According to recent research data, between June 2021 and June 2022 the number of employees receiving a bonus increased to 25.9%, up from 22% previously.
Cendex, part of XpertHR, carried out the survey and the data covered 403 organisations, which collectively paid bonuses to 356,563 employees. It showed that whilst the average bonus awarded across all individuals was £2,519, women are not only less likely than men to be awarded a bonus but also receive less money than their male counterparts when they do.
Almost one in three (31.3%) male employees received a bonus in the year to June 2022, compared with just 23.7% of females. Additionally, men received an average of £2,907, compared to £1,761 - which was the average bonus awarded to female employees.
This inequality was also shown to widen with age, as bonus payments for women tailed off as they hit their early thirties, whereas this did not happen with men until they reached their early fifties. At this point, they received an average bonus of £4,929.23 - which is over double the amount received by women of the same age, who received an average of £2,416.46.
What was not as surprising - the research found - is that the value and the likelihood of actually receiving a bonus increased with job seniority. Over 38% of Directors received an average payout of £61,006, compared to just over 25% of staff, whose average payment was just £1,282.
Sheila Attwood, Managing Editor, Pay and Benefits, Cendex, said:
“Given the current cost-of-living crisis and wider economic uncertainty, money is a huge source of stress for many workers. If an organisation is in the position to award a bonus to employees, it’s vital that they approach it fairly and with a strong understanding of why a bonus is being awarded at a given level. This is especially important given the disparity between men and women’s bonuses, which could be an indication of certain work being valued more than others.”
After a three-year programme of research, the Resolution Foundation has released a report that looks into the scale and nature of workplace discrimination and considers how anti-discrimination rules can be enforced to greater effect.
The survey draws on the experiences of over 3,000 working-age adults and found that one in five (20%) of 18-65 year olds have encountered some form of discrimination either at work or when applying for a job over the last year. Examples of discrimination range from being turned down for a job (13%) to being denied a promotion (8%) or training (7%). However, those from ethnic minority backgrounds and those with disabilities are the most affected with over one-fifth (21%) of people from ethnic minority backgrounds reporting that they have faced workplace discrimination because of their ethnicity alone in the last year, and 15% of disabled people encountering discrimination in the labour market on the basis of disability.
The report also finds that lower paid workers are more concerned about discrimination (20%) than those in the highest paid jobs (11%) - which the report felt was because discrimination is more common in low-paid sectors. For example, 22% of retail workers and 20% of hospitality staff reported suffering some form of discrimination, compared with 14% of workers in the higher-paying manufacturing and finance sectors.
Despite this, those most worried about discrimination were the least likely to challenge it in the courts - more likely than not because higher-paid workers are more likely to have the resources to navigate the Employment Tribunals system. The report gives the example that in 2017, workers earning £40,000 or over were almost twice as likely to take their employer to court as those earning under £20,000, despite the lowest earners being twice as likely to report anxiety about discrimination.
The report ends with various recommendations, including that legal aid should be extended to allow more lower-paid workers to seek recourse through the courts, and that more resources are put into the Employment Tribunals system to reduce the amount of time cases take to be heard and to clear the backlog of cases that has more than doubled since 2018.
Additionally, it recommends that the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) - the state body responsible for tackling anti-discrimination law - should be resourced to investigate more cases of workplace discrimination, widening the scope and number of cases they currently can take.
Around a dozen former staff at retail firm Made.com have instructed a law firm to take legal action on their behalf, after being informed they were losing their jobs during a Zoom call.
On 9th November the company went into administration, leading to the loss of around 320 jobs - in addition to 79 staff who had resigned, were working their notice and who were asked to leave immediately.
Made.com - which was valued at £775 million only a year ago - has been put into the hands of administrators PwC, who confirmed earlier in the week that there would be 320 redundancies, with only 74 staff staying on to help them wind down the business.
The company had been bought by fellow retailer Next - run by Lord Simon Wolfson - however the deal only included Made.com's brand, website, intellectual property and customer database, but not their staff.
The staff who have decided to proceed with legal action have instructed law firm Aticus. They will file a protective award claim against Made.com which is compensation awarded by an Employment Tribunal if an employer did not go through the consultation process before making redundancies.
Made.com could defend against the protective award claim on the basis that there were 'special circumstances' that made it impracticable to consult but a successful appeal could see staff receive compensation of a maximum of 8 weeks’ pay, capped at £571 a week.
