recent study conducted by HR software provider Ciphr has unveiled a concerning trend in the UK workforce: a significant portion of employees is working unpaid overtime. This practice, which has become alarmingly common, not only affects workers' well-being but also raises questions about the work-life balance and fairness in the workplace.

Ciphr's study reveals a stark reality – 49% of UK employees work unpaid overtime, while only 23% receive overtime pay. This means that nearly half of the workforce is giving their time and effort for free, contributing an average of just over three hours per week without compensation. Over a year, this adds up to a staggering 18 additional days, or 139 hours of unpaid labour.

Certain groups within the workforce are more susceptible to this trend. Senior managers, remote workers and those in legal services and education tend to work the longest hours of unpaid overtime, with some averaging 4.1 hours per week. Employees aged 25-34 are also heavily impacted, with 3.5 hours of unpaid work per week on average.

One alarming consequence of this unpaid overtime culture is the impact on individuals' health and well-being. Shortening or skipping lunch breaks is one of the common ways employees overwork, with only 36% of respondents in the survey taking their full lunch break every day. If this pattern continues, it could lead to stress, burnout and negatively affect physical and mental health.

Unchecked overwork can have detrimental effects not only on individuals but also on workplace dynamics. It may lead to employee resentment, particularly if the unpaid overtime is not a voluntary choice but a result of unrealistic workloads, understaffing, or unattainable targets.

The study also highlights a gender gap in unpaid overtime. Women are more likely to skip their lunch breaks, with 27% admitting to not taking their full break most days of the week, compared to 19% of men. This sheds light on an additional layer of disparity in the workforce.

The prevalence of unpaid overtime should not be normalised. It is essential for both employees and employers to recognise the importance of a healthy work-life balance and fair compensation for extra hours worked. Employers must take responsibility for managing workloads, setting realistic expectations, and ensuring that overtime, when necessary, is compensated fairly.

Claire William – Chief People Officer at Ciphr – stated:

“If an individual thinks they are doing too many unpaid hours, then it’s vital that they address this with their employer as soon as possible. Doing a bit of extra work occasionally is one thing – and it is relatively common practice to work additional hours, at times, to fulfil your role  but feeling like you ‘have’ to do that extra work regularly because it is being expected of you is quite another.”

She added:

“This research serves as a good reminder on the importance of keeping track of employees’ working hours – mainly to help ensure that people are not working unreasonable hours, but also, as an organisation, that you’re not breaching Working Time Regulations or the national minimum wage rules.

If regular overworking is a problem, and employees are raising their concerns, don’t ignore the situation -  it’s definitely in an employer’s interest to understand what they can do to help, and make changes where possible, before it impacts an individual’s health and wellbeing, and, ultimately, the wider business.”

Retirement is a time that many look forward to - a period where years of hard work and savings finally culminate in a well-deserved break. However, recent data sheds light on a concerning reality: LGBTQ+ individuals face a higher risk of experiencing financial difficulties during their retirement years compared to the general population.

The latest retirement report from insurer and pension provider Scottish Widows highlights these disparities, painting a stark picture of the challenges that lie ahead for a significant portion of the LGBTQ+ community.

According to the research, nearly half of LGBTQ+ people in Britain are projected to struggle to afford basic necessities such as heating and food when they reach retirement age. This alarming statistic is attributed to a projected median income of just £13,000 per year for LGBTQ+ retirees. This stands in sharp contrast to the national average retirement income, which is slightly higher at £14,000 per year. The implications of this income gap are profound, as 44% of LGBTQ+ individuals are not on track to meet even the minimum retirement lifestyle standards, putting them at risk of not meeting their basic needs during their retirement.

Scottish Widows' National Retirement Forecast delves into various aspects of retirement preparations, revealing disparities in savings and pension plans. For instance, the report found that 36% of LGBTQ+ individuals were not members of any pension scheme, compared to 30% in the wider population. This lack of pension participation underscores a concerning trend that requires attention.

Part of the issue stems from an earnings and pensions participation gap. Research shows that LGBTQ+ employees earn around £7,000 less than their heterosexual counterparts, contributing to a stark pay gap. This wage discrepancy has a ripple effect on retirement preparations, as lower earnings translate to diminished savings and contributions to pension plans. Furthermore, the report highlights that 82% of LGBTQ+ individuals are worried about the rising cost of living, compared to an average of 75%. These economic concerns compound the challenges they face in adequately preparing for retirement.

