our research shows the challenge London’s employers face in holding onto some of their staff, and with widely reported skills shortages, it’s vital that they do so. While some factors may be out of their control, businesses focused on retaining talent can consider how they can encourage movers to settle within a commutable distance – be it through offering season ticket loans, more flexible working hours or the opportunity to work remotely.”

FTSE 350 pension deficits have increased again as global stock markets fall and trustees have been urged to plan early and to be alert, as the outbreak of coronavirus is expected to impact UK economy.

According to Mercer’s Pensions Risk Survey, the accounting deficit of defined benefit pension schemes for UK’s 350 largest listed companies increased from £57bn at the end of January 2020 to £68bn at the end of February.

The liability values fell to £914bn compared to £916bn at the end of January – a difference of £2bn.

Asset values were £859bn at the end of January – but have fallen by £13bn – and are now £846bn.  The deficit was as high as £80bn as liability values have fluctuated over the month.

Mercer’s Pensions Risk Survey data relates to about 50% of all UK pension scheme liabilities and analyses pension deficits calculated using the approach companies have to adopt for their corporate accounts.

Charles Cowling - Partner at Mercer - said:

“Funding positions have declined this month as the impact of the coronavirus has sent shock waves through global markets. The outbreak is causing major disruption to international trade and supply chains, particularly in China, with the impact quickly spreading across Europe. The UK economy is expected to be hit imminently – giving the Chancellor of the Exchequer a tough first Budget in a few weeks.  The outbreak will also have an unwelcome impact on interest rates. The outgoing governor of the Bank of England said last week that a slowdown in our economy caused by coronavirus must raise the likelihood of a cut in interest rates. Some industries are already being hit hard by coronavirus and for many companies it is going to have a significant impact on financial results. Trustees must be alert to the impact that coronavirus is having on the strength of many sponsoring employers.”   

He added:

“To add to these challenging conditions the Continuous Mortality Investigation has announced that last year saw the highest reduction in mortality rates since 2011. It is too early to tell whether this is a blip or a new trend, and how it might be affected by coronavirus, but it is likely to put pressure on pension liabilities. With asset values falling and pension liabilities increasing, 2020 may be a difficult year for actuarial valuations and trustees would be well advised to start their planning early.”

A new report published by the leading skills organisation, City & Guilds Group, shows the worrying reality of the UK’s skills and productivity crisis.

The research - which was based on findings from labour market economists, Emsi and a poll of 500 working age people - shows that 34 per cent of employees have either never received training, or did so more than five years ago.  Only a half of employees were found to have received any workplace training in the last three years.  Also, 60 per cent of respondents felt that their employers were not fully capitalising on the skills that they had - with those skills being under utilised for at least 50 per cent of the time.

City & Guilds Group’s research found that:

• 44 per cent from lower socio-economic groups were much less likely to have received training in the last five years – against 68 per cent from higher socio-economic groups.
• 22 per cent from lower socio-economic groups were less satisfied with their career prospects – against 39 per cent of those from higher socio-economic groups.
• Respondents from the north of England were found to be disadvantaged with regard to training and opportunities for progression. Only 21 per cent of people in the north east of England felt positive about the jobs market – compared to 45 per cent in London.
• Significantly more women than men were working part-time with 61 per cent of the part-timers less likely to have received training in the last five years - compared to 72 per cent of those working full-time. In addition, 22 per cent of the part-time workers were far less likely to believe there was opportunity to progress – compared with 36 per cent of full-time workers.
• 77 per cent of those who had received workplace training highly valued it, stating that it had enabled them to be more effective at their job.

Kirstie Donnelly - Interim CEO at City & Guilds Group - commented:

“Today we are fortunate that unemployment sits at its lowest level since 1975, but this masks the fact that many people in the country are in fact under-employed and could contribute far more to society if given the opportunity. By unlocking more people’s full potential, we can both increase opportunities for social mobility and help to drive up productivity. Over the last decade, we have witnessed continued cuts to adult education funding, which has meant that certain groups of people have effectively been ‘left behind’. As the impact of Artificial Intelligence and the fourth industrial revolution continues to totally reshape the labour market, we need to see urgent action from the Government to reverse the decline of the lifelong learning sector – ensuring people in all areas have access to critical skills development and employers have access to the talent they so desperately need.” 

She added:

“From better provision of training and education across regions of the UK to better access to childcare giving more part-time workers the chance to up-skill, we need to see immediate action from government and policy makers. We are already lagging behind the other G7 countries when it comes to productivity so it’s critical that we address this challenge head on if we are to retain our status as a leading global economy post Brexit. Harnessing the full potential of the people that are already in work – and are yearning to learn – would be a significant step in the right direction.”

As a result of the findings in the report, City & Guilds Group is calling for government and policy makers, employers and individuals to take action - with employers investing in skills development for people of all ages and at all levels of their career - and to get better at recognising and utilising people’s skills. Employees should also be looking for more opportunities to gain skills outside the workplace and put themselves forward for training at work. Government and policy makers are urged to review adult education and create a system that encourages lifelong learning, retraining and re-skilling, in addition to providing better careers guidance and advice to people at all stages of their career.

Andy Durman - Managing Director Emsi UK - stated:

“This report emphasises two crucial factors to enable us to tap into the nation’s skills potential and make progress on closing the skills gap and boosting productivity. Firstly, because there are big differences in labour markets across the country, solutions must be locally relevant and based on a good understanding of employment needs at the local level. Secondly, because people are changing careers more rapidly than ever, and careers themselves are changing due to factors such as automation, we need to see education providers, economic developers and employers all coming together to promote the concept of lifelong learning, where people can add to their core skills throughout their working lives.”

Anthony Impey MBE - Serial entrepreneur & Chair of the Skills Policy Unit, Federation of Small Businesses - stated:

“As this research highlights, in society many people’s skills are under-utilised. There are no quick fixes but there are things that employers can do such as looking in new places to find talent, as seemingly different jobs require many of the same skills, as well as embedding flexible working practices and make training available to people at all ages and stages of their careers.”

After surveying 20,000 employees and leaders across the world - including almost 2,000 from the UK - the O.C. Tanner Institute’s 2020 Global Culture Report found that a mere 42 per cent of UK employees rate their overall employee experience positively - with  92 per cent of employees describing their employee experience as their ‘everyday experience’.

When employees think of their employee experience they are thinking of their personal experiences which include appreciation received - or not received; how they are treated by their leaders; how easy or difficult it is to get resources, answers and information - and not the once-or-twice-a year HR initiative.  The report showed that the majority of UK workers feel unappreciated. 

Robert Ordever - Managing Director of workplace culture specialist, O.C Tanner Europe, stated:

“The majority of UK employees are feeling unappreciated and neglected. Clearly not enough is being done to create workplace cultures that put the health and happiness of employees first.

In fact, just over half of UK employees - 53 per cent - believe the employee experience is taken seriously at their organisations, leaving 47 per cent who feel their organisations regard it as an afterthought.  It seems that customers are taking precedent over employees in nearly half of UK organisations, with 48 per cent admitting that their organisations are sacrificing the employee experience to please the customer.”

He added:

“Many companies are still viewing employees as a means of production and profit but this must change.  With 92 per cent of employees describing their employee experience as their everyday experience, leaders need to prioritise by building a vibrant workplace culture with frequent and impactful employee ‘micro experiences’ rather than big gestures of appreciation a few times a year.”

When employees are not in a thriving culture only 43 per cent say they found satisfaction and - despite company efforts - only 66 per cent of employees feel the employee experience matters at their organisation.   However, in a thriving culture, 87 per cent report finding satisfaction.

A family court judge has criticised a consultant paediatrician in an open judgment after becoming deeply concerned about her behaviour as an expert witness in a child care case.

The family court judge - after discussing the circumstances with the president of the family division and the family division liaison judge for that region - decided, unusually, to publish his concerns.

The expert witness was instructed to prepare reports for two brothers, X aged 10 years and Y aged 17 years, suffering from hereditary hypomyelination syndrome causing severe dysplastic diplegia and requiring full time, lifelong care. However the paediatrician, who is held in high esteem and has regularly been instructed as a medical expert witness in cases proceeding in the Family Court, did not deliver the reports.

Six months after the paediatrician was instructed to prepare a report on the younger brother and four months after she was asked to prepare a report on the older brother, the reports had not been written. Neither had she had she seen X or Y and it very much appeared that the consultant had spent little, if any, time reading the medical records that have been made available to her.

The parties involved came to the conclusion that in terms of both time and cost it would be appropriate for an alternative expert to be instructed.