Aticus Law Employment Law Specialist Mohammed Balal stated:
“Despite the concerns raised about the rights of employees to fair consultation over redundancies, it would appear that the employees at Made.com are the latest to be let go with immediate effect as their employer enters into administration.
“Given that the brand has been bought but not all of the people will be retained, many staff members will have had their lives turned upside down, and they are no doubt feeling anxious and concerned about the future.”
Administrators PwC have also warned that up to 12,000 customer orders will not be fulfilled due to production problems.
Following on from Virgin Atlantic’s very well publicized recent overhaul of their uniform policy, British Airways staff (who normally wear uniforms), will from Monday 14th November be allowed to wear make-up, nail polish, earrings and ‘man buns’, although the ban on visible tattoos still applies.
Whilst the changes may not be as radical as those brought in by Virgin, the airline’s updated guidelines - which incorporate non-gender-specific rules - are a far cry from the strict rules that the staff are used to conforming to.
Male pilots and cabin crew will now be allowed to wear a "touch of mascara and lip colour" as well as false eyelashes, although in the refreshed guidance staff will be urged to use “subtle shades” and aim for a “natural look” - for example black and neon nail polish will not be permitted.
BA has told staff to:
“be bold, be proud, be yourself”
They stated:
“We are proud of all of our colleagues at British Airways and we are committed to an inclusive working environment.”
Adding:
“We have worked with our people to create updated guidelines for grooming, beauty and accessories, allowing our colleagues to bring the best, most authentic version of themselves to work every day.”
Taking one step further, Virgin Atlantic recently announced their policy of allowing staff to choose whichever of its Vivienne Westwood-designed uniform they feel most comfortable in. Men will be able to choose to wear skirts and women trousers - regardless of the fact that the original design was a red skirt for females and burgundy trousers for males - ‘depending on which best reflects themselves’. They are also allowed visible tattoos.
Additionally, the airline are to start using optional pronoun badges for crew and passengers and its ticketing systems will allow people whose passports have gender neutral markers to travel using those gender codes and the title Mx.
Juha Järvinen, Virgin Atlantic’s Chief Commercial Officer, said:
“It’s so important that we enable our people to embrace their individuality and be their true selves at work. It is for that reason that we want to allow our people to wear the uniform that best suits them and how they identify and ensure our customers are addressed by their preferred pronouns.”
Cranfield School of Management - with support from partners and sponsors - has released its annual publication, The Female FTSE Board Report. The report looks at trends in female representation on FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 boards and has provided a regular measure of the number of women Executive Directors on the corporate boards of the UK’s top companies since 1999.
Cranfield state that their reports have always distinguished themselves from the other reports concerning women on boards, by focusing on what they can do to advance women’s leadership at this level, rather than just focusing on the numbers of women on boards. Therefore, whilst this is the twenty third Cranfield University annual report, in 2006 they included FTSE 100 executive committees for the first time, as they identified them as an important pipeline to the board.
In the report’s Foreward, Professor Karen Holford, CBE Chief Executive and Vice-Chancellor Cranfield University stated:
“I have never viewed this important work that Professor Sue Vinnicombe started in 1999 as being purely about women on boards. It’s about the way women are valued, the appreciation of different styles of leadership, and the aspirations of all young people.”
This years’ report shows there has been a continued increase in the number of women on corporate boards. The percentage of women on FTSE 100 boards is 40% (or forty eight companies) and for FTSE 250 boards is 39%. This means that FTSE 100 boards have already met the target set by the Women Leaders Review for 2025 and FTSE 250 are almost at the target.
In total, women hold 413 directorships across FTSE 100 boards, however just nine were CEOs, 18 were Chairs and 377 were Non-Executive Directors (NEDs) - an increase of 15% over the past year - but as seen in previous years, there is a wide variance between the percentage figures in the top and bottom companies. For example, Diageo have 64% women on their board whilst Endeavour Mining Plc have only 22%. Eighteen companies have 50% or more women on their boards whilst there are ten companies with 30% or less women on their boards - this appears to indicate the downside of voluntary targets over mandatory quotas.
Sue Vinnicombe, Professor of women and leadership at Cranfield School of Management and lead author of the report, said:
“We have come a long way since I started this report in 1999, but just having women in NED roles is not sufficient to have an impact on the executive pipeline.”
The percentage of women in Executive Directorship roles in FTSE 100 companies has increased slightly to 16.8%, with 36 women holding these roles in 33 companies.