Beyond financial disparities, the LGBTQ+ community also faces vulnerabilities that impact their retirement prospects. A striking 80% of those who identify as LGBTQ+ have one or more vulnerable traits, such as lacking support structures, experiencing physical or mental health conditions, or taking on new caring responsibilities. These factors can hinder their ability to save for retirement and navigate financial challenges effectively.

Stephanie Fuller, CEO, Switchboard – the LGBT+ Helpline, said:

“The findings of the Scottish Widows Retirement Report, sadly, do not come as a shock to me. LGBTQIA+ people are more likely to have experienced being estranged from family networks than their heterosexual counterparts; this often means that tomorrow’s money is spent today rather than saved for the future.

“It’s also a reality that many LGBTQIA+ people will have to change jobs more often and have experienced periods of insecure income due in part to their sexuality or gender identity. Within the experiences of the community is also the reality that trans people will often have to fund many of the gender-affirming procedures they need personally and at significant cost.

“In 2021, 19% of calls to Switchboard were from people aged 50 and over, with many expressing concerns over their futures and entering later life with limited resources and anxiety around returning to the closet in social care settings.”

The state pension “triple lock” is a policy mechanism that determines the annual increase in state pensions. It dictates that the pension should rise by whichever is the highest among three factors: average earnings growth measured from May to July each year, inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from September, or a fixed rate of 2.5 percent. This mechanism aims to ensure that pensioners are protected from rising living costs and that their income maintains relative pace with the broader economy.

Determining the state pension involves several factors, primarily the number of years of National Insurance (NI) contributions. To qualify for the full New state Pension, around 35 qualifying years are needed, though variations exist based on specific circumstances. A qualifying year for state pension can be made up through combining earnings, NI credits, self-employment and voluntary contributions. At present, the full basic state pension stands at £156.20 per week, while the full state pension is £203.85 per week, contingent on one’s NI record.

This April both benefits and pensions were increased by 10.1 per cent, which was in line with the inflation figure of September 2022. Whilst an increase of this magnitude is unlikely this year, an uplift of around 7 per cent is not considered out of the question. Next month’s average wage figure and then September’s inflation figure which is published in October, will determine the absolute amount.

In the face of economic uncertainty and concerns over the rising cost of living, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has expressed his commitment to maintaining the state pension triple lock. This commitment includes a willingness to increase pensions which would provide pensioners with a notable boost in their income and could alleviate some of the financial pressures associated with retirement.

While this declaration reflects a commitment to pensioner welfare, it has sparked discussions about the potential consequences for other vulnerable groups such as low-income families. The cost of living crisis has placed immense pressure on these families, making it difficult for them to make ends meet. As inflation continues to rise and outpaces wage growth, the standard benefits that low income families depend on are not expected to rise at the same rate as pensions.

The annual Low Pay Britain Report - now in its 13th edition - continues to shed light on the state of low-paid work in the UK. In its latest iteration, the report has also become a part of the Economy 2030 Inquiry, aiming to formulate an economic strategy to address the issues of high inequality and sluggish growth. The report emphasizes the importance of prioritising good work and presents a policy agenda for achieving that goal.

While the challenges of low pay are well-known, the report brings to light lesser-known difficulties faced by those in low-paid jobs. One significant disparity is the lack of flexibility for dealing with emergencies at home. A survey of 2,000 private-sector employees revealed that 56 per cent of those earning less than £20,000 per year would not be paid if they missed work due to a family emergency. This stands in stark contrast to the 12 per cent of workers earning above £60,000 who would face the same situation.

Additionally, the report highlights the precarious situation of workers earning less than £123 per week, who are ineligible for any statutory sick pay. A significant proportion of low-income female workers under 45 also face challenges when it comes to maternity leave, with two-thirds expecting only statutory maternity pay or no pay at all.

The report identifies security-related concerns as areas in need of reform. It calls for an improved statutory sick pay system and safeguards for workers with varying hours and pay. The report argues that these reforms should be viewed as integral components of a broader economic strategy. While the report acknowledges the intricacies of each policy area, it also underscores the importance of understanding how labour standards influence the overall economy.

New research conducted by Wagestream - experts in financial well-being - further underscores the urgent need for reform in the sick pay system. The survey of 2,000 frontline workers reveals alarming trends. A staggering 83 per cent of frontline workers fear they would need to work through illness due to the current legislation's inability to provide sufficient sick pay. Even a two-week sick leave would financially strain 91 per cent of these workers, with 28 per cent facing the prospect of going without heating or food.