The judgment stated:

‘........The Family Court is heavily dependent upon medical experts from a wide range of specialties to assist it in dealing with some of the cases that come before the court. Experts are required to assist the court in determining threshold issues – for example, in determining whether a child’s injuries have been sustained accidentally or whether they are inflicted injuries, in identifying the likely mechanism by which injuries were caused, in identifying the likely window of time within which the injuries were sustained. Experts are also required to assist the court in making welfare decision – for example, as to whether the child is suffering from any mental or psychological difficulties and as to her treatment or therapeutic needs. The Family Court simply could not operate without the assistance of medical expert witnesses.

However, it is also the case that although the Family Court needs the assistance of medical experts it also owes a duty to the child concerned to determine the proceedings without delay. That is a statutory obligation clearly set out in s.32 of the Children Act 1989. As Paediatricians as expert witnesses in the Family Courts in England and Wales: Standards, competencies and expectations’ makes clear, it is also an obligation that is placed on medical expert witnesses.

There will always be occasions when, despite an expert having genuinely believed that he or she could complete a report by the date set by the court, circumstances change and that is no longer possible. Where that happens, the expert should let his or her instructing solicitor know promptly, giving reasons for the delay and indicating the new date by which the report can be completed. An application should be made to the court for the timetable to be varied. Where there are justifiable reasons for adjusting the timetable it is unlikely that the court would refuse. What is not acceptable is what has happened in this case where the expert has given a succession of dates by which her reports would be delivered but, as is patently obvious, with no genuine or realistic expectation that any of the dates suggested could, in fact, be met. Courts and experts must work together in a co-operative co-ordinated way. That simply has not happened in this case.’

His Honour said a draft of the judgment was provided to the expert witness before the hearing and she was invited to attend and make representations before the judgment was handed down.

He said:

“She handed in a letter explaining the personal difficulties she has faced in recent months. The explanation she gave was much the same as the explanation she has previously given to the parties' solicitors. She was profusely apologetic for her failings in this case. She indicated that she has decided not to accept any further instructions in cases in the family court.”

His Honour went on to say that he was deeply concerned about the way the expert witness had behaved in this case and added:

“It does not meet the standards expected of an expert witness or the expectations of the court in this particular case. It cannot be allowed to pass without comment. That comment should be placed in the public domain”.

A recent research of 1246 employees in the UK and commissioned by ABBYY - a global provider of content IQ solutions - has found that only 35 per cent of workers use mobiles for administrative tasks, despite 43 per cent wishing to use them for this purpose.

Most workers - 91 per cent - still prefer to use a laptop or desktop and 28 percent still want to use pen and paper for admin tasks, as 46 percent of employees admit to finding that simpler to use. Desktop is still the most popular in the UK workplace, regardless of today’s remote working climate. Almost half of workers - 48 percent - use a desktop or laptop because it is easier and 41 percent because it is quicker.

In particular, millennials are eager to use mobiles for admin with 55 per cent wishing to, but only 43 per cent actually doing so. Older generation - GenX - was also found to be open to using mobiles for admin as 41 per cent would like to do so, but only 35 per cent were using them currently.

The survey demonstrated that some employees were finding the latest technologies, such as mobile, too difficult to use and showed that - while many believe we live and work in a smarter, digital-first era - technology still is not being used to its full potential.

Automation is lagging behind. Previous ABBYY research showed that in an average week, 39 per cent of workers spend 1-2 days a week on maintaining databases and 18 percent of millennials spend 2 days inputting data. Two thirds - 63 percent - of UK workers want to delegate these tasks to robots and without this option, 15 per cent try to avoid doing tasks they dislike. This results in some tasks being completely overlooked.

Bruce Orcutt - Senior Vice President of Product at ABBYY - stated:

“It’s very surprising to see that mobile and automation still aren’t being used to their full advantage, especially when we have these capabilities at our fingertips. Businesses and software developers must continue to work to make mobile interfaces more user friendly, and boost their convenience, ease and speed. However, the onus is also on businesses to harness mobile solutions and evolve the way their staff work.”

He added:

“As we prepare for the workforce of the future, based on a culture of convenience driven by mobile, organisations must champion smarter working practices, and educate staff on how to make the most of these platforms to drive productivity – and improve employee experience in the process.”

Bruce Orcutt continued:

“Working with companies offering specialist mobile platforms centred around user technology is crucial. This will enable workers, young and old, to harness technology to make their everyday administrative tasks easier, simpler and more convenient.........”       

With the employment rate in the US still being high - and the increase in the number of those looking for employment - it would appear on the surface that employers seeking quality staff would find it easy, but 82 per cent of HR professionals stated that they have had difficulty recruiting suitable job candidates in the last 12 months. According to a poll of 500 senior executives, there is a severe skills gap in the American workforce. The poll includes which skills employers feel are most lacking.

Of the business leaders polled, 92 per cent are of the opinion that Americans are lacking essential skills and 44 per cent think that they are lacking in soft skills – which include communication, creativity, critical thinking and collaboration. Thus, whilst candidates may look good on paper, they do not know how to work effectively within a team or in an office environment.

Other areas senior executives thought workers to be lacking in skills were: 22 per cent technical; 14 per cent leadership and 12 per cent software.

When asked which industries are most affected by the skills gap, 30 per cent of the respondents stated manufacturing; 21 per cent technology; 19 per cent professional services and 16 per cent engineering and construction. Finance and the Leisure Industry were each showing 2 per cent.

Of the business leaders polled, 64 per cent stated that they thought the lack of skills would result in less investment in US companies; 34 per cent thought product development would suffer; 45 per cent thought growth opportunities would be missed and 30 per cent were of the opinion that profits would suffer.

Executives were asked if they thought the education system was to blame and 59 per cent stated that they did – with 54 per cent stating that they did not think the education system taught the skills needed. Lack of interest in the job sector was cited by 23 per cent of the respondents and 22 per cent stated they thought there was a lack of training and enrichment opportunities.

On being asked what executives believed would alleviate the skills gap, 89 per cent stated corporate apprenticeships or training programs. However, when questioned as to why all companies were not implementing training programs, 10 per cent of executives cited lack of personnel to administer them; 18 per cent said lack of interest by employees; 30 per cent do not think the executive team believe it is a priority and 42 per cent think it is because of the cost of development.

The skills gap issue brings an opportunity for HR professionals to better understand the skill needs of their organizations.  

Economist Olwen Renowden has been awarded £19,000 at an employment tribunal in Cardiff. The tribunal found that Mrs Renowden - an experienced economist employed by the office of National Statistics (ONS) - had been denied promotion because of her gender.

Mrs Renowden was employed by the ONS in 2016. On commencing her appointment she noticed that there were no female economists employed at the Grade 6 level - despite there being 114 men economists in total.

Prior to her joining ONS, Mrs Renowden had worked in London for - amongst others - the Bank of England and the International Monetary Fund, in addition to holding several senior Whitehall posts. She had a total of more than 20 years experience, had previously worked at Grade 6 level and had experience in macro-economics.

In February 2017, the ONS advertised two Grade 6 posts and Mrs Renowden, together with another female economist - who also had held senior posts and with 20 years experience - applied.  

In April 2017, Mrs Renowden was told that she had failed to get an interview for either post. She queried this with management requesting an explanation but none was forthcoming. It was suggested that she contact HR.

It was announced the following month that the successful candidates were both male. They were young and inexperienced; neither had been employed at Grade 6 level previously and neither had experience in macro-economics. In addition, they each had less than six years professional experience. A third post - created later - was also given to a man.

Mrs Renowden raised a grievance and was represented by the Prospect Union National Secretary. Her grievance and subsequent appeal were not upheld and she resigned from the ONS in August 2018. She then applied for her case to be heard by the employment tribunal - which took place in Cardiff in January 2019.

The tribunal found that “favouritism” existed towards male staff and that had not been addressed by those who should have addressed it, stating that “the approach to gender balance…pointed towards a culture where discrimination and in particular, sex discrimination, is not properly understood by those who are required to ensure its elimination”.

It added that it was “reasonable to infer that the culture of the respondent is one where advantage and favouritism to males is not recognised as potentially discriminatory”.  

Sue Ferns - Prospect Senior Deputy General Secretary - commented:

“This case reveals a shocking lack of diversity among economists at ONS and what seems like the deliberate overlooking of female candidates in favour of men. It’s 2019 but it seems we still have a long way to go to overcome stereotypes in the workplace”.

She added:

“The finding of the tribunal puts employers on notice that unequal employment practices will not be tolerated. It also sends a message to anyone who has suffered at the hands of their employer that they can expect redress, and that unions are standing by to help their members achieve justice.”

