In a survey conducted by YouGov and commissioned by technology firm Emburse, 1,015 employees were asked a range of questions with the aim of understanding the impact of the cost-of-living crisis on British workers.

The employees were asked whether they were being financially supported by their employers during this time and the survey tried to identify any changes in work pattern behaviour as a result of the energy bills price increase.

The data showed that 69% of respondents who can work from home say their employers have never provided financial support for utility bills and aren’t planning to do so in the future. Employees who felt that the likelihood their employer would help  with energy costs lowers as the size of the company increases, with 6% of large businesses versus 14% of small businesses (10 or less employees) offering support.

Despite this, it appears that the majority of employees would still prefer to work from home (WFH), with 42% - given the choice - opting for financial support towards utility bills rather than commuting costs. However, 42% of younger employees stated they would prefer a subsidised commute (against 26% of over 55s) and 23% of under-35s who can work from home say they would consider coming into the office more owing to rising energy prices.

Overall, 17% of those surveyed said their working preferences between the office and home may need to change as a direct result of rising living costs.

Kenny Eon, GM and SVP, EMEA at Emburse commented:

“There is clearly a growing concern amongst home-based employees about the cost of keeping the heating on during the work week. Only 9% of the people we surveyed are receiving support from their employers to pay for their utility bills, with just another 7% saying that their employers are planning to provide support. This is particularly impacting younger employees, and almost a quarter of them have said that they are likely to return to the office as a result of skyrocketing bills. Spending more time at the office may not be the preferred option for all employees. But when you add the financial benefit of doing so to the culture and collaboration benefits that many employees experience, this could provide a more compelling reason for employees to return to the office.”

Despite the recent commencement of the UK’s largest ever trial of a four-day working week, jobseekers would rather be offered flexible working - according to research by the recruitment company Reed.

In June of this year, more than 3,000 people working for 70 businesses consented to taking part in a trial where they would work a shorter week (80%, or 4 out of 5 days of the week) for six months with no loss of pay but with the commitment to maintain 100% productivity. However, in a study of over 2,000 UK workers and 250 employers, Reed found that ‘flexible working’ was the term on a job description that the majority (45%) of people would heed. By comparison, the four-day working week would appeal to 40% and working from home behind both of these options at 32%. This was despite 89% being in favour of a four-day working week.

James Reed - Chairman of Reed - stated:

Despite strong arguments in support of a four-day working week, evidenced also by recent UK trials, our research suggests that it may not be the best or most popular way for businesses to attract and retain top talent.”

He added:

“The National Forum for Health and Wellbeing at Work has suggested that cramming five days’ work into four might contribute to stress. Instead, offering greater flexibility could be more impactful and more popular.”

He concluded:

Amid a highly competitive labour market, it’s encouraging to see so many employers open to exploring new and creative methods to attract candidates……it’s now more important than ever for employers and employees alike to embrace flexible and inclusive working patterns that will allow everyone to contribute to the workforce.”

The Supreme Court has ruled that people who lie about their qualifications or experience on their CV may have to pay back part of their wages.

Jon Andrewes - a former NHS Chief Executive -  was jailed after lying about his university degrees and previous work experience led to him getting a hospice role, as well as other directorships.

In December 2004 Mr Andrewes was appointed as the CEO of St Margaret’s Hospice in Taunton, Somerset with a starting annual salary of £75,000. In 2006, he informed colleagues that he had obtained a PhD and wished to be referred to as Dr Andrewes.

During his employment, Andrewes also used the false information to gain an appointment as a Non-Executive Director at Torbay NHS Care Trust which was a compensated position.

Andrewes remained in the post of CEO of the hospice until March 2015 when the  deception was discovered and he was dismissed.

In July 2015, he was appointed chair of the Royal Cornwall NHS Hospital Trust, but was dismissed from this position when the truth about his deception emerged.

Andrewes was prosecuted and in January 2017 pleaded guilty to one count of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception under section 16 of the Theft Act 1968 (in regard to his position at St Margaret’s Hospice) and two counts of fraud under section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006 (his appointments at the Torbay NHS Care Trust and the Royal Cornwall NHS Hospital Trust).

In March of 2017 Andrewes was sentenced to two years imprisonment at Exeter Crown Court.

After his conviction, the Crown sought a confiscation order against him and eventually the Court of Appeal found in his favour, ruling that Andrewes should not have to pay back his earnings.

However, the Crown then appealed to the Supreme Court, citing the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the Court of Appeal’s decision was overturned.

Lord Hodge and Lord Burrows stated that a total confiscation of wages would be disproportionate as Andrewes had performed a service but that the court should seek to confiscate the difference between the higher earnings obtained through fraud and the lower earnings that would have been obtained if the fraud had not occurred.

Andrewes was therefore ordered to pay £97,000 which they deemed the unlawful amount of the total of £643,602.91 he received during his employment.