The research also stresses the mental health toll of the sick pay crisis. For 86 per cent of essential workers, an absence of two weeks or more would lead to feelings of anxiety or depression. A significant majority (92 per cent) of these workers express concerns about burnout if they are forced to work through illness.

The dire situation has prompted 84 per cent of UK frontline workers to consider company sick pay support as one of the most important benefits an employer can offer.

The latest Low Pay BritainReport, along with supporting research, underscores the urgent need for reform in the UK's sick pay system. The plight of low and variable income households facing a lack of financial security during illness highlights the dire need for change. As the Economy 2030 Inquiry seeks an economic strategy to address inequality and low growth, prioritising good work, including fair sick pay, should remain at the forefront of discussions to create a more equitable and sustainable future for all.

s the cost of living continues to rise, its impact on employees in the UK has become a cause of concern. HR software provider Ciphr recently conducted a comprehensive online survey to understand how increasing living costs are affecting individuals at work. The survey, which took place between 12-15 June 2023, involved 1,000 UK adults working in organisations with at least 26 employees. The results shed light on the challenges faced by the workforce in the face of financial pressures.

According to Ciphr's survey, a significant majority of employees, three out of four (76%), admitted to feeling stressed or overwhelmed at times due to the soaring cost of living. This stress can have a severe impact on mental health and productivity, affecting both the employees and their employers.

In response to the increasing living costs, nearly a third of respondents (31%) took the step of asking their employers for a pay rise. This shows that many individuals are struggling to make ends meet and are seeking financial relief from their organisations.

Another significant finding of the survey was that over a third of employees (34%) have been actively searching for a better paying job. The fear of being unable to cope with the mounting expenses has pushed these individuals to seek alternative employment opportunities that offer better remuneration.

However, one of the most concerning revelations of the survey was that the fear of losing wages due to illness has led over half (52%) of the respondents to continue working even when they were unwell. This is an increase from the previous year, highlighting the growing financial strain on employees.

The survey also brought to light some disparities between in-person and remote workers. Over two-thirds (64%) of employees with in-person roles felt compelled to attend work while feeling unwell due to financial constraints. In contrast, two-fifths (38%) of hybrid and remote workers faced a similar situation. This difference suggests that remote workers might have more flexibility to take time off when they are sick, possibly due to reduced commuting costs and increased work-life balance.

The survey also highlighted gender disparities in the impact of rising living costs. More women than men reported having worked through illness (55% of women compared to 47% of men) because they couldn't afford to lose wages. Additionally, women appeared to be more stressed about the increasing cost of living (80% of women vs. 70% of men). These findings raise concerns about gender-related financial challenges in the workplace.

Ciphr's survey delved into industry-specific challenges and found that employees in retail and hospitality were statistically more likely to work while unwell due to financial constraints (81% and 78% respectively). This reveals the financial vulnerability of workers in these industries and raises questions about worker rights and protections.

The survey conducted by HR software provider Ciphr paints a concerning picture of the impact of rising living costs on the UK workforce. Stress, pay rise requests and job hunting for better pay are all symptoms of the financial strain faced by employees. Moreover, the fear of losing wages has forced a significant number of workers to attend work even when they are unwell, potentially exacerbating health issues and reducing overall productivity. Addressing these challenges will require a collective effort from employers, policymakers and society as a whole to ensure fair wages, job security and a supportive work environment for all employees in the face of the continuing cost-of-living crisis.

A new study conducted by Pearn Kandola, reveals that despite a majority of UK adults acknowledging the existence of weight bias at work, a significant number of employees (40 per cent) would not report weight discrimination to HR, deeming it not "serious enough."

The Weight Discrimination at Work (2023) Report collected data from 1,427 UK employees and found that 70 per cent of respondents believe weight discrimination occurs in their workplace, with nearly half (47 per cent) considering it a problem. These findings shed light on the pressing issue of weight discrimination, highlighting the need for organisations and HR departments to address this issue and foster a more inclusive and supportive work environment.

The study highlights that weight discrimination is a pervasive issue in the workplace, with 32 per cent of respondents witnessing someone being discriminated against due to their weight. Unfortunately, only 11 per cent of these incidents are reported to managers or HR, with many employees not considering it significant enough to warrant action. This reluctance to report can perpetuate the problem and prevent measures from being taken to address weight discrimination effectively.