A spokesperson for the ONS said:

“The ONS values the contributions of all its people and is continually working to support everyone in progressing their careers. We are considering the ruling in this case very carefully.”

Statistics released by the Ministry of Justice show that Employment Tribunal claims have more than doubled after the scrapping of Tribunal fees and – according to the figures – there is a big increase in the number of employees bringing claims themselves without legal representation. This often makes defending claims more onerous for employers, who will be expected to take on more of the case preparation work by the Tribunal.

Since the Supreme Court ruling abolished all fees for bringing Tribunal claims, the number of claims increased by 165% compared to the same period in 2017. In answer to this, a new helpline has been launched by UNU Group.   This is a free legal helpline – founded by a group of industry experts. It is designed to offer support and impartial advice on employment law queries and has access to a network of partner legal firms who will assist with the cases, if necessary.  

Nigel Allen - UNU Group Director – stated:

“We know it can seem daunting to open an employment tribunal claim, especially if it’s against a larger company and many people simple don’t know where to start so sadly they are left suffering in silence.

Abolishing fees was a huge step in making the process fairer for everyone and we wanted to mirror that by offering out services without any cost implication. Hopefully, we can offer anyone who has a claim the confidence to seek compensation.”

It has been rumoured that the government may be working towards the re-introduction of tribunal fees. However, many in the legal sector disagree strongly with this.

Chairman of the Bar Council - Andrew Walker QC - stated:

“People in need of justice have enough hurdles to overcome already.”

He added:

“Justice is not a service bought by individuals for their private benefit, nor should it be treated in this way.”

With the average price of replacing a colleague at more than £30,000, employee turnover represents a significant cost to UK businesses.

A new study - commissioned by BUPA UK - which looked at trust in the workplace and its impact on employee wellbeing, shows that 53% of employees considered it to be a major factor in whether they resigned or stayed in their present employment.  The Bupa research also found that 24% of UK employees have left their company due to issues around trust.  

Commercial Director for BUPA UK Insurance, Mark Allan, stated:

“Retaining talented people and boosting productivity is a key focus for many employers. As we spend the majority of our time in the workplace, it’s important we work in an environment with a good business culture. Our latest findings pay homage to this – suggesting that good relationships are more likely to boost engagement and influence whether someone stays at a company.

Within many businesses across the UK, wellbeing is now a boardroom priority and it’s clear that trust is key to building a healthy business culture – increasing motivation, engagement and colleague retention as well as employees’ wellbeing. This latest research highlights the importance of creating a workplace culture that allows people to thrive and also that businesses are recognising the importance of promoting a trustful workplace.”

The study confirms that a reliable work environment increases retention, productivity and employee wellbeing - whilst also promoting a better business culture. It highlights how important trust is and the contribution it makes to the wellbeing of employees and the overall performance of a company - despite the fact that it is not a physical benefit such as salary, bonus or other perk.

The ability to depend on others benefits the business and also impacts in a positive manner on the wellbeing of employees as - in the study - 23% of UK employees said they would feel more motivated if trust was placed in them, while 22% said it would help them to feel happier and 18% said it would make them more productive.

Bupa’s research also reveals that business leaders and managers can promote trust through praising employees when they’ve completed a job; letting them get on with tasks independently; taking interest in their health and wellbeing and providing staff with opportunities to progress in their career.

On March 5th 2018, in the Supreme Court of California, the case of Hector Alvarado v Dart Container Corporation of California was decided – by the reversal of the previous judgment of the Court of Appeal.

The case was decided on how an employee's overtime pay rate should be calculated when the employee had earned a flat sum bonus during a single pay period.   Specifically, it was considered as to whether the manner of calculating the per-hour value of the bonus should be:

• the number of hours the employee actually worked during the pay period, including overtime hours
• the number of non-overtime hours the employee worked during the pay period
• the number of non-overtime hours that exist in the pay period, regardless of the number of hours the employee actually worked.

The conclusion was the second of these options.

Hector Alvarado worked for Dart as a warehouse associate in California. He was, together with other nonexempt warehouse associates, paid on an hourly basis and received a flat-sum attendance bonus of $15 if he completed a full shift on a Saturday or Sunday.

Hector Alvarado brought a lawsuit against Dart alleging that it failed to properly calculate and pay overtime wages to him and to similarly placed employees.

He claimed that Dart calculated an employee's overtime compensation by dividing the amount of the bonus by the sum of all the hours the employee worked - as opposed to dividing the amount of the bonus by the non-overtime hours worked.

Dart had maintained that they used this long-accepted methodology set forth in the federal regulations - Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). These regulations provide that the "regular rate of pay" for calculating overtime must be determined by dividing the sum of all remuneration by the total hours worked, including any overtime hours.

However, Hector Alvarado contended that Dart should have followed the method set out in the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement's "Enforcement Policy and Interpretations Manual" (DLSE manual).  This states that the rate should be arrived at by dividing the bonus amount by only the non-overtime hours worked. For a full-time employee, this would be a maximum of 40 hours a week. 

The trial court had agreed with Dart and – at a later hearing – the Appeal Court affirmed the ruling, stating that there was no valid California law or regulation explaining how to factor a flat-sum bonus into an employee's regular rate for purposes of computing and paying overtime wages. The trial court noted that the DLSE manual is not binding and in the absence of any binding California law or regulation, they concluded that Dart was permitted to follow the relevant FLSA regulation.

The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts' finding that the DLSE manual was not binding authority but, however, they believed that the DLSE's interpretation of that controlling state law may be influential. They also observed that it was bound to favor an interpretation implying that the principles of California law discourages employers from imposing overtime work - by making overtime as costly as possible - and that California's labor laws should be liberally construed in favor of workers.  It also rejected pleas by Dart that it would be unfair to impose this new rule retrospectively.

As a result - to conform to Californian payroll practices - special attention is necessary by employers.

As National Apprenticeship Week 2018 ends, many examples of the great contribution that apprentices are bringing to organisations - and the way good apprenticeship programmes can develop skills and careers have been seen.

In the Chancellor’s spring statement he has promised to make money available for smaller employers to take on apprentices, which has been welcomed by experts.   

Philip Hammond said the Education Secretary would release up to £80m to support small businesses to employ an apprentice.  He added that the current system was challenging for these firms.

Geraint Johnes, professor of economics at Lancaster University Management School and research director at The Work Foundation said:

“Small enterprises with fewer than 50 people employ some 48 per cent of all private sector workers. He added:

“So, they offer a significant engine for employment creation, and facilitating the adoption of apprenticeships in this area is likely to prove fruitful.”

At present, the Government’s own figures show just a quarter of apprenticeships are going to those aged under 19 years of age, compared to 29% going to those over 25 years of age – and  two-thirds of all apprenticeships go to existing employees, leaving no chance for new people to enter the labour market.

Recent research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) has shown that the levy - raised from all larger employers as a means of funding more apprenticeships - looks unlikely to improve the figures as nearly half of levy-paying employers will use the existing training as apprenticeships for current employees.

The apprenticeship levy, introduced last April, has been met with criticism from some employers and in February, at a government select committee hearing it was described as “woefully inadequate.”

The levy is paid by larger employers with pay bills exceeding £3m, who set up an account with the National Apprenticeship Service, through which they can access funds.

Geraint Johnes is of the opinion that one of the reasons smaller firms have struggled with the funding opportunities for apprenticeships is that they will not automatically have an account with the service - limiting their use of apprentices. He says:

“The extra support implies a transfer of resource from larger to smaller firms, but larger employers will continue to benefit directly from the apprenticeship training when the smaller firms are in their supply chains.”

National Chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses, Mike Cherry – in welcoming the promise of more funding, said:

“It’s good to see £80m of much-needed dedicated funding for small firms that are keen to take on an apprentice. Small businesses are key to delivering the government’s target of three million new apprenticeships by 2020.”

However, Elaine Gibson, Education Director at the Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals, said:

“While access to more funding will be useful to businesses, we would like to see wider training opportunities being included through the levy. This would really benefit small businesses that could strengthen the skills and knowledge of their employees through funded opportunities that they may not be able to afford any other way.”

The CIPD state that business must play its part by ensuring that pursuing recovery of the levy does not mean that other forms of training investment suffer.

Recently, Federal District Judge Sam Cummings - sitting in Lubbock, Texas - ruled that an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guideline limiting employers' use of criminal background checks in the hiring process is unenforceable in the state of Texas.   