Alexandra Mizzi - Legal Director at Howard Kennedy - said of the ruling:

“While prosecutions like this have previously been rare, with most employers opting for dismissal on the grounds of lying on a CV, this case could pave the way for employers taking greater action.”

In June of this year, more than 3,000 people working for 70 businesses agreed to take part in the world's largest four-day working week trial. The staff on the trial agreed to work a shorter week (80% of the week) for six months with no loss of pay but with the commitment to maintain 100% productivity. 

The programme is being coordinated by campaign group 4 Day Week Global, along with think tank Autonomy and academics at Oxford, Cambridge and Boston College in the USA. The researchers will analyse how employees respond to having the extra day off, in terms of productivity, performance, stress and burnout. 

However, while Joe O’Connor - Chief Executive of 4 Day Week Global - has stated that feedback so far has been “overwhelmingly positive from companies taking part”, some employers have stated that it isn’t working for them, whilst others have already decided that the shorter week cannot realistically continue once the pilot ends.

Samantha Losey, of communications firm Unity said that there have been difficulties on handover days, with staff taking different days off and that because the rest of the world hasn’t adopted a four-day week it had made the scheme “challenging.”

She stated:

“We agreed we’d go all the way through the pilot, but I’m questioning whether this is the right thing for us long-term. It’s been bumpy for sure.”

Other firms are also questioning whether they can sustain this on a permanent basis. Claire Daniels - Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Trio Media - felt that the shorter week had caused problems with hiring as she cannot guarantee that it will remain company policy beyond December.

She said:

“The only challenge is in recruitment currently as we cannot guarantee that we will continue the four-day week pilot scheme.”

Joe O’Connor of 4 Day Week Global reflected that:

“In a trial with 73 companies which is after all an experiment, it would be expected that this might not work out as planned for all companies and result in a 100pc success rate.”

Nonetheless, whilst some firms have reported concerns, others have found it extremely beneficial. Matt Bolton - Co-Founder of advertising agency Mox London - stated that it was “the best business decision” he’s ever made and similarly, many other companies taking part report that staff already seem happier and more motivated and productivity has even improved in many cases.

After a four day hearing at London's Central Tribunal Courts, Birmingham Perry Barr MP Khalid Mahmood was ruled to have unfairly dismissed his parliamentary aide Elaina Cohen, with whom he had an affair for two years.

Mr Mahmood was elected in 2001 and was the first Muslim MP in Britain. He has held the same seat ever since then.

Ms Cohen worked for Mr Mahmood from 2003 to 2021 and the case was brought by her, as she claimed she had been unfairly dismissed after blowing the whistle on a colleague.

During the hearing, the Tribunal heard details of the working relationship between the Labour MP and Ms Cohen - who was his senior advisor - in the years after their affair.

Ms Cohen claimed she was discriminated against and harassed because of her race, religion or belief, but this was dismissed by the Tribunal panel.

In August of 2019, Ms Cohen received an “abusive email” after raising concerns about behaviour that she felt breached parliamentary standards. This led to her making a formal complaint in October 2019.

In December 2019, Mr Mahmood was re-elected at the general election. By January 2020 Ms Cohen had not had any contact from him, so sent him a WhatsApp message.

Later that month an anonymous informant made serious allegations against Mr Mahmood, with further informants coming forward at a later date.

Ms Cohen contacted the police and informed Mahmood but a police investigation in March 2020 concluded there was no case to answer.

In April 2020 Ms Cohen again complained about the lack of contact from Mr Mahmood  and in July 2020 she complained that staff had made anti-semitic remarks.

In November 2020 Ms Cohen was given a formal warning and in 2021 was subject to disciplinary proceedings.  She was dismissed by email later that month.

The Tribunal found that although three of the five allegations listed by Mr Mahmood were “ample reasonable grounds for belief in misconduct”, the way Ms Cohen’s dismissal had been carried out was “outside of the range of reasonable responses” and she had therefore been unfairly dismissed.

However, the Tribunal did find that Ms Cohen had not established that the decision to dismiss her was related to her race, religion or belief.

According to hiring website Indeed, the number of job postings mentioning enhanced parental leave was up 102% compared to last year. Those mentioning shared parental leave were also up 102% on last year but were up a staggering 279% compared to 2019.

Under the UK Government’s Shared Parental Leave and Pay plan, couples can share up to 50 weeks of leave and up to 37 weeks of pay between them. Enhanced parental leave is defined as what is offered above the statutory minimum.

However, as good as these increased figures sound, research shows that actually only 1.84% of jobs advertised in May 2022 offered enhanced parental leave, up by 0.9% on the previous year. These figures are based on adverts that market jobs with “generous, extended, competitive, enhanced, or market-leading” maternity, paternity, or parental leave. 