While weight itself is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, it should be noted that weight discrimination claims can still be raised under the umbrella of disability and sex discrimination coverage. If a person's weight is linked to underlying health conditions, employers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled staff. Moreover, weight discrimination could also fall under sex discrimination if there are differing attitudes towards overweight males and females.

Despite the legal grounds for addressing weight discrimination, the study indicates that many organisations are not proactive in promoting weight equality in the workplace. Only 20 per cent of businesses have taken action to tackle weight discrimination and a mere eight per cent offer education around this issue. These figures demonstrate a need for HR departments and organisations to take a stand on weight-related discrimination and actively work to embed inclusivity in their corporate culture.

Binna Kandola - Partner at Pearn Kandola - emphasizes the importance of open discussions to challenge stereotypes associated with weight discrimination. He suggests that organisations involved in recruitment, promotion and talent identification should be educated about weight discrimination and its impact on employees' careers and experiences at work.

Zofia Bajorek, a senior research fellow at the Institute for Employment Studies, points out that weight-based discrimination may still be considered acceptable to many individuals. To combat this issue, she advocates for an urgent debate about recognising obesity as a disease and including it as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. This change could help employers better understand their obligations towards employees living with obesity and reduce discrimination over time.

The Weight Discrimination at Work (2023) Report sheds light on the prevalence of weight discrimination in UK workplaces. Despite a majority of adults acknowledging its existence, a significant number of employees hesitate to report it as a serious issue. However, by acknowledging and tackling this problem head-on, businesses can create a more supportive and equitable work environment for all employees, regardless of their weight or body size.

As the cost of living continues to rise, UK employees are feeling the financial strain, with a significant impact on their overall well-being and work-life balance. A recent survey conducted by Ciphr - a leading UK-based provider of integrated HR, payroll, learning and recruitment solutions - shone light on how these mounting expenses are affecting the workforce and the gender disparity that exists in how employees respond to these challenges.

Out of the 1,000 UK adults surveyed, a staggering 76% revealed that they have experienced stress and been overwhelmed as a result of the increasing cost of living. The burden of financial strain has become so pressing that nearly one-third (31%) of respondents have taken the brave step of approaching their employers for a pay raise. Additionally, over a third (34%) of the employees surveyed have actively sought better-paying job opportunities elsewhere.

In an attempt to manage their finances, a significant 79% of respondents reported cutting back on household spending over the last six months. This percentage has risen from 67% since the previous year, indicating that the situation is only getting worse for many. Furthermore, to cope with the rising costs, some employees have had to make additional sacrifices, such as reducing pension contributions (14%) and personal insurance cover, including income protection and medical or dental insurance (17%).

The fear of missing out on wages has compelled over half (52%) of the survey respondents to continue working even when they were feeling unwell. This figure has increased from 46% in the previous year, indicating that the financial pressure is influencing employees' decisions to prioritise work over their well-being. For in-person roles, this issue becomes even more pronounced, with a staggering 64% of workplace-based staff admitting that they cannot afford to take time off work when they're sick, compared to 38% of hybrid and remote workers.

The survey also brought to light a troubling gender disparity in how employees are dealing with the cost-of-living crisis. Despite being equally affected by the rising expenses, women were found to be less likely than men to request a salary increase this year. Only 26% of women surveyed had asked for a pay raise, compared to 36% of men. Moreover, women were also less likely to ask for a cost-of-living bonus (7% vs. 14% of men), a promotion (17% vs. 22%), or additional employee benefits to supplement their income (11% vs. 16%).

Paradoxically, it is female employees who seem to bear the brunt of the financial strain. A higher percentage of women (55% vs. 47% of men) reported being unable to afford sick leave. Furthermore, they were more likely to feel overwhelmed by money worries (80% vs. 70% of men) and to believe that they are not being paid enough (38% vs. 32%).

Although there is only a marginal difference between men and women in how they perceive their salaries concerning the value they bring to their organisation, there is a stark contrast in how they act on these perceptions. A significant gender 'ask gap' was observed, wherein women who knew they were unhappy with their wages (32%) were less likely to request a pay raise than men who felt dissatisfied with their pay (38%). Even men who were unsure if they were being paid fairly were more likely to ask for a raise (32%) than women who knew they were underpaid (just 32%).

Encouragingly, previous research from Ciphr has shown that employees who muster the courage to negotiate for higher earnings are more likely to receive a pay raise. Therefore, fostering an open and supportive culture that encourages salary negotiations and removes barriers to discussing wages can be a step towards narrowing the gender pay gap.