Judge Cummings stated that the EEOC's guidance is invalid because it was issued without notice or opportunity for public comment.  He further ruled that the federal government is unable to enforce the EEOC's interpretation of the guidance within the state of Texas until the agency complies with the notice and comment requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act.  The plaintiff at the hearing – Texas – had claimed that, in addition to overstepping the EEOC’s authority, the guidance was an “unreasonable interpretation” of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Judge also found that:

“....a categorical denial of employment opportunities to all job applicants convicted of a prior felony paints with too broad a brush and denies meaningful opportunities of employment to many who could benefit greatly from such employment."

He added that there were instances where an employee's prior felony conviction would not affect public safety or the employee's ability to perform a job.

Despite Judge Cummings ruling to prevent the EEOC from enforcing their guidance, he did not disagree with its overall intent and refused to state that Texas could categorically exclude felons from jobs and allowed the EEOC to issue right-to-sue letters to claimants who allege illegal discrimination by employers in Texas.

Rod Fliegel, an attorney in the San Francisco office of Littler, stated:

“Although the injunction itself is specific to the state of Texas, the order opens the door to other, similar lawsuits against the EEOC and is likely to push the EEOC to reconsider the guidance.”  

He added:

“It remains to be seen how the EEOC will react to the ruling, including whether it will reintroduce the guidance for public comment.”

If the Court’s decision remains, Laura Maechtlen, an attorney in the San Francisco office of Seyfarth Shaw and the national chair of the firm's labor and employment department, believes:

"…it puts employers on notice that courts will likely give strong deference to the EEOC's guidance when considering categorical bans regarding the hiring of felons. While employers in certain industries may have legitimate reasons for not hiring particular felons—for instance, a bank refusing to hire a felon convicted of embezzlement—businesses need to be cautious about implementing blanket hiring prohibitions of felons. The best practice for employers is to focus on the qualifications of applicants, and make hiring decisions based on merit."

She also remarked that as a result of this case, she expects to see more aggressive enforcement of hiring bans

An employment tribunal hearing recently took place in Watford, UK, when Mohinda Sangha, an airport logistics agent, accused British Airways of unfair dismissal.

The judgment favoured Mr Sangha and awarded him over £19,000 in compensation – taking into account a deduction of 33.33% in respect of the claimant’s own conduct.

Mr Sangha had been employed by British Airways between May 1995 and his dismissal in March 2016.  His duties included driving in the vicinity of aircraft.

Whilst at work on 9 December 2014, Mr Sangha suffered a knee and back injury, which resulted in him being signed off work until 15 January 2015.  He was sent a letter that day, from his performance manager, informing him that a meeting would take place on 26 January 2015 to discuss his sickness absence. The letter also stated his performance manager would support his return to work within a reasonable period and that his termination may be considered as a last resort.

If an employee’s absence, or inability to carry out their duties to the required standard, is likely to be long-term, their line manager will seek health advice from British Airways Health Services (BAHS) asking for an informed opinion on the employee’s ability to do their job to a reasonable standard in the foreseeable future.  If BAHS advises that they will not – due to medical incapacity – they may advise on whether an employee would be able to do an alternative job.

On 4 February 2015, BAHS stated that Mr Sangha would be fit to resume work from 17 February 2015 – which he did – and at a review on 13 April it was agreed that Mr Sangha would remain at work.  Following this, he was informed in writing that his performance would continue to be managed and reviewed in three months or before, if necessary.

Around July 2015, management of Mr Sangha’s performance was transferred to a different person who was not as experienced as the previous performance manager and the three-month review did not take place.

Around this time, Mr Sangha went on holiday and on his return he developed an eye infection affecting his ability to drive.  He was signed off sick on 20 October 2015 and he was referred to BAHS.

In November 2015 Mr Sangha had a conversation with his performance manager during which he told her that his eye was blurry and during another conversation with an occupational health advisor, he said that he could not drive at night due to experiencing glare.  She, however, decided he was fit to return without adjustments.

Mr Sangha was seen at Moorfields Eye Hospital who confirmed that he was fit to drive but should avoid night driving until the problem of the glare had ceased.  However, there was a question over when he received that letter.

Following his conversation with the occupational health advisor he drove to work that day - in the dark - but was involved in an accident and having informed management, he left work.

In December 2015 another review took place between Mr Sangha and his performance manager, where Mr Sangha eventually produced a certificate stating that he was fit to resume work provided he was taken off driving duties, but his performance manager stated that she had already told him that he was being dismissed and the certificate was only produced after that decision. This meeting was attended by a union representative.

The dismissal was confirmed by letter to Mr Sangha on 23 December 2015 and included the statement:

“Given that BAHS have declared you fully fit for all duties on 20 November 2015 yet you have remained off sick I do not believe there are any changes that could be made that would significantly improve your attendance in either your current job or a different role within the company.”

It also stated that his sickness days since 2010 amounted to 106.

Mr Sangha appealed against the decision to dismiss him and the appeal was heard by BA general manager for World Cargo.  Before attending the appeal, Mr Sangha’s union representative submitted a medical certificate stating that he could return to work if taken off driving duties.  When asked why this had not been submitted previously, Mr Sangha said that he had not thought to do so.  The appeal was dismissed as it was claimed that Mr Sangha’s record was “unacceptable and unsustainable.”

Mr Sangha submitted his claim to the tribunal and it was heard in December 2017 before employment Judge Bloch, QC.  The judge allowed the unfair dismissal claim stating:

“I concluded that whilst conduct and capability were running in parallel as reasons for the dismissal in this case, the respondent has shown that the principal reason for the dismissal was capability.  He added:

“However, the respondent did not act reasonably in treating that reason as a sufficient reason for dismissal.”  

Allison Whiston – Head of Employment and Commercial Law at DAS Law commented that employers must know the company’s management policy and how it operates. She said:

“Employers should confirm they follow procedure carefully and, before any decision to dismiss for capability, check that they have considered all medical evidence, whether any reasonable adjustments can be made to enable the employee to return to the workplace, and whether there are any alternatives before making any decision to dismiss. Dismissal should always be the last resort.”

A spokesperson for British Airways said:

“We are disappointed with the decision and believe we have acted reasonably throughout. We are considering whether an appeal is appropriate.”

Persons attempting to recruit staff in California - and other high tax states - are facing a big challenge, as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) could now create an added financial burden.

The TCJA limits the amount of deductions people can claim on their federal returns to $10,000 and deductions include property taxes and state and local taxes - known as SALT.

The effect of the act could be to discourage staff from applying for employment in these states - opting to work in lower tax areas and having a big impact on how businesses recruit.

Michael Letizia, a human resources consultant in Stockton, California said:

"I'm fearful that it will have a negative impact, especially to the middle class, middle managers. Those are the backbones of a lot of organizations.”

Most Americans, particularly middle-income workers, will see only a small increase, a reduction or no change in the federal taxes they owe due to the TCJA but the SALT cap could still hurt some families in high-tax states.

According to Michael Letizia, California's property taxes are not as burdensome as some other states - such as New Jersey or Illinois - but the SALT deduction cap has caused some recruiters to rethink their recruitment strategies and devise ways to offer other benefits and compensation that would help to offset any higher taxes and cost of living.   He said:

"What are the key changes we're going to have to put into our recruitment, compensation and benefit strategies that are going to continue to attract talent, irrespective of the tax changes? I think we're all kind of scrambling to see what information we can find from whatever resource we can find." 

Alex Thornton, Senior Director of tax policy at the Center for American Progress, stated:

“Most workers have a home on which they pay property taxes … and, if they can no longer deduct those property taxes, that's going to have a serious financial impact on them. In states that have high income taxes, as well—high state taxes generally—it's going to present a problem and, in a very real sense, reduce their after-tax income."

However, the true impact of the new law will not be known until taxpayers begin filing their 2018 federal income tax returns.

In some states, California and New York for instance, legislation has been brought in to reduce the effect of TCJA-related burdens on their constituents. Both those states have considered introducing wage taxes on employers to help mitigate the exposure workers would face. In addition, the California Senate, in a bipartisan vote, has passed a bill allowing state taxpayers to make charitable donations to the California Excellence Fund and for their contributions they would receive an 85 percent tax credit.

The author of the bill, Kevin de León, said it gives Californians "a measure of control over their tax dollars."

Frank Sammartino, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, disagreed with the assumption that middle-income earners would be most affected and said that the true tax burden would fall on those earning more than $200,000 a year and not middle-income families as reported. He stated:

"The SALT limit is really something that hits higher income people much more."

Michael Letizia, however, said that for companies in California, the new tax law could lead to them losing out on good staff as candidates may decide to opt for jobs in states with relatively lower taxes - like Florida or Texas. According to the Tax Foundation, in 2017 Californians paid the highest income taxes - at up to 13.3 percent - and they also paid the seventh-highest gas taxes during that same period.