Regarding FTSE 250 boards the figures have also increased from 34.9% to 38.9%, with one hundred and ten companies already meeting the new target of 40% women on their boards. However, in total there are still only 47 women holding Executive Directorships across FTSE 250 companies for the third year running. Additionally, the variance across the FTSE 250 companies has grown - with the top company having 80% women on their board compared to the bottom with only 11%.
Sue Vinnicombe added:
“The lack of progress in terms of seeing women in these key executive roles is frankly appalling. For real change to happen, women simply must be in the significant decision-making roles of CEO and chair.”
Tony Danker, CBI Director-General stated:
“The Cranfield University Female FTSE Board Report 2022 shows that while some important progress has been made, most directorship roles occupied by women are at the non-executive level, rather than CEOs or Chairs. This isn’t good enough. The business case is watertight. Companies in the top quartile for gender diversity on executive teams are 25% more likely to have above-average profitability than companies in the fourth quartile. In the current economic context, if companies are to succeed, they must accelerate efforts to place more women at the top of UK plc – especially in decision-making roles.”
A bank worker who was contacted by her employer while she was off sick, has been awarded more than £22,000 by a Tribunal.
Victoria Lindsay worked for the Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS) and has suffered from PTSD since 2016. While signed off work from October 2021 due to severe anxiety after a family issue, Ms Lindsay posted photos of her cake making business on Facebook - a business that she operated alongside her job at HBOS and for which the bank had given their approval for her to run.
Ms Lindsay was contacted by her boss - Ms Jarrow - who told her she should be mindful of the impact the images would have on colleagues while she was off sick.
The Tribunal report said:
"Colleagues at the Hamilton branch had reacted negatively to a post made by Ms Lindsay regarding cakes made by her during her absence from work."
Ms Lindsay told Ms Jarrow that the bank had approved the business, which she ran as a hobby and which she found therapeutic for her mental health.
Ms Jallow incorrectly informed Ms Lindsay that they were required to keep in contact at least every ten days and even questioned the medication she had been prescribed.
On December 17th during a holiday with her family, Ms Jarrow called Ms Lindsay - one of many calls she made whilst Ms Lindsay was on sick leave - which led to her having a 30-minute panic attack in front of her two children.
This culminated in Ms Lindsay resigning in the following January and suing the bank for constructive unfair dismissal. She told the Tribunal:
"I feel so let down by the company and I can’t expose myself to that again."
The Tribunal ruled that Ms Lindsay's claim of constructive unfair dismissal had succeeded, with the Employment Judge Amanda Jones ruling that:
"Ms Jallow knew or should reasonably have known that calling Ms Lindsay unannounced about a work related matter which was not urgent and in which her conduct was being criticised, would cause her significant distress."
Judge Jones also said that Ms Lindsay:
"…..had permission to engage in her cake-making business, which she operated as a hobby and was therapeutic for dealing with her anxiety.”
She added:
"While it may well be that staff at the branch made comment about this while she was off sick, the Tribunal found that there was no proper reason given for raising this with Ms Lindsay at the time the bank raised it or indeed at all."
Judge Jones later awarded £22,304 to Ms Lindsay for constructive dismissal.
A former part-time employee at Morrisons who represented herself at Employment Tribunal against them, has been awarded over £60,000.
Donna Patterson, who was a buyer within the supermarket’s online business, was offered a role as a confectionary buyer. However, when she informed the company that she was pregnant with her second child, she maintained the job ‘disappeared’.
After returning from a year long maternity leave, Ms. Patterson found that her department had been restructured and she was expected to take on a full-time role, despite only being contracted and paid to work part-time hours.
On raising concerns about being able to fulfil the new role in her allotted hours, she was told to “prioritise things a bit better and get your head in the right place and get your mindset right”. Ms Patterson raised several grievances through the company's internal process but told the Tribunal that it “just totally failed me".
In December 2021 Ms Patterson was signed off with work-related stress but claimed that during her sick leave her manager called with a work-related query. Eventually, in March 2022 she resigned on the grounds of constructive dismissal. After leaving, Ms Patterson submitted a data subject access request and found a letter that showed there were plans to demote her while she was pregnant.
Whilst looking for legal representation, Ms Patterson realised that the cheapest option was around £300 per hour and therefore decided that she would have to represent herself – with help from Pregnant Then Screwed, a charity that seeks to protect, support and promote the rights of pregnant women and who helped her understand what would be expected at the Tribunal.