The rising cost of living is taking a heavy toll on UK employees, leading to stress, financial sacrifices, and even health risks due to fears of losing out on wages. However, the survey by Ciphr also exposed an alarming gender disparity in how employees respond to these challenges. Women, despite being equally affected, are less likely to seek pay raises or better job opportunities, which may be exacerbating existing pay gaps in the workforce. Addressing this gender 'ask gap' and empowering employees, regardless of gender, to negotiate their salaries can be a crucial step in creating a fair and equitable work environment for all.

In recent years, the concept of a 4-day work week has gained significant attention as a potential solution to the modern-day challenges of stress, burnout and work-life balance. New research from the non-profit organisation 4 Day Week Global has shed light on the long-term impacts of implementing a reduced workweek. The findings not only underscore the benefits for both employees and businesses but also challenge conventional notions of work productivity.

The study conducted by 4 Day Week Global examined companies that had completed a six-month pilot programme of a 4-day work week. Surprisingly, the results showed that the positive effects extended far beyond the trial period. A year after the programme's launch, employees' average work week further decreased from a baseline of 38 hours to just 32.97 hours. This reduction of nearly a full hour from the six-month mark indicates that the initial gains in work-life balance and productivity were not temporary but rather a sustainable transformation.

Dr Dale Whelehan, CEO of 4 Day Week Global said:

“We’re delighted to see the positive experience people continue to have with the 4 day week beyond the conclusion of our pilot program. A concern we frequently hear is there’s no way the results from our six-month trials can be maintained, as the novelty eventually must wear off, but here we are a year later with benefits only continuing to grow. This is very promising for the sustainability of this model, and we look forward to tracking companies’ experiences well into the future.”

One key factor that sets this approach apart from the traditional 5-day work week is the absence of increased work intensity. Instead of cramming five days of work into four, employees operated more efficiently, leading to improved productivity. As they continued to adapt to the new schedule, their efficiency further increased, allowing for more leisure time while maintaining high productivity levels.

Equally significant were the employees' experiences and perceptions of the 4-day work week. Throughout the pilot programme and even beyond its conclusion, workers consistently rated their satisfaction with the new system at an impressive 9 out of 10. This high level of approval is a testament to the positive impact of the reduced workweek on employees' well-being and job satisfaction.

Furthermore, the study revealed noticeable improvements in workers' physical and mental health over the course of 12 months. As employees enjoyed more time for personal pursuits, hobbies, and relaxation, self-rated health measures increased. The 4-day work week allowed individuals to strike a better balance between their professional and personal lives, resulting in reduced stress levels and improved overall well-being.

While some concerns were raised about a slight increase in burnout levels in the six months following the trial, it should be noted that the overall improvements achieved during the programme were largely sustained. The slight rise in burnout was negligible compared to the broader positive effects of reduced working hours and enhanced work-life balance.

Moreover, the 4-day work week proved to be a valuable tool for attracting and retaining employees. As job seekers prioritise work-life balance and well-being, companies offering such progressive policies became highly desirable employers.

Jon Leland, Chief Strategy Officer at Kickstarter, a US-based non-profit who launched their 4 day week in 2021 said: 

“The most profound impact was on employee retention. We’ve seen very few people choose to depart the company since the implementation of our 4 day week. This has dramatically improved our ability to meet objectives and key results every quarter.”

On 20th July, a significant milestone was reached in the UK as the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill received Royal Assent, granting employees across England, Scotland and Wales new powers when requesting flexible work arrangements.

The Act, which will take effect immediately, aims to provide employees with greater flexibility over their working hours and patterns, fostering a better work-life balance and potentially boosting businesses' productivity and competitiveness.

Under the new legislation, employees can now make up to two flexible working requests within a 12-month period, doubling the previous allowance of just one. Furthermore, the requirement that the employee must explain in their request what effect the change would have on the employer and how that might be dealt with, has now been removed.

Under the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act, employers will have to respond to a request within two months, a notable reduction from the previous three-month timeline. This change ensures that employees receive timely consideration of their requests, allowing them to plan their lives accordingly.

Lastly, the act also introduces a new requirement for employers to consult with employees before denying a flexible working request. This move promotes transparency and communication between employers and their workforce, fostering a more inclusive and supportive work environment.

The Act outlines eight different types of flexible working, which include:

Job sharing: Two or more employees share the responsibilities and hours of a full-time role.