Michael Letizia went on to say:

"It's almost hilarious when you take Interstate 80 out of California and you cross over the Nevada state line. The amount of industry that has positioned itself just over the border in the state of Nevada to get out of California's control—distribution centers; a huge amount of commerce—just over the border in Nevada; just over the border in Oregon and just over the border in Arizona.  Our border states have definitely been able to take advantage of unhappy California businesses by positioning very lucrative tax incentives and other things just on the other side of the border."

He stated that the HR professionals he works with are mostly concerned about finding and keeping candidates for jobs paying between $70,000 and $130,000.

"We're looking to recruit people out of current positions to gain critical talent," he said. "In order to do that, especially if we're going to recruit into major metropolitan areas in California, coming up with an incentive that isn't going to cost people more money is going to be very interesting. You're looking at manufacturing - you're looking at middle management, middle class - and that is for the Los Angeles area and for the Northern California Bay Area. Those are important groups of people that these regions cannot be short on. Without that worker population, their bosses have no way of getting the job done." 

Michael Letizia has stated that he is also of the opinion that California's perks should continue to win over top-tier, executive-level candidates who will not be as greatly impacted by the tax reform law. 

The Supreme Court is about to hear a case – the result of which is likely to greatly affect gig economy worker’s rights. The hearing will take place before Lady Hale, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes, Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lady Black.

The case concerns plumber Gary Smith who, between 2005 and 2011, worked exclusively for Pimlico Plumbers on a self-employed contract working a five-day week of at least 40 hours, wearing the company uniform and hiring its branded van.  He provided his own equipment, accepted personal liability for his work and was covered by his own insurance.

The decision will be made by the Supreme Court as to whether he is an independent contractor or whether he has the rights of a worker - such as receipt of holiday pay, minimum wage, etc. 

It could be a landmark case for gig economy workers’ rights with the decision affecting about 15% of the working population and also could have implications for other employment status cases currently in the English courts.  This includes appeals involving Uber drivers’ - amongst others - attempting to obtain workers’ rights through union recognition.

Gary Smith took Pimlico Plumbers to an Employment Tribunal in 2011, claiming that he was wrongfully dismissed: discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments.  He had suffered a heart attack in 2010 and had requested a reduction in his working week to three days.  This was refused and his hired branded van was taken from him, resulting in him bringing the action for unfair dismissal.

A pre-hearing review took place to address whether Mr Smith was an employee or a worker. At the tribunal hearing, it was decided that he was a worker under section 83(2) of the Equality Act 2010, and he was, therefore, a worker within the meaning of section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Pimlico Plumbers and its CEO, Charlie Mullins, appealed against the decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) and the Court of Appeal. In February 2017, the Court of Appeal upheld that Mr Smith was a worker, which then entitled him to bring legal action against Pimlico Plumbers, but it did not find him to be an employee.

Purvis Ghani - Employment Partner at Stephenson Harwood, stated:

“The case is a timely reminder of the significance of employment status for many businesses in the UK. If the Court of Appeal's decision is overturned, this could have significant ramifications for the wider economy, including many businesses that use independent contractors that operate outside of the gig economy.  It would be surprising if the Supreme Court took a different view – although it could provide further guidance that might help businesses to navigate this tricky area in future.”

Blair Adams - Partner at law firm Wedlake Bell, said:

“This could be a very important decision on the question of self-employment vs worker status, affecting both technology-based ‘gig’ economy businesses and more traditional companies.”

He added:

“False self-employment continues to be attacked by the courts on a number of fronts, as shown by the recent tax tribunal decision on the use of a PSC by a BBC presenter.”   

Former BBC presenter Christa Ackroyd was found by HMRC to be an employee - not a contractor - and was ordered to pay a tax bill of more than £400K.

Harry Abrams - Solicitor at Seddons, stated that a Supreme Court confirmation of worker status in the Pimlico case may result in such companies having to pay unpaid holiday going back indefinitely. 

Jason Moyer-Lee, General Secretary of the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain, said that the rise of the gig economy means the issue of employment status is more important than ever.

He stated:

“So far tribunals’ and courts’ interpretations of these issues have done quite well to keep up with the times — that’s why nearly all high profile ‘gig economy’ cases have declared the individual to be a worker, and consequently entitled to minimum wage rights and holiday pay.” 

The hearing will take place over two days and the judgment is expected in March.

According to a study conducted by the Families and Work Institute, the average amount of parental leave offered by U.S. employers has not changed significantly since 2012. 

It was reported in December 2016 that high profile companies such as Amazon, Microsoft and Ernst & Young had announced that they intended to increase parental leave and in December 2016, American Express did increase its paid parental leave to 20 weeks.

However, the National Study of Employers found that 14.5 weeks is the average maximum amount of maternity leave that U.S. companies offered in 2016.  This is a rise from 14.2 weeks.  Paternity leave offered is a little over 11 weeks - a rise from 10.6 weeks.  The report noted, “...that while there has been much talk in the press of the laudable changes instituted by these large organizations, they do not represent a sea change in the length of parental leave options offered by the majority of organizations.”

The percentage of organizations offering some replacement pay for women on maternity leave increased from 46% to 58% during 2005 to 2016, but most of that change occurred between 2005 and 2012.  Among employers offering replacement pay, the percentage offering full pay continued to drop from 17% in 2005 to 10% in 2016.  Only 6% of employers surveyed - who had 50 or more employees - offered full pay during maternity leave.

The study was based on a national survey which was carried out on-line and by telephone between 2015 and 2016.  It was conducted with 920 HR directors at for-profit and non-profit organizations employing 50 or more staff.

Ellen Galinsky, co-founder and president of the Families and Work Institute, notes that there is a greater expectation of flexibility in the workforce among younger employees, who have grown up in the ‘work anytime, anywhere’ world and would take less pay for that flexibility.  A survey by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that the average employee would give up 20% of their wages in return for flexible scheduling or working from home.

The Families and Work Institute also found that between 2012 and 2016, 81% of employers allowed at least some employees to return to work gradually after childbirth or adoption – up from 73% in 2012

It is reported that the number of workers on zero-hours contracts hit a record high in the last three months of last year, rising by 13% to 910,000 but may now be on the decline.

A zero-hours contract is that which does not guarantee a set number of working hours, but the employee must be available for work when required - making budgeting nearly impossible and having a detrimental effect on the living standards of workers and their families. 

Trade unions have regularly raised concerns about zero-hours contracts and the possibility of the exploitation of employees.  In addition to the lack of guaranteed minimum working hours, the employee is not guaranteed sick or holiday pay, either.  On average, workers on zero-hour contracts earn £1,000 less per annum than contemporaries in staff roles. 

Len McCluskey, General Secretary of Unite – Britain’s largest union – has stated,      “Let us learn from New Zealand – put workers’ welfare first and outlaw these hire and fire contracts.”

The Resolution Foundation think tank reports that the growth of these contracts may now be slowing. This could possibly be due to negative publicity surrounding companies such as MacDonald’s, Wetherspoons and Homebase, who are all well known for using them - and also in the wake of the furore reported over the use of zero-hour contracts by Sport Direct.   Another factor suggested is the record high rate of employment, as after Brexit employers may struggle to find employees due to the prospect of the supply of EU labour being limited.

Sports Direct have now announced that following a review of working practices, they will scrap zero-hours contracts for casual workers.  Other major employers have stated that they will also finish using zero-hour contracts or offer these workers the chance to have a fixed-hour agreement.

Employers have stated that the zero-hour contracts are popular amongst many workers as it gives them flexibility.  Analysis shows that older workers, aged 55 – 64 years, accounted for almost half of the net increase in the past year.  Resolution Foundation says that the challenge now is to ensure that these popular contracts are reserved for cases of genuine desired flexibility for worker and employer.

A release from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), referring to the second quarter of 2016, maintains that fewer than 3% of the UK workforce on zero-hour contracts classes itself as being on this type of contract in their main employment and 70% of those are happy with the number of hours they work.

It depends upon which decade they were born as to how much they should aspire to save, to enable them to have the benefit of a similar standard of living in retirement to that enjoyed during their working life.

According to estimates made by experts and through studies undertaken, those born in the 1980’s will need to salt away about $1.8 million.  The younger millennials – those born in the 1990’s - are worse off as they will need upwards of $2.5 million. 

These equations have been arrived at on the assumption that, from their savings, the millennials could generate $30,000 - $40,000 and that the rate of inflation will be a modest 2%.

However, the math changes if more than $40,000 dollars is required or if inflation runs at 3%, which is the long term historical average.  It has been estimated by a financial adviser that in those circumstances, $3 million would be required in savings.