On 21st October, the Employment Tribunal ruled in Ms Patterson’s favour, stating that she had been “unfavourably treated” and that Morrisons had subjected her to a “detriment of indirect sex discrimination after her maternity leave”. The judge added "The claimant was constructively dismissed and the dismissal was unfair" and ordered the supermarket to pay her £60,442.25 in compensation.
In a statement after the ruling, Morrisons said:
"…we don't accept that we acted in an unfair way in this case and believe a number of the facts have been misrepresented and we are considering an appeal."
Joeli Brearley, Chief Executive of Pregnant Then Screwed, said:
"All women want is to be heard. We want employers who listen to us, apologise when they get it wrong, and then do what is necessary to ensure it doesn't happen again,"
She added:
"We are proud to have supported Donna through this ordeal. She is brave and tenacious and we hope the publicity of this case will be a warning sign to other companies thinking they can get away with discriminating against pregnant women and new mothers in the workplace."
Bar Council data published in 2020 showed discrepancies in earnings between men and women at the Bar. Therefore in 2021 the Bar Council undertook additional analysis, which shows the trends in Barristers’ earnings over the last 20 years, along with the differences in average earnings by practice area.
The data shows that in general there has been an increase in average gross fee income for both women and men at the Bar. However, the gap between men and women’s average income has widened over the last 20 years, with female Barristers earning on average 34% less than male Barristers.
An example of this is in the area of Commercial and Financial Services. Whilst there has been an increase in average earnings, the gap between the income of male and female barristers has increased over the last 20 years, from women earning 49% less than men in 2000, to 57% less in 2020. In the area of Employment, the gap has increased from 8% in 2000 to 16% in 2020.
However, in practice areas that are dominated by women Barristers - such as Family (children) where 59% of Barristers are female - they earn more than men but the gap has lessened to 4% in 2020, down from 21% in 2000. Similarly, in Family (Other), where there are also more female barristers, they earned 43% less than men in 2000, compared to 19% less in 2020 - so men’s income has increased faster than women’s.
Overall, there has been an increase in the number of female barristers across all practice areas - from 8,382 in 2000 to 12,504 in 2020 - whilst in the same period the number of male barristers across all practice areas has decreased - from 26,833 in 2000 to 25,809 in 2020. Nonetheless, although female representation at the Bar has expanded, the gap between men and women is getting wider. The Bar Council therefore poses the question - if half of all new pupils for more than 20 years have been women, why are so many leaving the Bar and why do men continue to out-earn women?
Bar Council Chair Mark Fenhalls KC said:
“This year’s data analysis shows there remains a long way to go to close the earnings gap, particularly in the higher-earning practice areas. Through the Bar Council’s Modernising the Bar programme, we are focused on evidence-based and practical actions to tackle inequalities at the bar.”
The Government has launched a new online service aimed at smaller employers who do not have access to in-house HR provision, to give them the tools they need to empower and encourage disabled employees and those with health conditions.
Currently in an early test version - with users encouraged to give their opinion through a short online survey - the Support with Employee Health and Disability Service is open to any employer and provides free advice on how to manage staff who may be in or out of work with a disability or long-term health condition, by utilising an online questions and answers format.
The service and is part of an almost £6.5 million programme of work to help employers support and manage employees with disabilities or health conditions and comes as a direct response to the government’s 2019 consultation, ‘Health is everyone’s business’, in which employers asked for joined-up advice on supporting health in the workplace that is easier to find and act upon.
Although the latest figures show that the number of disabled people in employment has increased by 1.3 million since 2017, the new service suggests potential changes an employer could make to help with a return to work, supporting a government goal to see one million more disabled in work by 2027.
Over the next three years, the government will invest £1.3 billion in employment support for this group of people - building up existing provision, including expanding employment support, to grow the economy and help people with the cost of living. During this period, the website will be updated using the feedback from the survey and it is hoped that once fully developed, the service will “help employers understand their legal obligations, including how to make adjustments for disabled people and those with health conditions”.
Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, Claire Coutinho said:
“Since 2017 we have seen one million more disabled people in work, beating our target by five years. Now we want to go even further by giving more employers the tools and information they need to ensure disabled people and those with health conditions can succeed in the workplace.”
A newly qualified solicitor who was rejected from a job after disclosing her disability, has been awarded £23,000 from an employment tribunal.
Kandice Farrow had worked as a legal secretary for some years before completing the legal practice course. She worked at the Yorkshire firm Pinkney Grunwells as a conveyancing assistant and then as a trainee solicitor, before leaving in 2019 after raising a grievance against the partners and her manager over their treatment of her due to her condition. She transferred her training contract to another firm but four months later was furloughed due to Covid.