Working from home: Employees can perform their duties from their home instead of the company's premises.

Part-time working: Employees work fewer hours than full-time employees, typically on a set schedule.

Compressed hours: Employees work their agreed-upon hours over fewer days, with longer working days.

Flexible hours: Employees have the freedom to choose their start and finish times within agreed-upon limits.

Annualised hours: Employees work a set number of hours over the year, with varying hours each week.

Staggered hours: Employees have different start, finish, and break times to accommodate individual needs.

Phased retirement: Employees gradually reduce their working hours as they approach retirement.

The new legislation is particularly beneficial for workers as it enables them to hold jobs that better align with their personal circumstances, potentially leading to higher job satisfaction and retention rates.

Business and Trade Minister Kevin Hollinrake stated:

“A happier workforce means increased productivity, and that’s why we’re backing measures to give people across the UK even more flexibility over where and when they work.”

The Act's positive impact extends to businesses as well. Research has shown that companies embracing flexible working can attract and retain top talent, increase staff motivation and reduce turnover rates. The ability to accommodate flexible working arrangements can make a company more appealing to prospective employees and enhance its reputation as an employer of choice.

A recent study by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) highlighted the significance of flexible working for employees. The research revealed that 6 percent of employees changed jobs due to a lack of flexible options, while 12 percent even left their profession altogether for the same reason. This accounts for approximately 2 and 4 million workers, respectively, indicating the growing demand for flexible work arrangements in the modern workforce.

To further support the implementation of the Act, the conciliation service Acas updated its statutory code of practice on handling flexible working requests. This update reflects the changes brought about by the new legislation and seeks employers' views on the updates in a consultation process that will conclude in early September.

In a landmark case, a Royal Mail employee has been awarded over £2 million in compensation, marking the company's largest-ever settlement.

Kam Jhuti, a media specialist, endured intimidation and harassment from her boss, Mike Widmer, after she raised concerns about a colleague's bonus. The court ruling, which described Royal Mail's conduct as "high-handed, malicious, insulting, and oppressive," emphasised the catastrophic impact of Jhuti's boss's treatment, leading to her suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and severe depression.

The dispute dates back to September 2013, when Ms. Jhuti joined the Royal Mail's MarketReach unit in London. Just a month into her job, while shadowing a colleague, she became suspicious that Ofcom's guidelines and the company's bonus policy, known as Tailor-Made Incentives (TMIs), were being breached. Ms. Jhuti suspected that her colleague was fraudulently securing bonuses by manipulating performance targets. In November, she reported her concerns via email to Mr. Widmer and his superior, highlighting the seriousness of the situation.

Instead of addressing the issue, Ms. Jhuti's boss responded by threatening her job security and questioning her understanding of the TMI policy during a four-hour meeting. Fearing the consequences, she apologised and retracted her allegations, but was subjected to a two-hour "dress down," where she was informed of her alleged underperformance. Mr. Widmer established intensive weekly meetings with Ms. Jhuti, continuously expressing disappointment with her progress.

By December, a TMI expert within the company confirmed that Ms. Jhuti's initial allegations were indeed correct, acknowledging that media specialists were inappropriately offering TMIs. The mounting pressure and mistreatment took a toll on Ms. Jhuti's well-being and by January 2014 she developed alopecia - which she attributed to stress. In February, she was placed on a performance improvement plan with the ultimatum that failure to comply would result in her failing her trial period.

Feeling targeted and mistreated, Ms. Jhuti reached out to human resources, expressing her concerns about her boss's conduct. She stated that it was clear she was being managed with the intent to remove her based on her initial complaint.

In March 2014, she was signed off from work due to work-related stress, anxiety and depression and did not return to her position.

In 2015, Ms. Jhuti took Royal Mail to an employment tribunal, and after several appeals, the Supreme Court ruled in her favour, recognising her unfair dismissal. In 2022 the employment tribunal finally recommended that Royal Mail pay £109,065 in compensation and £12,500 in aggravated damages. However, when solicitors for Royal Mail and Ms. Jhuti failed to agree on the correct methodology for calculating future pension losses and therefore agree on a final amount, Ms. Jhuti’s legal team requested another employment tribunal hearing.

The subsequent compensation awarded amounted to £2,365,614.13, including a basic award of £494,213.79 and a past losses including pension award of £1,079,165.07. H

However, Royal Mail plans to appeal the tribunal's findings, resulting in Ms. Jhuti initially only receiving only £250,000.