Doubtless, 20 and 30-somethings will find it very difficult to put aside a chunk of money each month, as young adults in America are faced with two major financial hurdles that prevent them from having a lot of extra wealth to invest for retirement i.e. high housing costs and student-loan debt. Data from the Pew Research Center states that for the first time in over a century, more Americans between the ages of 18 to 34 are having to live in their parents' home than with a spouse or partner and in addition, college graduates under the age of 35 years with student loans are paying one-fifth of their salaries on repayments.

According to a survey from Franklin Templeton Investment, despite 70 percent of the younger employees feeling anxious when thinking about retirement savings and investments, 40 percent of them have no strategy in place. This highlights the importance of financial education for younger generations who are in the early stages of their careers and have the most to gain from thinking about retirement now.

Employers should encourage their younger workers to contribute into company-sponsored retirement plans. Despite the fact that the younger millennials need to save approximately $1,000 dollars a month for 48 years and also need to get a 5% growth on their investments to hit the $2.5 million dollar target, if they increase their savings only slightly the employers will have done their jobs responsibly. Every dollar counts.

he market for American Internships was rather sluggish in 2016 and the challenges for potential interns are increasing.  The total number of internships posted was actually lower than in the last two years, presenting an 8.3% decrease compared to the openings in 2015 and 2% below those of 2014.  

However, the concentration of postings in March has risen steadily over the past 5 years, showing that there is a narrow season for internship recruitment. This peak happens ahead of when many students are beginning to think about summer opportunities and if a prospective intern waits until the end of the semester to apply for an internship, they have waited too long.  After March, demand diminishes until a second, rather smaller, opportunity occurs for term-time internships as the school year begins in September.

Employers are expecting interns to arrive on their first day already expert in critical skills in software and business, together with specialized knowledge of particular fields.  Internships offer experience, not training.  Analysis has shown that there is a more complicated relationship between broad business skills and industry specific skills, which sheds new light on what interns are required to know to succeed. There are a number of skill groups in postings for internships and there is a slight interaction between them, with some skills overlapping. 

The main internships requiring industry specific skills are Marketing, Engineering and Sales.   Social media and marketing research skills are required for a Marketing internship, whilst Sales will require business development and sales management skills. 

General skills are required in 27% of internships, whilst 73% require industry related skills. 

As a rule, internships are for undergraduates as 71% of the posts require a bachelor’s degree or less, whilst 29% look for graduate enrolment.  However, there are exceptions such as in the fast-growing area of Data Analytics - and again, in Economics and Policy - where more than four in ten internships call for a graduate degree.

Analysis shows that geographically, Engineering is the most sought after specialized internship.  There are noticeable areas where there is most demand for different internships;  Marketing is required in California and New York, IT Development in Massachusetts and Science and the Environment in Alaska and Maine.  Business has been excluded from this analysis as it is so widespread and applies to so many areas.

The Employer Participation in Student Loan Assistance Act (H.R. 795), re-introduced by Republican Rodney Davis on February 1st, 2017, is seeking to allow tax-free student loan repayments to be made by employers.  This bipartisan bill would amend Section 127 of the Internal Revenue Code, which presently allows an employee $5,250 exclusion from tax to cover such essentials as books, tuition, equipment and fees.  Currently, student loan repayment benefits are not included and the $5,250 tax-free allowance has not been raised since inception. 

The bill, which has been introduced to the House and referred to the Ways and Means committee, has support from both Republicans and Democrats in addition to prominent HR organizations such as the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM).  It would allow for employers to reimburse student loan repayments but it would fail to increase the amount the employer could offer the employee, which some employers wish to do as education costs are becoming more expensive. 

Students of 2016 were reported to have graduated with the highest student loan debt in history, more than $35,000.  Although they were able to borrow at historically low interest rates, more needs to be done to help pay down their debts as it is affecting the economy.  Fewer people are managing to start their own businesses, make property purchases and especially for millennial employees, make retirement savings. 

A small number of employers have already decided to begin offering student loan repayment assistance.  This will help graduates pay down their loans more quickly and help businesses attract and retain young talent in their employment.   Although the administration of this is an arduous and time-consuming labor for most companies, one California based company has begun offering loan repayment contributions of up to $6,000 a year for up to 5 years, as a benefit.  Employees have to apply for this benefit within three years of their graduation.  Millennials account for about 20 per cent of this company’s employees and so they are hoping to boost those figures by offering a benefit especially attractive to people of that generation.

T. Rowe Price Group, a global investment management firm, has been sued by a 401(k) participant who is saying the company’s plan offered only T. Rowe Price investment options, without considering less expensive ones.

David G. Feinberg vs T. Rowe Price Group Inc. et al. was filed on February 14 in US District Court in Baltimore. The participant claimed the plan “favored the economic interests of T. Rowe Price Group Inc. and its affiliates over the interests of their employees.” 

The lawsuit also alleges that the defendants frequently offered the higher cost retail class versions of their mutual funds in the 401(k) plan, despite the fact that significantly cheaper versions of the funds were available. Thisfavored the economic interests of the company over the interests of its employees.

Feinberg is seeking class-action status in challenging the management of the retirement program.  According to the lawsuit, the T. Rowe Price U.S. Retirement Program had more than $1.7 billion in assets in 2015 alone.

In a recent email, a T. Rowe Price spokeswoman said that the group believes the suit is without merit and intends to defend itself.

This case follows on from several similar 401(k) self dealing lawsuits filed within the last year against financial services firms.

Facebook is making headlines yet again in the human resources space.  Earlier this month Facebook Chief Operating Officer, Sheryl Sandberg, announced employees will now receive up to 20 days of bereavement leave in the event a family member passes.

Sandberg lost her husband in 2015 and said that “amid the nightmare of Dave’s death when my kids needed me more than ever, I was grateful every day to work for a company that provides bereavement leave and flexibility. I needed both to start my recovery. I know how rare that is, and I believe strongly that it shouldn’t be.”

The Society for Human Resource Management’s 2016 Employee Benefits Survey Report revealed that just over 80% of companies provided any paid days for bereavement leave last year.  On average, four days of bereavement leave were awarded following the passing of a spouse or child.  In the event of a domestic partner, foster child, grandchild, sibling or grandparent passing, only three days were typically awarded.

Facebook has historically been known for granting generous amounts of paid time off.  Paid leave for new parents includes 100% weekly earnings for four months.

HR experts explain that this is an extremely significant move for Facebook since it is paving the way for employee appreciation, employee satisfaction and employee benefits.

A new report reveals that while gender inequality is still a very prominent reality, being digitally fluent can help women narrow the pay gap.  

The study, Getting to Equal: How Digital Is Helping Close the Gender Gap at Work defines digital fluency as the extent to which people embrace and use digital technology in order to become more knowledgeable, connected and effective at work. A global consulting and technology services company, Accenture, put the report together. The report examined the extent to which men and women adopted digital technology while analyzing the influence it has on their education in preparing for work, employment and career advancement. Almost 5,000 men and women were surveyed and millennials, generation X and baby boomers were all equally represented.

One human resource expert acknowledged that there are many different ways the gender gap can be closed, but digital is one of the more promising.

Accenture used a Digital Fluency Model to gauge respondents’ use of digital technology, looking at the devices they had access to and how and when they used them. The model also looked at whether or not respondents had taken virtual or online classes, or used digital collaboration tools like chat or webcams to assist in the workplace.

Nations with the highest rates of digital fluency among women (US, Netherlands, UK, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland) also had the highest rates of equality in the workplace.

Digital fluency also leads to flexible working. Almost half of the women respondents said they use digital technology to work from home and to access job opportunities. The same percentage also said that technology helps them balance their lives.

Another human resource expert praised digital fluency for the influence it has on collaboration too. Websites like GoToMeeting and WebEx allow for virtual meetings while Google Docs allows users to share documents anywhere in the world. It is way easier to collaborate today than it was a decade ago.

Digital fluency is only one factor and cannot single handedly bridge the gender gap. There is, however, ample evidence that digital fluency can help accelerate equality in the workplace.

The EEOC announced that it has filed its first two discrimination cases based on sexual orientation.

The agency’s Philadelphia District Office filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against Scott Medical Health Center. A separate suit was also filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division, against Pallet Companies (doing business as IFCO Systems NA).

In the first case against Scott Medical, the agency charged that a gay male employee was subjected to harassment due to his sexual orientation. It was cited that the employee’s manager repeatedly referred to the employee using anti-gay slurs and made offensive comments about the employee’s sex life.

When the employee initially filed a complaint to the clinic director, the director responded that the manager was simply “doing his job” and refused to take any kind of action, according to the suit.