In July 2020 Ms Farrow qualified as a solicitor but with the new firm unable to offer her a job, she altered her LinkedIn profile to read ‘Newly qualified solicitor seeking employment’.
This led to an approach from Natalie Foster - owner of Foster Clay Law - a virtual firm that had been newly established, about joining them.
According to Ms. Farrow, she and Ms. Foster discussed her illness in detail, with the tribunal finding that Ms. Farrow had been “careful to be forthright with Ms. Foster about her condition” to avoid what had happened at Pinkney Grunwells.
Ms. Farrow maintained she was offered a job - subject to references - although Foster Clay Law denied that the situation had got to that stage.
Ms. Foster then contacted Pinkney Grunwell for a reference - with her notes stating she was told Ms. Farrow may have a bad attitude and could be a risk to the business. Additionally, a reference from Pinkney Grunwell training partner Hayley Garnett stated that Ms. Farrow left over a grievance and had lots of absences from work due to illness amongst other things.
Ms. Foster subsequently contacted Ms. Farrow to inform her that she had been rejected, to which she asked if there was anything she could do to provide Ms. Foster with “more clarity regarding my medical condition”.
Ms. Foster replied:
“No medical condition has any bearing on the firm’s decision to recruit.”
Despite knowing this, the employment tribunal sitting in Leeds found that Foster Clay Law treated Ms. Farrow unfavourably as they knew that she previously had significant absences from work due to her illness and would need flexibility and to make adjustments.
The tribunal ruled:
“The discriminatory effect of the unfavourable treatment on the claimant was significant. Farrow was a newly qualified solicitor with a disability, who needed significant flexibility, meaning her job search was unlikely to be straightforward. She had been approached by the respondents and offered what appeared to be an attractive position and the flexibility she needed.”
It continued:
“She had been open and honest with them about her needs and her condition and had hopes that they would make the adjustments she needed. Instead the recruitment process was terminated abruptly precisely because of her disability-related requirements and history, jeopardising her job-search and damaging her self-confidence.”
The tribunal ordered Foster Clay Law to pay Ms. Farrow £16,632 for injury to feelings and £6,442 in pecuniary loss. The firm must also pay Ms. Farrow’s costs of £4,867.
Following the ruling, the firm issued a statement saying:
“This case highlights the challenges faced for businesses, especially start-ups, recruiting remotely during the pandemic, along with the importance of having watertight processes in place for recruitment given that obligations on employers and individuals begin prior to employment starting.”
It continued:
“Reassuringly the tribunal made “no finding of malice or deliberate falsehood on the part of the Respondents and Natalie Foster was not found to have had actual knowledge of disability”.
A new report from The Caterer has found that the over 50’s age group accounts for 25% of the 2.2 million workers in UK hospitality.
Since 2019, around 200,000 international workers have left the sector, resulting in the hospitality sector having to hire from less traditional talent pools. The Caterer’s Hospitality Hiring Insider Report analysed job adverts and surveyed 600 professionals in September 2022. The report found that 25% of employers believe workers in the over 50’s age group will help solve this labour shortage and that as the cost of living rises, they have had to take on jobs in pubs, restaurants and hotels in order to boost their retirement income.
The majority (27%) of over 50’s in this industry occupy General Management roles, 24% carry out front of house duties and 23% have taken on chef related roles.
Employers believe there are huge advantages to employing this section of the workforce, with 71% believing that greater experience is the best characteristic the over 50’s can bring to their workplace. They also feel they have more resilience, better punctuality and attendance, a stronger work ethic and are more loyal.
Kathy Dyball, Director at Caterer.com commented:
“Brexit, the pandemic, and the cost of living crisis have combined to bring about the most dramatic transformation our sector’s workforce has ever seen. While it will take time to address long-established labour shortages, it’s encouraging to see employers broadening the range of candidates they’re targeting. Workers over 50 are hugely valued by the hospitality industry and we need to do more to highlight the vast range of roles available that can suit people of any working age.”
Luke Price, Senior Evidence Manager for Work at Centre for Ageing Better added:
“Recruiting inclusively benefits everyone, including older workers who have much to bring all sectors of the economy including hospitality. Research has shown that firms with a 10% or higher share of workers over 50 are more productive, and older workers tend to stay in a job for longer, take fewer sick days, and bring extensive skills and experiences. Since people aged 50+ constitute almost a third of the current workforce, inclusive employers are more likely to reap the benefits of this large talent pool.”