This is particularly concerning since a report from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that 75.6% of mothers with dependent children were in work from April to June of 2021 - which is the highest it has been in 20 years.

Indeed’s study showed that the company Boots were offering the most roles with enhanced parental leave benefits and the Ministry of Defence (MOD) was the highest ranked public sector employer in terms its parental leave policy, as it offers 100% of salary during the first 26 weeks of Ordinary Maternity Leave.

Jemima Olchawski - CEO at the gender equality and women’s rights charity Fawcett Society - stated that it was:

“encouraging to see many large employers offering enhanced parental leave schemes to support women but also to shift expectations and encourage men to take up parental leave. This will not only have a positive impact on gender equality and pay equity at work, but also supporting equality at home and in childcare too.”

Glenda Kirby - Vice President of Client Success EMEA at Indeed - agreed, saying that paid leave programmes could not only lead to an increase in productivity and loyalty but could “shift household tasks away from women”.

The financial services sector is at the forefront of offering one-off pay increases to help staff - especially those in the lower paid bracket - cope with the rising cost of living, as household incomes are squeezed by inflation that has hit a four-decade high. 

The UK arm of HSBC has stated that approximately 17,000 of their lower paid employees - which amounts to around half of their UK staff - will receive a £1,500 bonus in August.

Around eleven thousand UK based staff at Spanish bank Santander who earn less that £35,000 - which equates to around 60% of the workforce - will receive a 4% pay rise to help combat rising inflation. The bank will also increase entry level salaries to £19,500.

Chief Executive of Santander, Mike Regnier, said the pay raise would “make a real difference to the majority of our customer-facing and contact centre staff”.

Meanwhile, Barclays Plc has offered a £1,200 boost for 35,000 UK-based staff, whilst Natwest Group Plc is giving those earning less than £32,000 a pay rise of 4% from September.

Visa gave a 5% pay increase to staff in the UK from July and Lloyds Banking Group Plc pledged to pay staff an additional £1,000 this summer.

In addition to a salary increase and a bonus already paid to colleagues in March, around 4,500 of employees at banking firm TSB - those who take home up to £35,000 a year and who make up about 76% of the workforce - are to receive a £1,000 bonus. This will be made in two stages, with £500 paid out in October and the remaining £500 next February.

Workers Trade Union Unite took credit for securing the payout and National Officer Caren Evans stated:

“Unite was able to successfully demonstrate to TSB that the lowest paid members of staff are struggling to meet their costs of living. The agreement announced today is welcome news for over 4,000 staff, and the £1,000 payment will be given to all those regardless of whether they are full- or part-time workers.”

In response, a spokesperson for TSB said:

“We know that the rising cost of living is a concern for many of our colleagues, so we will be supporting eligible colleagues this winter with an additional cost-of-living payment of £1,000.”

Unite also said it had helped secure a pay rise for Virgin Money employees and that they would continue to campaign to make sure wages increased in line with inflation.

Following a recent flare-up in the number of people taking their employers to employment tribunals, experts are warning businesses to make sure that their human resources processes are unassailable.

Azets is the UK’s largest regional accountancy and specialist business advisor to SMEs and hugely experienced Ms Hannah-Jane Dobbie - a fully qualified member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and Head of HR Consultancy - helped launch the firm’s hands-on ‘one-stop shop’ HR consultancy service for SMEs early last year.

Ms Dobbie explained that claims for failing to follow a proper redundancy process are wrongful dismissal; unfair dismissal; discrimination - with additional claims which can be made for injury to feelings.

She said:

“Employees with grievances appear to be far more likely to take matters further than they would have been in the past. And the onus is on the employer to disprove the claim, rather than the employee to prove it, which can be difficult.

I believe it is very much due to the state of the candidate-driven recruitment market. People know that they can walk out of a job, make a claim - and still walk into another job, potentially quite quickly, especially if they have an in-demand skill set.”

The ACAS code of practice on discipline and grievance is particularly important as if the employer is found to have not followed it then any award made at a tribunal can be increased by up to 25 per cent.

Ms Dobbie stated:

“We are in a society where people don’t necessarily accept the answers they are given any longer and will challenge their employers and try to get more – most of it seems to be for financial gain. We are also seeing larger claims than we would normally expect to see.

There are a lot more claims coming forward which would likely never have got to the tribunal hearing stage previously.”

In 2013, a basic fee of £12,000 to a claimant for a tribunal was introduced, resulting in a 70 per cent drop in cases. However, after a campaign in 2017, it was repealed by the Supreme Court and case numbers then rose sharply again.

Ms Dobbie said:

“Many more employees are taking a chance on taking tribunal action. It doesn’t cost them anything to go to a tribunal. However, the average cost for fighting a tribunal for an employer – without including any awards made – is around £10,000 per day once you include legal fees and the management time and resources taken up dealing with such matters.”