The employee eventually chose to quit rather than continue to work for a manager who disrespected him.

In the second filed case against IFCO, the EEOC charged that a supervisor harassed a lesbian employee. There were numerous comments made by this supervisor about this employee’s appearance including, “you would look good in a dress,” and “I want to turn you back into a woman,” the agency said.

This harassment extended far beyond comments as well. The supervisor would reportedly blow kisses at the employee and make suggestive gestures.

The female employee complained to management and even called the employee hotline but the company ended up firing her just a few days later.

While these are the first two lawsuits to be filed by the EEOC against private employers, human resource experts feel that this has been a long time coming. The EEOC has maintained its stance that sexual orientation bias is covered under Title VII. HR experts do point out though, that there hasn’t been a single federal appeals court that has ruled Title VII covers sexual orientation.

A ruling from last summer that covered only federal employees and contractors, which involved the EEOC, determined that sexual orientation discrimination is discrimination by sex.

Employment law experts and human resource professionals all agree that the outcomes of these cases will surely be interesting since a number of courts have ruled that sexual orientation is not covered under federal anti-discrimination law.

Legal and human resource experts have concluded that employers could be deemed legally responsible for a vaster range of employee behaviours than originally thought. This ideology comes after a Supreme Court ruling that a supermarket firm was accountable for one of its employees attacking a member of the public.

A five-judge panel found that Morrisons was liable for the behaviour of Amjid Kahn, an employee who punched and kicked a man (A Mohamud).

Mohamud went to the petrol station on the morning of March 15th, 2008 to find out if it was possible to print some documents off of a USB stick. Transcripts reveal that Kahn replied with foul language to which Mohamud protested. Kahn used racist and threatening language and eventually followed the customer to his car, where he opened the front passenger door, continued yelling and eventually launched into a physical attack.

Prior to going to the Supreme Court, this case was tried twice including once by a Court of Appeals. Both times, the court dismissed the claim. It was dismissed because the court felt it failed the “close connection” test. In case law, this test meant that there needed to be a closer link between the misconduct of the employee and the nature of the employment for any kind of vicarious liability to be established.

Unfortunately for Morrisons, the Supreme Court felt a connection did exist because the man attacked was a customer. Ultimately, according to the court, the employer trusted him with the position and they should be held just as accountable for the abuse that ensued.

One HR expert, Martin Pratt a partner in the employment law team at a legal firm, said the court’s decision “massively increased employers’ potential liability for their employees’ actions”.

According to Pratt, prior to this case an employer would only have been liable for an assault like this one if it were done while an employee was performing a duty directly related to the employment position. Ultimately, this ruling deems that a company could be liable for any person in a customer-facing role.

Human resource managers will have to consider increasing the amount of training employees get before being placed by themselves and consider more rigorous background checks. It will have to be crystal clear what is and what is not accepted in the workplace.

Damages in this case are still to be decided. Morrisons released a statement saying they were appalled when the incident was first reported and did offer a settlement, which was refused.

Human resource experts explain that you can now be sued for reducing an employee’s hours – plain and simple. Or is it?

If an employee can prove that the intent in reducing their hours was to deny the person access to some sort of benefit, then the employer can be sued. This is now true after a new ruling by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The landmark lawsuit involved popular United States establishment Dave & Busters and employees who sued the restaurant claiming the company reduced their working hours to avoid having to offer them health insurance.

The employees were able to sue under ERISA Section 510, which was primarily written to apply to retirement plans. Section 510, however, can be applied to multiple other benefit plans as well including healthcare coverage, as it turns out.

Section 510 states:

“It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge, fine, suspend, expel, discipline, or discriminate against a participant or beneficiary for exercising any right to which he is entitled under the provisions of an employee benefit plan, this subchapter, section 1201 of this title, or the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act [29 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq.], or for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which such participant may become entitled under the plan, this subchapter, or the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act. 29 U.S.C. § 1140.”

The court said that Dave & Buster’s health insurance plan is considered an employee welfare benefit plan under ERISA. HR experts explain that employees sued claiming the chain violated Section 510 by reducing hours to under 30 per week in order to avoid Obamacare’s employer mandate that says employers must provide full-time employees with health insurance.

Lawsuit paperwork claims that during a Dave & Buster’s single location meeting attended by the lead plaintiff, a general manager said this exact mandate would cost the company around $2 million. In order to avoid some of these costs, the company planned on cutting hours of full-time workers. This type of meeting, according to the suit, was eventually held company-wide. Ultimately, the case depended on whether or not ERISA could actually be applied to health plans. It was ruled, they could.

Of course Dave & Buster’s tried to get the lawsuit thrown out claiming there was not enough legally sufficient evidence. Unfortunately for them, the court said the employer’s “intent” is what really mattered. In order for the lawsuit to proceed to trial, according to the court, the plaintiffs needed to prove the employer specifically intended to interfere with their benefits. The court, obviously, felt they succeeded in doing so.

The lawsuit will now proceed to trial where Dave & Buster’s will be facing, at the very least, a very costly defense bill and/or massive settlement.

HR experts are predicting that flexible and mobile working schedules will become more common next year than actually working from an office.

A report produced by Lancaster University’s Work Foundation argued that flexible working could potentially lead to increased productivity in employees. This would in turn improve employee wellbeing, help retain talent, attract new talent and reduce accommodation costs.

The report is called Working anywhere: A winning formula for good work? and predicts that by 2020 approximately 70% of employees will be working under flexible schedules. The research looked at 500 managerial level employees working for medium to large businesses.

The benefits of working from a mobile location were understood by about 44% of respondents who believed it allowed employees to get more work done. Forty-two percent of them felt like this type of scheduling helped them (employees) feel trusted and 35% of them felt it was essential to maintaining a certain work life balance.

The author of the report claims that the evidence showed that there are clear trends towards a more flexible way of working in the United Kingdom. Organisations that have already adopted flexible working for its employees claim to have an improvement in productivity while reducing staff turnover.

The report did remain unbiased as well. While singing flexible working praises, the report also made sure to highlight barriers to the change. Over one third of managers believed that mobile working would make them feel disconnected from their teams and felt it could block the ability to successfully oversee work.

Human resource professionals have also come forward and said that these kinds of schedules could make their jobs harder. A shift towards flexible working scheduling that would affect the masses would require changes to performance management and employee terms and conditions.

The latest data on relocation rates released by consultancy firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas, reveals that the number of job candidates in the US who relocate for employment is on the decline.

The global outplacement consultancy firm’s data shows that on average, only 11% of new hires in each quarter of 2015 moved for their new position. This number is down from an average of 15% during the final two quarters of 2014.

HR experts are attributing this decrease in relocation to an increase in economic improvement, specifically at the local level. This would eliminate the need for most people to relocate for a job. Overall, unemployment rate in the US is one of the lowest it has ever been.

John A Challenger, Chief Executive Officer of Challenger, Gray & Christmas said

Relocation activity plunged after the first half of 2009 as home values continued to decline, which made it virtually impossible to sell an existing home without taking a significant loss. The housing market improved in enough places by the second half of 2014 to, once again, make relocation a feasible possibility for more people when conducting a job search.

There is more to this data than simply less relocation, however. The trade group for the relocation services industry, Worldwide ERC, projects that the United States transfer volume results for 2015 will show an increased new-hire relocation when compared to previous years.

Human resource experts also point out that the growth in temporary assignment positions could be another reason for the decline in relocations. US companies are offering more temporary employment opportunities for workers, because it is often a less expensive option for the company.

In a study of benefits, Glassdoor research revealed that the United Kingdom has one of the “most frugal” benefits offerings out of 14 European countries.

The pan-European study ranked the UK in the bottom three when maternity/paternity entitlement, annual leave, sick pay and unemployment benefits were considered.

At the other end of the list, the top countries with the mot generous in-work and welfare benefits were Denmark, France and Spain. When this data is further broken down by benefit type, the list changes. When just looking at in-work benefits like sick paid time off, the Netherlands was named the most generous. Here, employees can be absent from work for up to 104 weeks and receive 70% of their wages for the entire period of absence. Unfortunately, the UK was still one of the least generous countries. In this particular country, workers are offered a flat rate of approximately £88 a week.

Although the European Union offers a statutory minimum of 14 weeks of paid leave for maternity, this was one area where the United Kingdom came out on top. British workers are offered the most leave with 52 weeks. While the UK offers the most leave, they do not offer the most pay (which some will argue is more important). Austria, Denmark and Germany were among some of the countries that offer new mothers 100% of their earnings for the entire maternity leave period.

Paternity is a different story. This rule does not fall under EU regulation and while the UK just offers 10 days of leave for new fathers, countries like France don’t offer too much more. Paternity leave is still a fairly new concept for businesses. Facebook recently made headlines for offering an extremely generous amount of time off for new fathers.

Glassdoor chief economist, Andrew Chamberlain, said that governments all have limited budgets but perception has always been that the United Kingdom does provide a generous benefit scheme for all people. Now, it could be argued that parental leave, sick pay and unemployment benefits are not as rich in quantity in the United Kingdom. If perception truly is reality, the United Kingdom may have some very angry employees after the release of this report.

In the United States, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is reporting that more workers quit their jobs in December 2015 than at any other point in time since December 2006.

The monthly report on job opening and labor turnover showed that over three million people gravitated toward the exit sign while employers took on over five million workers. These numbers account for some of the highest reported since the 2007-2009 recession began.

Human resource experts fear that the market has become too much of a candidate’s market, spurring more voluntary separations from employers. Candidates know that they’re able to demand more pay with more benefits and employees are more confident now than ever before.

Unemployment rate in the United States is at an all-time low of 4.9 percent, which is within the range considered to be full employment. With this increase in the quit rate, human resource professionals will really have to amp up their retention program to keep valuable talent. Unfortunately, wage increases are probably at the top of these retention programs, as employees are well aware of their worth.

Beginning in 2018, companies that employ over 250 people will be required to make their gender pay gap publically available online.

The government, in a statement, said that any company that fails to address gender pay disparities would be highlighted in new league tables in hopes of driving progress.

Nicky Morgan, Women and Equalities Minister, said that in addition to forcing medium to large sized organisations to publish their gender pay and bonus pay gap detail annually, these companies will also have to publish how many women and men are in each pay range.

In an effort to highlight and measure where the gap actually falls across the United Kingdom, companies’ pay gaps will be ranked by sector, in a league table that will allow women to see where the gap is and is not being addressed. Morgan is calling on women across Britain to leverage this new reporting. She hopes that it will encourage women to demand more from their organisations while pushing them to recognise and reward women for their talent and skillsets.

Morgan also announced that a new £500,000 support package would be introduced in order to help companies implement the new regulations. Additionally, a new ministerial group will be set up to help evaluate how the government supports women in the workplace and targeted support will be provided for industries which are typically male dominated.

The latest ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings revealed the gender pay gap for median earnings of full-time and part-timers sits at just under 20% when combined. This is completely unchanged since 2014. If this pace continues, the TUC is predicting it will take almost 50 years for any kind of parity between the sexes.     

Frances O’Grady, general secretary of the TUC, said there is really no need to delay the reporting until 2018. O’Grady also feels that bosses should explain why the pay gap exists within their organisation, in addition to simply releasing the numbers.

Human resource experts hope this reporting will lead to a reduction in bias and introduce a whole new level of transparency.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), confirmed final rules, which will require firms operating pension schemes to implement a charge cap for default funds used for automatic enrolment.

The FCA has been working hand-in-hand with the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) to make sure that all members benefit from a pension scheme, regardless of what kind it is.

Default funds are best defined as what is used when a pension scheme member has not actively chosen a fund to invest in.

Beginning on 6^th April, firms providing workplace pensions used by employers for automatic enrolment will have to cap charges within default funds to 0.75% per year of funds under management.

HR experts explain that those saving into a workplace pension should get value for the money they save, even if they aren’t actively playing a role in where their money is invested.  The charge cap should help ensure this. 

Additionally, under the new rule, firms won’t be able to pay for or receive consultancy charges and commissions for advice not expressly agreed upon by scheme members.  Firms also will not be able to charge active and deferred members of schemes differently based on whether or not they are contributing to a scheme.

President Obama’s planned 2016 budget is proposing for a provision that, if passed, would allow unemployed citizens to withdraw up to $50,000 from their individual 401(k) accounts without penalty.

Currently in the United States, early withdrawals are subjected to a 10% penalty plus income tax requirements.  An “early withdrawal” is a withdrawal made before age fifty nine and a half.

Whilst the proposal does get rid of the 10% penalty, there are some other rules attached to the plan.  These include:

• Withdrawals would still be subject to income taxes;
• Any person wishing to make a withdrawal must have received unemployment compensation for more than 26 weeks;
• Participants could withdrawal at least $10,000;
• If a participant has more than $10,000 in their account, the person could withdrawal half of their plan-balance up to a total withdrawal of $50,000 per year;
• Participants would have to withdrawal the funds either in the year they received unemployment compensation or the following year.

Right now, human resource experts are really not sure how likely the provision is to pass but NBC News is reporting that it appears to have bipartisan support.

Wal-Mart recently agreed to pay $150,000 to settle what was an ongoing age and discrimination claim.
The EEOC claimed that Wal-Mart discriminated against the manger of the Keller, Texas location by subjecting him to harassment, discriminatory and unfair treatment. Furthermore, the retail juggernaut failed to provide a reasonable amount of accommodations for David Moorman’s disability. Moorman submitted a request after being diagnosed with diabetes to be reassigned to a store co-manager or an assistant manager. It was at this point that Wal-Mart refused to engage in the interactive process of discussing the request and/or why it was made. The request was eventually rejected.
It was also alleged that this manager was discharged because of his age.
According to the lawsuit, Moorman was ridiculed and frequently bullied by his direct supervisor who called him an “old man” and an “old food guy”.
Wal-Mart will now pay $150,000 in relief to Moorman, as dictated by the terms of the two-year consent decree that settled the case. Wal-Mart also agreed to provide training for employees on the ADA and the ADEA. This training will include instructions on the kind of conduct that may constitute unlawful discrimination or harassment. It was also explained to employees how procedures for handling requests for reasonable accommodations work. Finally, Wal-Mart will have to post a notice to its employees notifying them about the settlement and they will check in with the EEOC to prove compliance with the decree.

There is an ongoing debate in most workplaces about sick employees. What is a reasonable amount of time for the employee to be absent and should they really come into work if they’re sick? GPs have warned that the government’s Fit For Work service could force people back to work before they are ready.
Launched at the end of last year, the voluntary scheme enables GPs and employers to refer people to be assessed by health professions and assisted in returning to work. These employees would have to have been absent from work for at least four weeks for the referral to take place. GPs have been very outspoken when it comes to the level of support a scheme will receive. Already, they said that they won’t support something that is “punitive” and anything that pressures patients to go back to work or come off benefits.
HR experts wholeheartedly agree that the best thing a workplace can have is a healthy and productive workforce. The British Medical Association recently said it would boycott the scheme if doctors believed it was forcing people to work too soon. At the same time though, human resource experts are explaining that the system isn’t designed to force people back to work prematurely but to make sure that employees aren’t abusing their benefits.
Whilst HR departments across many industries feel that a plan to support a reduction in absence is a great thing, they also feel the service shouldn’t replace any kind of existing occupational health provisions.
Employers do not have to use Fit For Work but it does provide impartial health expertise and work advice to both the workplace and worker. The Fit For Work scheme will be rolled out to the entire nation in May.

Most of us are familiar with severance agreements.  Typically, a company decides to downsize and offers departing employees some kind of financial package in exchange for their silence and pledge not to divulge proprietary information.  Usually, these severance agreements include an agreement on behalf of the departing not to file an employment lawsuit.  Recently, however, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed suit against one very popular company and the lawsuit revolves around their severance agreement.    

The EEOC filed suit against well known pharmacy chain CVS alleging that their severance agreements are overly broad, interfering with the employee’s right to file complaints with them.         

Human resource experts are referring to this lawsuit as a landmark one since the wording in CVS’s agreement is found in virtually all companies’ pacts.  The Agency said the drug store’s, “five page single spaced Separation Agreement…deters the filing of charges and interferes with the employees’ ability to communicate voluntarily” with federal agencies.         

The EEOC cited six specifics within the severance agreement that they felt were too vague.  These were found under headings titled: Cooperation, Non-Disparagement, Non-Disclosure of Confidential Information, General Release of Claims, No Pending Actions, & Employment Breaches. 

Hidden within the document is a statement that says:

“[n]othing in this paragraph is intended to or shall interfere with Employee’s right to participate in a proceeding with any appropriate federal, state or local government agency enforcing discrimination laws, nor shall this Agreement prohibit Employee from cooperating with such agency in its investigation.”

This small disclaimer was not enough to appease the EEOC though, who are requesting that CVS stop using the separation agreement altogether and wants to order them to institute policies informing employees of their rights.  Furthermore, the EEOC would like CVS to create a 300-day window for former employees who were subject to this agreement to allow them to file a charge of discrimination, requiring CVS to cover legal costs.

CVS has yet to respond to the lawsuit.