She added:

“I know of several incidences of SME clients who have ended up paying out sums of money in a settlement just to make a situation go away, even though they know they have done nothing wrong.” 

Ms Dobbie’s advice to SMEs and other businesses is therefore to be scrupulous in dealing with all human resources matters.

ONS figures published last week show that salaries are rising, but not in keeping with prices. This has resulted in a 2.8 per cent fall in pay in real terms.

The TUC has said that pay increases are failing to keep up with rising inflation, leading to another year of "wages gloom" and adding that it could be a "hammer blow to morale" - prompting staff to quit.

Francis O’Grady - General Secretary of the TUC - warned:

“Real wages are falling at the fastest rate since current records began in 2000.”

According to a survey by The Career Wallet - a leading Recruitment and Employment Technology Company - the present rising cost of living is affecting employees across the UK differently. Leicester has witnessed the highest percentage with 53 per cent of employees considering a new role as a direct result of increasing costs.

Leicester is closely followed by London with 49 per cent and Birmingham with 44 per cent of employees needing to move jobs to increase their income to help pay for rising bills.

The survey went on to find that employees in certain other regions are not affected to this degree by the increased costs. Plymouth is the least impacted with only 18 per cent of employees considering new roles; Glasgow with 22 per cent and Oxford with 24 per cent are also less affected compared to other regions.

The national survey shows how many UK employees are presently considering moving roles. A high 39 per cent are either actively looking or considering moving, which means thousands of businesses are set to lose staff. This highlights the importance of businesses offering pay rises that align with inflation.

The survey went on to show that a further 12 per cent of all employees are considering asking for a pay rise in the next few months - and only 25 per cent of all employees haven’t considered changing their role or asking for a pay rise.

When considering age, the survey found that the under 30s have been most impacted with 35 per cent in the process of looking for a new role.

Craig Bines - CEO at The Career Wallet Group - commented:

“At Career Wallet we process millions of jobs a day and this allows us to quickly see how the job market is being impacted on a daily basis. Our national employee survey has highlighted how UK employees are already being impacted by the rise in the cost of living and are actively looking to counter this by pursuing a new role or a pay increase and it is important that all employers are aware of this and act quickly to keep their talented people in their businesses.”

Following a ruling by the Supreme Court, workers in the UK on part-year contracts could be entitled to back pay from their employers.

In the case of Harpur Trust vs Brazel, Harpur Trust - an independent school operator - attempted to pay Ms Brazel, a part-time music teacher, holiday pay based on the time she worked rather than the holiday pay she was entitled to as an employee, which was 5.6 weeks.

Instead, at the end of term Harpur Trust used Ms Brazel’s average hours worked and paid her 12.07 per cent of that figure as holiday pay, meaning that she received less money.

In 2016, Ms Brazel took Harpur Trust to the Employment Tribunal claiming unlawful deduction of wages. She stated that she had taken 1.87 weeks of leave during the Easter holiday period in 2013, for which she was paid £452.20 - which had been worked out as a percentage of the hours she had worked. Had her holiday been paid on the basis that she was entitled to 5.6 paid weeks per year, she would have been paid £687.26.

Bury St Edmunds Employment Tribunal dismissed her claims - which she appealed against - and subsequently, the appeal was upheld by the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Harpur Trust then appealed to the Court of Appeal, but that was dismissed.

Martin Tiplady - CEO of Chameleon People Solutions - said to HR magazine:

"For businesses though, the important thing is to be open and transparent about their policies, to be able to defend the way that decisions are taken and for them to be logical. And then to stick to them and not make exceptions.

It is an interesting judgement and a case for which no obvious solution exists or one that will satisfy all organisations. For the implication is that any other outcome would generate at least as many other ‘unfairnesses’ and require disproportionate bureaucracy and administration to operate. In the circumstances, the ruling is the least problematic of many options.

It is, frankly, sad that a case about what is a fairly inconsequential matter, has taken so much effort, time and angst to conclude."

The Supreme Court justices found that Harpur Trust’s method of pro-rating holiday pay to account for weeks not worked was unlawful. On proposing alternative methods of calculating pay for part-time workers, the Court said that this was “extremely complicated” and would require all employers to keep detailed records of every hour worked by employees.

Mathew Gullick QC - Barrister at 3PB Barristers and one of Ms Brazel’s lawyers in the Supreme Court case - said the judgment provided “clarity” and will be of value to term-time workers in addition to part-time workers whose working patterns “do not fit the traditional ‘full-time’ model”.

Colin Godfrey - employment law specialist at Taylor Wessing - commented that the news was good because employers will not be required to adopt complex calculations for part-time employees. But he pointed out that… “those who have previously adopted a pro-rata or 12.07 per cent approach to holiday will find their wage bill increasing and the potential of claims for back-pay.”